4.5 Review

SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENOMICS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12920-022-01208-w

关键词

COVID-19; Mutation; Fitness; Gene; Infection; MRCA; Molecular evolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still uncertain, with evidence supporting a bat origin but remaining inconclusive. Studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 was present for many years prior to the pandemic, indicating the potential for other animal viruses to jump to humans. This is concerning due to increasing contact between humans and animals as ecosystems collapse. Additionally, the future adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 is a major concern as virus-host interactions are complex and predicting viral evolution remains challenging. However, the ongoing vaccination efforts provide hope for changing the evolutionary dynamics of the virus.
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain. Findings support a bat origin but results are not highly convincing. Studies found evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was around for many years before the pandemic outbreak. Evidence has been published that the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 already had the capability to bind strongly to the human ACE2 receptor. This may be an indication that many other animal viruses are capable to jump to humans, having already affinity for a human receptor. This is quite worrying since current ecosystems' collapse brings people to high proximity with animals, increasing probabilities for random viral transitions. On the other hand, future adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 is of great concern. Virus-host interactions are complicated and unfortunately, we still do not have accurate tools for predicting viruses' future evolution. Viral adaptation is a multifactorial process and probably SARS-CoV-2 will not become soon, as we wish, a harmless infection. However, humanity is currently under the largest vaccination program and it's of great interest to see if vaccinations will change the evolutionary game against the virus.

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

4.5
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