The SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site is yet again in the news - this time because of a quote by Nobel laureate David Baltimore.
The site is not a "smoking gun", nor does it "make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin".
Quite the opposite, so a little science 🧵👇
The furin cleavage site (FCS) / polybasic cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 at the S1/S2 junction of the spike protein where it mediates the cutting (by the host protease furin, among others) of the spike, which is required for infection of cells.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As Twitter has morphed into X, xenophobia, hate speech, and conspiracy theories are being amplified more than ever.
I can't contribute to such a platform, but before I leave, I wanted to reflect on the work my lab has done during the pandemic.
Why? More about that at the end 🧵
The photo above is from a recent lab retreat in Joshua tree - a few people are missing in the photo, but you can learn more about the lab here: .
Below, I will outline some of the work this incredibly talented and hardworking group of people have done.andersen-lab.com
During the pandemic, my lab has covered several areas that have directly contributed both to our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic itself and SARS-CoV-2, but also to our response.
Since this is making the rounds again, just a reminder that the conspiracy theory that an unfunded grant application represents a blueprint for SARS-CoV-2 was defused by the writing of DEFUSE itself.
Why? Let's start with the sub-heading itself 👇.
S2' != S1-S2.
Short 🧵.
1️⃣ The section talks about "proteolytic cleavage" in the S2' region, not the S1/S2 region where SARS-CoV-2 has a unique insert. This, alone, kills the whole assertion of DEFUSE being a blueprint - details matter.
2️⃣ The section describes work to be done in pseudotyped viruses, not isolates. SARS-CoV-2 is very much not a pseudotypes virus.
@TheAtlantic For example, @BenMazer states that I "admitted" that we changed our conclusions and this was because we needed to “make some of the language punchier.”
This is a deep misrepresentation of what the peer-review process is and what I actually said.
Compare:
@TheAtlantic @BenMazer As is clear from the interview - and as I, and all my co-authors on all our "Origin" papers have explained numerous times - science drove our changing views on COVID-19 origins.
This is a perfect example of going from an early hypothesis to a later supported scientific theory.
Very interesting data from @yunlong_cao’s group, supporting a hypothesis we have been discussing internally for the last few weeks - that BA.2.86 may have a significant antigenic advantage, but intrinsically is less transmissible.
In such a scenario? The idea is that BA.2.86 has essentially found an antigenic (immunological) niche, where it faces little competition because it’s so distinct from previously dominant lineages.
However, likely having evolved in a single host for a long time, it could have lost the inherent infection/transmission fitness of previous variants (I.e., it has a lower R0).
@yunlong_cao’s data support both - high ‘escape’ potential, low infectivity potential.
From UFOs over sick lab workers starting pandemics, to quote mining private conversations among scientists. None of this is surprising - the surprising part is that 'journalists' and others keep falling for the same bullshit.
So a little context to Slack message 👇.
Short 🧵
First up, the message shows an *exact* example of what conspiracy theorists accuse us of not being willing to do - questioning our own research.
Second, context is extremely important here.
So what happened in mid-April, 2020?
There was a *ton* of talk about "Secret Cables" (thanks to, what later turned out to be, ignorant reporting from Josh Rogin @washingtonpost) that alleged to have evidence from the intelligence community showing the virus came from a lab.