SKYCovione, formerly known as GBP510, has concluded the Phase 3 Clinical Trial and is awaiting approval by South Korean regulators.
3 times more antibodies than the AZ Vaccine.

The same vaccine (as in the one originally developed at the IPD and licensed to both SK BioScience and Icosavax) is being tested by Icosavax under the name IVX-411. Icosavax is a biotech company that originated from the IPD. Latest update on that one.

---

The Icosavax one had disappointing results though =(

That was made with Rosetta? The article I read somewhere made it sound like they figured it out in their own labs.

That was made with Rosetta? The article I read somewhere made it sound like they figured it out in their own labs.

Good question, we don't really know what Rosetta is used for.

The article doesn't mention Rosetta (the software) though a retweet on the IPD Twitter account posted by the account "Cyrus Biotechnology" says:
"Congrats @UWproteindesign @KingLabIPD! We hope this will be the first of many Rosetta designed approved therapeutics!"

In any case, they designed the proteins so they probably did use Rosetta, just not Rosetta@home.
Although, neither of these 2 papers on the pre-clinical results of the vaccine (before it was even licensed to SK Bioscience or Icosavax) even mention the name "Rosetta".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7604136/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03530-2#Ack1

---

SKYCovione, formerly known as GBP510, has concluded the Phase 3 Clinical Trial and is awaiting approval by South Korean regulators.
3 times more antibodies than the AZ Vaccine.

The same vaccine (as in the one originally developed at the IPD and licensed to both SK BioScience and Icosavax) is being tested by Icosavax under the name IVX-411. Icosavax is a biotech company that originated from the IPD. Latest update on that one.

I'm pretty sure this isn't right - that is, GBP510 is still known as GBP510 and is going to be distributed through Covax.

UW Medicine-developed COVID vaccine effective in test

SK Bioscience Press Release
SK bioscience Reports Positive Phase III Immunogenicity Results of Its Adjuvanted Covid-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Vaccine, AS03-adjuvanted

Also, one I missed from a few weeks before was the Nasal-spray version that will prevent infection (meaning prevent incubation, meaning prevent reproduction and spread both within the host and to other people).
Based on the same platform and specifically refers to development at Bakerlab, meaning us

SK Bioscience Press Release
SK bioscience Initiates Clinical Development of Antiviral Nasal Spray for Prevention of COVID-19

The lead protein compound in the nasal spray was designed in Dr. David Baker’s lab at the IPD, and partly funded with federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No HHSN272201700059C. Lauren Carter, a lead scientist the IPD, will support development activities with SK bioscience. Dr. Baker is a globally recognized researcher who has published over 500 research papers and been granted over 100 patents related to protein design research.

---

The IPD article confirms that GBP510 is now known as SKYCovione and that it will be distributed via COVAX. It's also confirmed at the SK Bioscience article that this is GBP510 but that it now has a commercial name.

I assume the Nasal Spray is about those protein designs published a while ago and mentioned on this Forum Post:

"Although R@h was not directly used for the work described in the publication (link provided below), R@h was used for designing relevant scaffolds. Additionally, there are currently many similar designs that bind SARS-Cov-2 and related targets that were engineered using R@h."

The research paper on that post doesn't refer to Rosetta@home.

---

The IPD article confirms that GBP510 is now known as SKYCovione and that it will be distributed via COVAX. It's also confirmed at the SK Bioscience article that this is GBP510 but that it now has a commercial name.

I assume the Nasal Spray is about those protein designs published a while ago and mentioned on this Forum Post:

"Although R@h was not directly used for the work described in the publication (link provided below), R@h was used for designing relevant scaffolds. Additionally, there are currently many similar designs that bind SARS-Cov-2 and related targets that were engineered using R@h."

The research paper on that post doesn't refer to Rosetta@home.

I'm referring to whatever the Icosovax thing is/was being incorrect.
The GBP510/Sk BioSciences/GlaxoSmithKline/SkyCovione/Covax one is the one that's completed Phase 3
The nasal-spray version is based on the same platform.
The Science/Research paper you link talks about the use of Rosetta in 3 places if you do a search through it.
3 of the authors are certainly Bakerlab people, 2 are certainly Veeslerlab and I'm guessing Kinglab people are involved too - all of them out of UW/IPD

Not sure if I posted this elsewhere, but a brief video of Neil King & David Veesler talking about the concept - I think a few months ago, maybe even late last year
IPD nanoparticle vaccine soundbites

---

Ah I see the confusion. When I said "the same vaccine", I meant the same vaccine that was originally developed at the IPD and later licensed to both SK and Icosavax, as I stated in parenthesizes.

Regarding the antivirals paper, it does mention Rosetta but not Rosetta@home. Per the admin forum post, Rosetta@home did not directly contribute to that paper but did "participate in the development of relevant scaffolds". I read that as in none of the proteins from the paper were designed via Rosetta@home but rather using the Rosetta software with their in-house/cloud resources. Rosetta@home did help develop the software so indirectly, we did help. For some reason, I linked to the 2nd page of the thread I wished to share - which is this- I'm assuming this is what SK is now developing in the form of a nasal spray antiviral. IIRC, the paper did mention that the lead designs were suitable as a nasal spray.

I had not seen that video, thanks for sharing.

---

Ah I see the confusion. When I said "the same vaccine", I meant the same vaccine that was originally developed at the IPD and later licensed to both SK and Icosavax, as I stated in parenthesizes.

Regarding the antivirals paper, it does mention Rosetta but not Rosetta@home. Per the admin forum post, Rosetta@home did not directly contribute to that paper but did "participate in the development of relevant scaffolds". I read that as in none of the proteins from the paper were designed via Rosetta@home but rather using the Rosetta software with their in-house/cloud resources. Rosetta@home did help develop the software so indirectly, we did help. For some reason, I linked to the 2nd page of the thread I wished to share - which is this- I'm assuming this is what SK is now developing in the form of a nasal spray antiviral. IIRC, the paper did mention that the lead designs were suitable as a nasal spray.

I had not seen that video, thanks for sharing.

This is a weird semantic discussion.
I'm regularly baffled by the number of comments here that seem to be willing our contributions here not to be involved in the papers that come out.
Sure, they've got access to hundreds of thousands of hosts, but everything they do that comes to anything was done without making any use of the resource we provide.
Ok, if you like... <sigh>

Yeah, they don't give much prominence to the video.
When they provide links I've got a peculiar habit of clicking on them to open in another tab, then reviewing what comes up after I've read through.
If something interesting comes up in the other tabs, I go back to see what they wrote that led to that link. It helps me appreciate the article more

---

- I don't think we should assume that everything the IPD/Bakerlab does involves Rosetta@home. If we did contribute to those, then why didn't they write "Rosetta@home contributed to this research" like they do on other papers? Or a forum post in which they mention "Rosetta@home helped with forward folding experiments" like they did on the NL-201 post?

- If Rosetta@home was involved in the antiviral research described in the paper, then instead of saying "Rosetta@home wasn't directly involved in the research", then they can say that, actually, we were involved in the research described in that paper. But they don't say that, they specifically say that those antivirals were not related to the Rosetta@home design efforts and they don't acknowledge Rosetta@home on the paper, although they acknowledge on the forum post that other antivirals were designed via Rosetta@home but none of those are described on that paper (or any other paper that I'm aware of).

- Again, we contributed to the COVID-19 research. We helped weed out the bad designs and found good candidates. They just found better ones using the in-house/Microsoft Azure/etc resources they had during the early days of the pandemic. Nothing wrong with that. But unless they credit Rosetta@home with something, I won't immediately assume that Rosetta@home was involved.

In any case, I'm just happy the vaccine works and that the antivirals are progressing into clinical trials. That's what matters the most.

---

FWIW (not much, I know), that is my impression too. They have been moving away from us crunchers for well over a year, as I warned about long ago by the way and was met with a large degree of incomprehension.

That is why we are left with a few odds and ends and the Pythons, whatever they are. And I can't even get those now. They stopped sending them to me over a week ago, and I have switched my four Ryzen machines (one Windows, three Ubuntu) to other projects, or just turned them off for the summer.

I am delighted that Rosetta is making great progress with all of their newfound AI expertise. They are doing great things. But not with us.

---

Interesting article on IPD site

---

Interesting article on IPD site

Interesting in the sense that SkyCovione has gained full approval in South Korea,
10 million doses have been ordered by Korea.
Once WHO approve, it'll be distributed to the 2 billion people who haven't had a single dose of any vaccine yet, predominantly the poorest countries and those where temperatures haven't previously allowed Moderna/Pfizer/etc to be stable at the frozen temperatures they require
UW have waived all royalties during the pandemic
Approvals will be sought next in the UK

Also a statement from SK Biosciences

And a reminder of the CEPI statement from last December that they'll be working toward a variant-proof version

And a further tweet from Cyrus Biotechnology saying "The first approved medicine designed with Rosetta! This is an important milestone for software designed proteins", bearing in mind that the first article in Cell was dated November 2020 before VBox versions of Rosetta tasks were ever thought of

---