I have used it as one piece of evidence among several others to conclude that Patañjali was a Kashmirian in section 2.6 of my article “Patañjali: a Kashmirian” published in  2008. Linguistic Traditions of Kashmir. Co-edited by me with Mr. Mrinal Kaul. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld. Pp. XXIV + 609.

The discussion in the Mahābhāṣya is semantic or linguistic. It is a statement on what the users of Skt understand when the word brāhmaṇa is uttered. It is not an attempt to decide if brāhmaṇatva is a jāti in the same way as gotva. (Extend this to ‘kṣatriyatva : aśvatva’ etc.; the grammarians’ notion of jāti or universal is not the same as that of the Vaiśeṣikas and Naiyāyikas anyway; it is thoroughly śabdādhiṣṭhita or semantic.)

For those who are interested in Patañjali, the grammarian: The article mentioned above is preceded in the same volume by two other articles of mine: (a) “Pata~jaliæs MahåbhåΩya as a key to happy Kashmir.Æ (b) "Gonardīya, Goṇikā-putra, Patanjali and Gonandīya."

a.a.