4.4 Article

There is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin ()

期刊

BIOESSAYS
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000325

关键词

comparative genomics; coronavirus; COVID-19; evolution; furin cleavage site; SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin; SARS-CoV-2

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [RSF 20-14-00178]
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant [RFBR 18-29-13014 mk]
  3. Russian Science Foundation [20-14-00178] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlights the incorrectness of the laboratory origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2, stating that it does not align with existing genetic and experimental data, while the hypothesis of a natural origin is more consistent with all available data.
The origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the subject of many hypotheses. One of them, proposed by Segreto and Deigin, assumes artificial chimeric construction of SARS-CoV-2 from a backbone of RaTG13-like CoV and receptor binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin MP789-like CoV, followed by serial cell or animal passage. Here we show that this hypothesis relies on incorrect or weak assumptions, and does not agree with the results of comparative genomics analysis. The genetic divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and both its proposed ancestors is too high to have accumulated in a lab, given the timeframe of several years. Furthermore, comparative analysis of S-protein gene sequences suggests that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 probably represents an ancestral non-recombinant variant. These and other arguments significantly weaken the hypothesis of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, while the hypothesis of a natural origin is consistent with all available genetic and experimental data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据