0

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/100629/how-many-spike-proteins-are-there-per-sars-cov-2-spike is a question I asked recently but long ago I asked a different but similar question here at Medical Sciences that is not as good. Now I am getting allegations that the great new biology question has been answered here from Bryan Krause who is a mod at Biology. I disagree, but I don't want to argue about it. I would close the MS question if I could.

What should I do?

16
  • 1
    The Biology.SE question has right now 3 close votes and 4 down votes; it does not seem so far that it is regarded as "great". The answer is already in the source referenced. The paper, referenced by the article and linked in your question, has even better diagrams that are quite beautiful, see for example their Figure 3.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented May 8, 2021 at 6:54
  • @BryanKrause It may be that it is regarded as great except for being a duplicate (which it isn't, in my opinion, as it is a different question about the coronavirus 'spike' and it's proteins. How many proteins are there in the whole thing is not the same as how many proteins are being alleged to be on the end of it.
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 17:38
  • Like the article says, there are 3 spike proteins that make up a spike. We also call that assembled thing a "spike protein", which is causing you some consternation but is a normal way to talk about proteins in biology that you'll either have to get used to or somehow raise your stature enough that biologists worldwide obey your call to revise how they talk and write. You'll also have to convince the science writers, who may be even more difficult.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 17:58
  • 1. In that case, wouldn't it be better called 'a protein spike' or 'a spike of proteins' or 'a spike of protein' (leaving aside the fact that it is club-shaped and jelly-like, and therefore not much like a spike in any sense of the word)? 2. Misnomers are acceptable both as jargon and in common parlance, but when a significant fraction of the readers can reasonably be expected to be mislead by a misnomer, a clear writer will mention that it is a misnomer. In this case 'a spike protein' is doubly misnomeric, being neither...
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 18:19
  • 2
    Language doesn't work the way you say it should or want it to. People who are upset with how language works have tried to fix it including by making up whole new languages from the ground up to fix all the problems they see with existing language. None of them have been successful in attracting sufficient users. The spikes on coronaviruses are spikes, because someone named them that. It's okay if the word "spike" that they used doesn't fit what you imagine when you hear "spike". The protein itself is made of multiple polypeptide chains assembled together. We call both proteins.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 18:23
  • ...a spike nor a single protein and the clear writer will explain this or find another way to phrase it that is clear. 3. It's causing me confusion and irritation and fascination, less off the first one as time goes by, and more of the last one. "Consternation" is a bit extreme. They say million deaths is a statistic. A 0.01 percent increase in that million deaths, especially only from a pandemic is not something many will experience consternation about. My contention is that something like a 0.01 one percent (at least) increase in the number of pandemic fatal cases will result from the...
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 18:29
  • ...confusion resulting from the use of the phrase 'spike protein' without any mention of its misnomeric nature by the NYT alone. 0.01 percent is 'only' ten deaths, but please bear in mind that this is a conservative estimate, and that there are other problems caused, namely the huge waste of readers' time, which might even add up to something like a lifetime. I know that had I not puzzled out the misnomeric nature of the phrase (thanks for your help, unintentional or not) I would have essentially lost (or at least used poorly) several dozen minutes of reading time.
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 18:38
  • [Note that I am still replying the Bryan Krause comment that starts "Like the article says, there are 3 spike proteins..." and I will say so when I start responding to any subsequent comments by him or anyone else.] 4. "either have to get used to or somehow raise your stature enough that biologists worldwide obey your call to revise how they talk and write." Wow. I am already used to it. So what? The second part is interesting indeed. You imply that biologists will only understand that two plus two equals four if they are told it by someone who has a certain minimum stature. And you see it...
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 18:59
  • ... as a case of obedience. That sounds like postmodernism. Do you admire Michel Foucault's work, by any chance? 5. "You'll also have to convince the science writers, who may be even more difficult." Why would you think that they would be "more difficult"? Don't they want a reputation as clear writers that the layman (or at least the intelligent layman) can understand?
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:06
  • @BryanKrause [I just realized that I should be pinging you] On to your next comment, the one that starts, "Language doesn't work the way you say it should or want it to." Could you provide some sort of argument to support this assertion?By the way, I am not complaining about how the English language works here. That is a whole other topic. I am complaining about poor use of the language. I already said that misnomers are fine when understood by the reader or...
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:25
  • @BryanKrause ...accompanied by some clarification. It's fine to talk about International Space Station (ISS) 'weightlessness' or 'microgravity' if you explain or at least mention to those readers who will begin or continue to believe that there is a negligible amount of gravity up there, if there are a significant fraction like that among the readers. In fact the strength of gravity is about 80% of that at the surface of the earth but the ISS is in free fall and do both terms are misnomeric). The clear writer will take pains that the intended readers understand. Calling it 'a knob of ...
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:27
  • @BryanKrause ...proteins' or 'a protein knob' is only one possible solution. Like I said, a brief remark to the effect that 'a spike protein' is doubly misnomeric, when called for, is another solution. I ask you, why would the NYT not want to do the latter? 6. "It's okay if the word "spike" that they used doesn't fit what you imagine when you hear "spike"." Do you think it fits with what the typical NYT reader imagines? 7."The protein itself is made of multiple polypeptide chains assembled together. We call both proteins." I am starting to understand that. Do you know whether biologists...
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:37
  • @BryanKrause are agreed and consistently state the same number for how many 'multiple' is in this case? And how many of those proteins there are in one pandemic coronavirus spike (for the sake of argument, the 'original' type, i.e. the type they found/lost in Wuhan)?
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:42
  • 1
    It's not poor use of language. You seem to be confused when "protein" is used to describe both individual long polypeptide molecules as well as assembled proteins with multiple subunits. That's it. It's correct terminology to refer to both as proteins. The specific protein we're talking about is also known as the "spike protein" of coronaviruses. This is the correct term, it's not bad writing to use "spike protein" to describe it. If you want other examples from language I'll start with just one: shellfish. These are not fish, but it's not wrong to call them shellfish.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:43
  • 2
    (sorry for getting to your comments a bit out of order) The NYT doesn't need to rename the protein anything. It's called "spike protein", and if readers want to read more, they'll find it in scientific papers described as "spike protein" (or sometimes "S protein"). Coming up with a new name for it just because the ends aren't as pointy as you think a spike should be would confuse their readers rather than inform them. A lot of popular press articles have pictures of the spike proteins or artistic renderings of the whole coronavirus; seems sufficient to me.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    Commented May 9, 2021 at 19:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

If I understand correctly, Bryan Krause took the time to answer your question here, but you apparently weren't satisfied with his answer so you asked it again in slightly modified form on Biology. The Biology mods think it's a duplicate of your question here (and I agree), so now you want to delete your question here to see if you can get a different answer in Biology, presumably one more to your liking.

Sorry, but deleting your question here would delete an upvoted answer as well, and I see no reason to do that. Your issues on Biology and MedSci are separate. You can't ask one site to delete content so you can post on another site. You'll have to deal with the Biology mods on this.

5
  • 1
    Yes Bryan Krause attempted to answer my question (although it looks to me to mainly be attacking the question rather than answering it), and yes I wasn't satisfied with his answer. I then, after several hours of reading and and several days of thinking off and on came up with a different and much better question on the same general topic: the club-shaped 'spike' and its protein/proteins. I don't know what the Biology mods think, but I do know that Bryan Krause at one point asked if my question was the same as the one at Medical Sciences and I explained that it wasn't but 1/2
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 8, 2021 at 1:35
  • it was unclear to what extent I had convinced him. Due to my tremendously deepened understanding to the topic during the last few days I see that my MS question is not that clear or great, so although other things being equal I would leave it as a flawed but useful question, I am willing to sacrifice it for the sake of protecting the better question from the wrong suggestions that it is the same question. I'd like to see the MS question closed, not deleted. But I do have the option of deleting it, am I right? 2/2
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 8, 2021 at 1:36
  • 1
    @MatthewChristopherBartsh I haven't double-checked the rules to be sure but I don't believe you can delete your question since it has an answer. You could have before it had one, and maybe you should have in view of the vote score, but too late now. Allowing you to do that would allow you to unilaterally delete other people's content, so you can see why it's not allowed. So we're back to you dealing with this on Biology because that's where the problem is. I see no problem with your question on this site.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Commented May 8, 2021 at 4:09
  • 1. So what should I do when I come up with a better version of the exact same question (not what happened in this case in my opinion) that has already been answered? 2. Closing the question would not result in anyone else's content getting deleted and as a mod, surely you have the power to close it.
    – Matthew Christopher Bartsh
    Commented May 8, 2021 at 16:22
  • @MatthewChristopherBartsh 1. I don't know what you should do. Like I said, this is an issue on Biology, not here. 2. I have no legitimate basis to close it.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Commented May 8, 2021 at 17:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .