The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So in an ideal world, you might want a molecule that would inhibit all the substrates of mTORC1, not touch mTORC2, but then... But not do it constitutively. but also maybe not to 100 % inhibition, right? So I'm not sure I would use that molecule to wipe out mTORC1. I would use it to bring down all the mTORC1 activity of all towards our surface to some extent, leaving mTORC2 intact.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And so our view is that the way to accomplish that is not to go after mTORC1 itself, but to go after its upstream regulators. And the big benefit, in my view, of doing that is that you should be able to have something now that modulates all mTORC1 substrate. And you can also start to get tissue specificity because these regulators vary in importance across tissues.