edvedgreat article, although I've only quickly read the brief....

edved

great article, although I've only quickly read the brief.

In short though to answer your question if it is relevenat to BIT225, I'd say, yes. But I need a paragraph or two to get there.

Firstly, when the attenuated Vpu of HIV was replaced with E (from both SARS1 and SARS2), cell death occured (apoptosis) resulting in less viral replication. Now, one might think that this could be expected, something like organ transplant rejection, to use a quick metaphor. But the real reason is because of the hetrologous virus particle (E) on its host (HIV). The best way to consider this is when our immunity is boosted to fight of disease by the past experience from a different virus. A typical example is when less colds are caught as we age, and of course, kids who did child care generally have stronger immunity. Introducing a suitable viroporin to do the the work of the Vpu made the HIV less effective.

So what is the inference from this for benefiting BIT225?

The results here show how messing with the viroporin results badly for the virus.

Ditto, BIT225.

Did it in one.

Not long now.

@64eheh: Hit the light switch.