Talk:Antibody-dependent enhancement/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antibody-dependent enhancement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724015621/http://www.tm.mahidol.ac.th/seameo/2005_36_1/33-3352.pdf to http://www.tm.mahidol.ac.th/seameo/2005_36_1/33-3352.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Be careful not to mischaracterize studies to emphasize risk aversion

We are all scared of potential antibody dependent enhancement in various infectious diseases, but please make sure that when you summarize a study that you do not misrepresent or mischaracterize the study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangesherbet0 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well Can you blame people for being risk-averse? By the way, which members of the government are you in contact with?

how to find closely paraphrased sentences

Dear Wikipedians, Could you be so kind to explain to me how to find closely paraphrased sentences in the text of this article for rewording them? Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See the discussion at WT:MED#Issues with out Antibody-dependent enhancement article for an example - but so far as I know it's time-consuming work, requiring spot-checking text against sources. A tool like this is sometimes useful. In your particular case, you yourself should know how deep the problem is, and so be able to review your contributions accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Olgamatveeva, if you examine your edits to the article, you will find the closely paraphrased sentences there, per the warnings on your talk page. Is that clear to you? As you have submitted an article in Russian to the English Wikipedia, I suspect that paraphrasing idiomatically and loosely may be beyond your reach. The best solution may be to revert all your work thus far on the English Wikipedia, and to not repeat your mistakes in the future.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Quisqualis,

Thank you for pointing me to Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I performed the search and found only 26% of similaraty with the article text. However, the similaraty is with the section, which I didn't write. Do I need to rewrite the text, which is not mine? What similaraty level is allowed? By the way sorry for Russian article text. I wrote it for Russian Wikipedia and by mistake submitted it into English section. I corrected my mistake and my article was published.

Thank you in advance for clarification. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please indent using : (colons). It was Alexbrn who recommended Earwig's CVD. I am not sure if it can detect the sort of very close paraphrasing which you are known for. You are only responsible for your own copyright violations. In point of fact, reversion of all your contributions thus far to Wikipedia is being considered, and I support that.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful for Alexbrn's suggestion of using online tool

Dear Alexbrn, Thank you for your careful inspection of my article. I know that my text was removed. I am a bit upset but I think it is a politically correct decision. So far ADE is not a problem in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies, therefore detailed article about coronaviruses and ADE is not needed in Wikipedia. I am grateful for your suggestion of using online tool that allows searching articles and discover paraphrased sentences. It is a great tool! After removal of the sentences that you discovered I searched the remaining text of my article and was unable to detect any similarities with other publications in the sections that I wrote. A few sentences that you discovered are from my own publication and copyright most likely belongs to authors (including me) and not to publisher. However, I sent an inquiry to the publisher in relation to copyright issue. Three phrases that I cited from my own paper I still consider to be a valuable addition to ADE “mechanism” section. Therefore, I would like to clarify a copyright issue. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that removing your copyrighted text was a "politically correct" decision. It was a legally correct decision.

You don't own the copyright to your journal article. The journal owns it! They told you this when they accepted it. Note that things may work a bit differently in the US and Europe regarding copyright laws to how they work in Russia. The "Three phrases that [you] cited from [your] own paper [you] still consider to be a valuable addition" are not only plagiarism, they are still copyright violations!!! Please remove them soonest.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright to the text that I cited belongs to me

Dear Quisqualis, Thank you for your interest in copyright issues. My article was published as Open Access in Springer Journal collection. Here is a legal note in "Copyright Transfer section". I think that English is clear.

"Creative Commons with Open Access Publishing an article with open access leaves the copyright with the author. You can choose to publish your article open access in Springer’s Open Choice program or one of our SpringerOpen journals. The article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY), which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited."

I am a US citisen and coauther of many scientific publications. Please don't treat me as ingnorant Russian. You can easly find my publications in PubMed and check citation index. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxer activists falsely cit ADE

I have trouble with the logic of this.

VADE might hamper vaccine development, as a vaccine may trigger the production of antibodies which, via ADE and other mechanisms, worsen the disease the vaccine is designed to protect against. This was a concern during late clinical stages of vaccine development against COVID-19.[25][26]

ADE has been observed in animal studies during the development of coronavirus vaccines, but as of 14 December 2020 there had been no observed incidences in human vaccine trials. Nevertheless anti-vaccination activists falsely cite ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19.[27]

I am not an anti-vaxxer activist. I have taken every vaccine recommended by the health dept., including the latest flu vaccine. But I am concerned that footnote no. 27 leads to a sensationalizing article about anti-vaccination activists worrying about female sterility from the Covid vaccines, which tends to trivialize the problem, IMO, and isn't even about ADE, the ostensible subject of this article.

I learned about ADE not from activists but from Dr. Michael Osterholm, a specialist in infectious diseases and germ warfare. He noted last March that a vaccine had to be withdrawn because the ADE effect manifested itself later. Osterholm said: "And in fact, there was just a couple of years ago, a major recall of Dengue vaccine, type of vaccine we use from mosquito infection in the Philippines where kids who got the vaccine actually made just a little bit of antibody. And when they got the real disease it made them a lot sicker. And so we found with the 2003 SARS vaccine that there was an ADE component to it when we made it in animals. And so we’re going to have to really study this to be sure it’s safe. And as you said earlier, we can surely make mistakes. We need to do everything we can not to. And so I think between getting the effectiveness and the safety data together, we’re years out. I mean, maybe two years. Yeah. This is not going to happen soon."

Osterholm said it was easy to make an effective vaccine, he said, somewhat jokingly, that he could do it tomorrow. But, according to him, it is not easy to make a safe vaccine (unless corners are cut), that it takes a minimum of 18 months or at least two years to do the proper studies on progressively larger populations in order to compute the real risks. It has not been 12 mos.

The wiki article says that as of December 14, 2020 "there have been no observed incidences in human vaccine trials" as though that were definitive. Hopefully it will be, but my impression was that this reaction could happen a year later. It has only been nine months. Even though thousands may have been vaccinated (I don't know the exact number, does anybody--and were they a truly randomly selected sample and not volunteers?), it is arguably way too soon to say the vaccine is risk free. I don't think tendentious argumentation is going to be effective against anti-vaxxers. The information needs to be clarified to be made credible.Mballen (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I prefer honest communication about the section “In Coronavirus Infection” deletion rationale

Dear Wikipedians, On December 16, Alexbrn created a new section in the ADE article ″Coronavirus Vaccines″. All sentences written for this section are very informative and well written. Obviously, they were created by highly gifted writer. This new section replaced another one entitled ADE “In Coronavirus Infection”, mostly written by me.

      My section with more than 100 references to scientific publications has been completely removed. If the main reason for deleting my text is purely political, then I totally agree with the deletion. Text describing ADE in alpha coronaviruses and beta coronaviruses (such as feline coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1 viruses, or MERS-CoV viruses) may deter people from getting vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If my text could harm the vaccination campaign, then I completely agree with its removal. I just prefer honest communication about the text deletion rationale.
     The main formal reason for the deletion of the text, which I was told, is that several of the paraphrased sentences in the text constitute copyright infringement. I would like to object. First, I have full copyright ownership of all but one sentence in question. Second, I deleted the phrase, which I do not have copyright, immediately after Alexbrn pointed it out to me. Although, according to Wikipedia policy: "There are a few specific situations where accurate retelling is allowed." I believe this was one of them.
       Alexbrn also wrote ″given the enormous quantity of poor sourcing and article text which was written for completely the wrong audience  I have made a very bold edit[10] to try and give us something more appropriate. There may have been some gems in the stuff I mucked-out (though I didn't find any from spot checking), but overall, I think this is an improvement that gives our readers a better sense of the current state of knowledge on ADE and coronaviruses. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC) yes agree w/ edit--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)″
       I would like to ask Alexbrn to point out which part of my text is a poor sourcing. Usually, I am suffering from the reference “overkill” problem and not for relying on primary sources instead of scientific publications. I would also like to discuss in more detail the likelihood of "hidden gems" in the deleted text. Is it possible that Alexbrn and I can search for them together? This search can give me the opportunity to point directly to objects that I consider to be "gems" in the text. I would like to be able to provide convincing evidence to support my point. Otherwise, I feel like my writing efforts were treated as pebbles in a shou. Please believe me, this is not a particular pleasant feeling for any Wikipedia contributor!
       Alexbrn stated, "Written for completely wrong audience." This statement is a more legitimate formal argument in favor of deleting my text than all the previous ones. Moreover, I partially agree with this. However, this is still a question requiring clarification, so I can adjust my writing.
       I believe that Wikipedia's contributing authors deserve honest and clear communication with Wikipedia editors. Respectful communication is essential and highly valuable for moving forward with such great projects as Wikipedia!
       Sincerely,

Olgamatveeva (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. I have a good record of productive communication and collaboration with many Editors of scientific journals with a reasonable impact factor. I coauthored some review papers for “Cancers (Basel)”, “Reviews in Medical Virology”, “Oncolytic Virotherapy”, “Molecular Therapy Oncolytics”. I also recently coauthored original research papers published in “Bioinformatics”, “PLOS One” and “BMC Bioinformatics”. Therefore, I hope that my communication with Wikipedia editors is going to be productive as well. Olgamatveeva (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Olgamatveeva: one key point is that when writing medical article we should generally not use primary sources, per WP:MEDRS. Your content was nearly all based on primary sources. I rescued on "hidden gem", PMID 33077678 which is a review article and so suitable for use. If you could identify and list other such secondary sources, that could be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn: Thanks for the clarification, now I understand the problem with my text much better. As a token of gratitude, I have prepared an “exotic gem" for you, which is of Singaporean origin. I hope you enjoy this. You wrote the phrase: "ADE has been observed in animal studies during the development of coronavirus vaccines,…." However, there are no references in your phrase that support this part of your statement. I suggest referring to this review article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161485/. In it, in section 4.1. “CoV Vaccines”, there is a table with the most detailed list of publications describing efforts to create a vaccine against coronavirus. The review article is a "secondary source", and the content supports your statement. Therefore, I believe this refence is going to decorate your phrase and it is in line with Wikipedia's information sources requirements. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding sources of information

Hi Alexbrn: Part of your sentence “ADE has been observed in animal studies during the development of coronavirus vaccines,” would benefit from the addition of some sources of information. I suggest https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7247514/, which is cited in your statement above the sentence and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161485/, which was not cited before. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I am pasting a remark by Alexbrn that was posted to my user page; I think that discussion belongs here, because it amounts to a discussion about how to improve the article; and not on my user page.

You are continually removing text with vague edit summaries. Your latest is this[1] - yet again leaving claims in the article without any supporting reference. This is damaging. If you have some preferred wording maybe try and, you know, actually help improve the article rather than continually mashing the revert key? Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted one fragment of text, twice (including the references). You restored it once, with no changes, but adding a source that directly contradicts your claim. My second edit summary was not vague; if anything it was over-long. My first edit-summary was short; but a glance at the diff would have made it quite clear why I was reverting.

The fragment says: "Anti-vaccination activists cite ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19, but such claims are not supported by evidence."

The problem is this: neither of your sources supports the contention that "Anti-vaccination activists" are relying on ADE. On the contrary, one of your sources explicitly says that concerns about ADE are "reasonable". That implies that a reasonable person might have such concerns; so your focus on activists amounts to pushing a POV.

I should not have removed the sources; I didn't notice that other claims in the article rely on one or more of them.

Your sources (both the same science journal) appears to be a WP:RS, although it seems to me to be on a bit of a debunking crusade. The problem is just that it doesn't support your claim. The requirement for claims to be properly sourced is important; otherwise editors could write any kind of nonsense, and readers would have no way of knowing whether the claims had reliable support.

You seem to have done a fair bit of work on the article (for which, thanks!). I do not think any of your edits have been in bad faith. I suspect you just don't see that your prose reads like an attack on anti-vaccers. In principle that would be OK, but must be clearly supported by your sources.

I don't see how your text can be rewritten so that it is both consistent with your sources, and adds something useful to the article; neither of your sources is primarily about anti-vaccers. Neither supports your contention that doubts about ADE resulting from vaccination are "unsupported by the evidence". One says that such concerns are "reasonable". I'll be happy if you rephrase your claim so that it ceases to look like an attack on unnamed "activists", while remaining true to reliable sources.

I see you have restored the dubious claims again. You have removed the word "falsely", and inserted "unsupported by the evidence". That is a distinction without a difference. It is still an attack on anti-vacc ideas, relying on sources that don't support that attack.

This matters because concerns about ADE are not "fringe". The argument that these concerns have not been supported by evidence from clinical trials is sophistry; none of the clinical trials have been conducted in the usual way. They have been rushed, and indeed are effectively still ongoing, even while the vaccines are being deployed. In practice, clinical trials are still underway.

So I'm going to revert your edit *again*. Please get consensus on the Talk page before restoring this material again. This time I will leave the sources you cited.

For the sake of clarity, I am not an anti-vaccer; I am not a conspiracy theorist; I don't have a point-of-view on the risks of ADE from COVID vaccines. I am just a vulnerable old man, an editor of long standing, who arrived at this article, saw the strong claim, and decided to check the sources.

Thanks! MrDemeanour (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• You have now reverted to your favoured text four times. I wonder if through some strange system bug you are working on a completely different version of Wikipedia to what I am seeing. The sources are not the "same science journal", in fact neither is a science journal. Did you notice the assessment at the fact-check source that the claims are "unsupported" (in large letters)? I have raised a thread at FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed uncited text that you added. There is no text that is my "favoured text".

I have replied to the notice you posted to the "fringe theories" noticeboard. Despite the fact that you have relied on a journal that is "anti-fringe", and that fails to support your claim, the view that caution about ADE and COVID vaccines is not fringe is directly stated by one of your references.

Let's just discuss improving the article on its talk page, arrive at a text that has consensus, and save the admins some hassle.

Incidentally, your addition to this noticeboard came with a broken section heading. I didn't fix it, because I don't edit other editor's posts. You may see fit to fix it yourself. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources. It appears that ADE is a concern cited by antivaxxers and the expectation is that it would have been seen already in human trials if this were likely to be a side effect of COVID-19 vaccinations. jps (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not refer to anti-vaxxers. Where they refer to "concern" regarding ADE, they describe it as "reasonable".

With respect to human trials: the rollouts of selected vaccine products are effectively human trials, even for the vaccines that have been approved.

I don't have a dog in this race. If there is consensus here that having ADE concerns makes you a kook, I won't be editing this article again. In fact I'm disinclined to edit it again at all; I don't have the time or inclination to hang around admin noticeboards. I neither agree with the claim nor disagree with it; I object to the lack of congruence with the cited sources, and to the screechy "anti-vaccine activists" phrasing.

At any rate, now that several vaccines are being rolled out, presumably there will be convincing evidence one way or the other within a few months. I'll have to wait a few months anyway; I'm not going to be invited for early vaccination, because I'm not considered high-risk. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks jps, that's good! The concerns are not supported by evidence, and the anti-vaxxers go further than concern in any case. The claim quoted is "COVID-19 vaccines will cause more severe disease through antibody-dependent enhancement" (my emphasis). Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: You say The sources do not refer to anti-vaxxers. This is not true. The SBM source is describing what it explicitly describes as an antivaxxer petition. Here is a relevant quote referring to the anti-vaxxer petition: "Interestingly, the claim that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine could potentially cause infertility is actually a small part of the overall petition, which spends far more verbiage on PCR, Sanger sequencing, and the not-unreasonable but thus far not observed concern about antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)." The source goes on to make the point that is exactly in our article and is also in the other source: while a reasonable concern, given the human trials, ADE would have already been seen if it was going to manifest. Our article nowhere indicates that the concern is unreasonable. Our article nowhere says that "ADE concerns make you a kook". Instead, we are very clear that specific claims regarding ADE with respect to COVID-19 vaccines have been cited by antivaxxers in their arguments against the vaccines, and those specific claims do not include the relevant fact that ADE would have been seen in the human trials if it was an issue. jps (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That ADE would have been seen in trials is an assumption. There is reasonable concern that vaccine-mediated ADE may yet appear over the coming months. The scientific consensus is there is not enough information to rule it out as a risk. Tying a reasonable concern to anti-vaxxers is disingenuous and harmful. Sloorbeadle (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed for any of those assertions. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources I've read through seem to be in agreement that ADE would have been seen in the trials and make no claim to any assumption-basis. jps (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ADE typically becomes a concern when neutralizing antibody titres wane. The current trials only show the vaccine is safe and effective for a limited duration, not long enough to perform the same measurements when/if titres wain. There is also a possibility a new strain could facilitate ADE in people vaccinated based on a different strain. I'm not sure if this source is allowed: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795 Sloorbeadle (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not WP:MEDRS, but more to the point it's not about the claims of antivaxxers. We are already citing stronger sources on this topic. The antivax stuff should really be in a different section - will move it. Alexbrn (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Objection

'If my text could harm the vaccination campaign, then I completely agree with its removal." And what if the removal of this information erases valuable knowledge that could prevent catastrophe? The magnitude and scope of all the potential risks we face with the rolling out of this rushed vaccine are legion. By the way, I'm not an anti vaxxer. I am merely a person who is concerned about what's going to happen if this vaccine is indeed a "leaky" vaccine, and if it has the potential to worsen lethality down the road. If that happens to be the case, then to hell with political correctness: we're talking about millions upon millions of lives; and not only their lives, but the lives of their ancestors. And, unlike the deaths from novel coronavirus, we would be entirely to blame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.74.191 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia accurately summarizes accepted knowledge, and does not give medical advice. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

Collapsed WP:MWOT

Alphacoronaviruses Edit The feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) is an alphacoronavirus that is a very common pathogen in both domestic and wild cats.[7] It is believed that FIPV can cause antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Thus, vaccination against FIPV surprisingly increases the disease seriousness.[8] Moreover, it was demonstrated that infection of macrophages by FIPV in vitro can be triggered by non-neutralising monoclonal antibodies targeting the Spike (S)-protein, and this phenomenon can also occur with diluted neutralising antibodies.[9] ADE explains why half of cats develop peritonitis after being passively immunized with antivirus antibodies and being challenged with the same FIPV serotype. [10] In several countries an attenuated virus vaccine is available in a form of nasal drops; however, its application is still considered controversial by many experts, both in terms of safety and efficacy.[11] The mechanism of antibody-dependent enhancement for FIPV is illustrated in the video. [1] Betacoronaviruses Edit Antibody-dependent enhancement during coronavirus infection The neutralization ability of an antibody on a virion is dependent on concentration and the strength of interaction between antibody and antigen. High-affinity antibodies can cause virus neutralization by recognizing specific viral epitopes. However, pathogen-specific antibodies can promote a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which can be induced when the strength of antibody-antigen interaction is below the certain threshold.[12][13] There are multiple examples of ADE triggered by betacoronaviruses.[12][13] Non-human primates vaccinated with modified vaccinia Ankara virus encoding full-length SARS-CoV spike glycoprotein and challenged with the SARS-CoV virus had lower viral loads but suffered from acute lung injury due to ADE.[14] ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) animal models allowing the respective viruses to enter cells expressing Fc𝛾R including myeloid lineage cells.[15] It was shown that the SARS-CoV-1 virus (SARS-CoV) can enter macrophages via a antibody-mediated pathway and it can replicate in these cells. [16] S-protein and N-protein models of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both models are reproduced with modifications from the https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202003.0138/v1n. [13] . It is likely that the amino acids variability of the S-protein represents a result of antigenic drift. ADE of acute lung injury has been documented in animal models of both SARS and MERS. Rabbits intranasally infected with MERS-CoV developed a pulmonary infection characterized by viremia and perivascular inflammation of the lung, and an antibody response that lacked neutralizing antibodies.[17] The rabbits developed more severe lung disease on re-exposure to MERS-CoV, and developed neutralizing antibodies after reinfection.[17] In SARS, mice vaccinated with four types of vaccines against SARS-CoV, as well as those infected with SARS-CoV itself, developed neutralizing antibodies.[18] Mice were then challenged with live SARS-CoV, upon which all developed immunopathologic-type lung disease, although none had detectable virus two days after challenge and were protected compared to control.[18] The development of immunopathology upon exposure has been a major challenge for coronavirus vaccine development[18] and may similarly impact SARS-CoV-2 vaccine research. ADE in coronavirus infection can be caused by high mutation rate of the gene that encodes spike (S) protein. A thorough analysis of amino acid variability in SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins, that included the S-protein, revealed that least conservative amino acids are in most exposed fragments of S-protein including receptor binding domain (RBD). Therefore, antigenic drift is a most likely cause of amino-acids variability in this protein [13][19] and ADE. This drift can occur in a form of changes of both types of antigenic epitopes, including conformational and linear. The pathophysiology of SARS and COVID-19 diseases may be associated with ADE. The authors of the study[13] believe that ADE is a key step in the progression of disease from its mild to severe form. Onset of ADE, due to antigenic drift, can explain the observed sudden immune dysregulation, including apoptosis of immune cells, which promotes the development of T-cell lymphopenia and an inflammatory cascade with the lung accumulation of macrophages and neutrophils, as well as a cytokine storm. ADE goes along with reduction of Th1 cytokines IL2, TNF-α and IFN-γ and increase of Th2 cytokines IL-10, IL-6, PGE-2 and INF-α, as well as with inhibition of STAT pathway.[20] Perhaps ADE is the reason why the course of SARS and COVID-19 is more severe for older people compared to younger people. It is likely that in older people the production of antibodies is slower and by the time the antibodies are developed in the titer that is sufficient to neutralize the virus, the virus changes its antigenic determinants. In this case, immuno-dominant neutralizing antibodies might start forming unstable complexes with the new form of the virus and start to infect monocytes/macrophages causing ADE. This process can trigger generalized infection of immune cells in multiple organs and cytokine storm.[21][22] It is interesting that in mice similar phenomenon of developing more severe disease in old compared to young animals exists. In contrast to old mice, in young mice, despite detectable viral replication оf SARS-CoV-1 in the lungs upon infection, clinical signs of the disease do not develop.[23] You guys removed this part ...for... some... odd...reason.... while it was for the article for over a year at least. Add it back up.

 Not done Unclear what, if any, request is being made. 04:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Simple English needed

This article desperately needs a Simple English language version.74.194.157.22 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Process diagram

In the 21:54, 17 August 2020 revision, @Olgamatveeva: replaced the diagram
with
Is the information in the former incorrect?

In general, it is better to update the vector graphics file, which is more easily editable, than to upload a raster version. If it is thought that the text labels in the latter are preferred to the former, I'll update the former and use it in the article.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi cmɢʟee, Below is my list of issues with the previous illustration to help answer your question. Major points 1) “Denv” should be named as a “virus” or a “pathogen”. 2) ADE infection of immune cells is not always productive. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV the productive infection was not shown. Therefore, it should be mentioned that infectious or noninfectious virions are produced as a result of ADE. Minor points 1) FcyR was shown to be FcyRII (CD32) 2) B-cells were added to the list of immune cells that can be infected via ADE.I made a new figure.

File:Image for wiki ADE.tif

In antibody-dependent enhancement, sub-optimal antibodies (the blue Y-shaped structures in the graphic) bind to both viruses and Fc gamma receptors (labeled FcγRII) expressed on immune cells promoting infection of these cells

Olgamatveeva (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated SVG

Thanks for the explanation, @Olgamatveeva: I've updated the vector diagram according to your TIF. Can you please let me know if other changes should be made in the future? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 03:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi cmɢʟee, Great! I am glad that the illustration looks more professional now.I will let you know if any other changes have to be done in future. Sincrely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Olgamatveeva: @Cmglee: The new image may look cuter but it is factually incorrect: the antigen binds to either tip of the "Y", and not to the center of the "fork" as the picture suggests:

• 
  incorrect
• correct
  correct

-- Wesha (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic

Why is this article linked in the Coronvirus section? Is there any compelling evidence that it's false or misinformation? Barely a few lines in the section compared to the others and link implying it's false information but not exactly proven as such. I've seen a number of top vaccinologists and microbiologists talk about this, and frankly they seem more credible than what the media are saying. † Encyclopædius 15:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's more information at the linked article. The issue seems to be antivaxxers saying this is a reason to avoid vaccination. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's people who've worked for big Pharma and are still vaccine makers who've expressed a concern about this. It's not only antivaxxers claiming it. There's been a few who are otherwise credible scientists and have no reason to be claiming it, they don't have an anti vaxx agenda. † Encyclopædius 16:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You need a credible source for "don't get vaccinated because ADE", because it sounds like antixvaxx BS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's your "anti-vaxx BS" https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2538-8 clearly stating its a concern

And that's the issue. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook delete most videos of non anti vaxx scientists claiming this and "credible" mainstream sources won't cover it because there is an agenda to vaccinate everybody. No media outlet we consider a "reliable" source will allow this to be discussed fairly with two sides to an argument. † Encyclopædius 16:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If if not deleted, Youtube/Twitter/Facebook would never carry a credible source for Wikipedia's purposes - rather that's where you'd find antixvaxx BS, which it seems you have signed up to. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Geert Vanden Bossche is a top vaccinologist and generally pro vaccine and has called for a debate on this and been turned away...Not your typical antivaxx types. Who made you the guardian of this article anyway?† Encyclopædius 16:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I should think no good editor is going to think an antivaxx vet[2] is a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's because you define "Good Editor" as someone who agrees with you. What's your degree in? Literature? Publishing? 98.219.224.139 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats not enough to proclaim Bossche as an "anti-vaxx vet", thats just serious cherrypicking. Bossche is generally pro-vaccine, and is a damn sight more credible than you, Alexbrn. Quit it with your holier-than-thou attitude, and actually engage with the argument being made.

The link is dead as of 25.09

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

The section about ADE for Corona virus has to be changed since there are new studies since Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants.

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext 185.69.244.145 (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: While that source seems to be well within the standards of reliability edit requests require a format of a specific "change X to Y" and not simply a "please change/update X based on Z source". I am normally extremely forgiving on this so long as the change is either a) non-controversial or b) sources exist, either as provided or already within the article, that support said request. However, because of the technical nature of this request - being that performing the change requires expertise in reading and understanding research papers to a) verify the source supports the problem asserted and b) properly update the mentioned section - I feel it appropriate to deny it on those grounds. 185.69.244.145, if you see this, feel free to point this out for other readers to see via a new section to this talk page that isn't an edit request. Alternatively, you can WP:REGISTER and be able to make your desired changes after your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits. Cheers! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Immediately after "ADE may occur due to the non-neutralizing characteristic of the antibody, which bind viral epitopes other than those involved in a host cell attachment and entry. ADE may also happen due to the presence of sub-neutralizing concentrations of antibodies (binding to viral epitopes below the threshold for neutralization).[5]" it would be helpful if you added the reference "Klasse PJ. Neutralization of Virus Infectivity by Antibodies: Old Problems in New Perspectives. Adv Biol. 2014;2014:157895. doi: 10.1155/2014/157895. Epub 2014 Sep 9. PMID: 27099867; PMCID: PMC4835181." - because that explains this phenomenon and these concepts in depth.

In the quoted passage "due to" is ungrammatical in both instances (it cannot qualify a clause): it should be changed to "because of" and "because." There is also an erroneous "a" in "in a host cell attachment", where also the adjectival host-cell should be hyphenated. There is an error in the verb form "bind", which should be "binds." "presence of [...] concentrations" does not make complete sense: "because the antibodies are present" is better. The formulation in parentheses is also suboptimal. Hence the corrected and edited passage with added reference would be:

"ADE may occur because of the non-neutralizing characteristic of the antibody, which binds viral epitopes other than those involved in host-cell attachment and entry. ADE may also happen because the antibodies are present at sub-neutralizing concentrations (yielding occupancies on viral epitopes below the threshold for neutralization).[5][6]" Virus Neutralization (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 00:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

In the section titled “COVID-19” the text reads “ and evidence is emerging that ADE can result in the vaccine causing Covid among humans. "The researchers propose that their results prove that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces antibodies that can cause ADE-induced infection"[28].” The source 28 is a study that looked at ADE from natural COVID-19 infections and not vaccines, so this assumption cannot be made. The change should be “evidence is emerging that ADE can result from previous infection.” 47.211.193.244 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've removed it entirely, since bio-medical facts require WP:MEDRS; and a primary study is not such a source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)