[Thread] Bat tissue collection and cell lines from the 3rd trip to Tongguan (TG) mine in Mojiang in Apr-2013 
The 3rd trip is still my first guess for being the trip of live isolate WIV15 (and backbone). I guess it is more probable to isolate a virus from tissue itself... What do the experts say?
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/1389541992099680257
Jan 7, 2021, AVC Panel Discussion Origins of SARS-CoV-2 (from @KatherineEban's article)
“the incredible difficulty of isolating live virus from bat samples, which are usually fecal samples, and that this is extremely unreliable and usually not successful”
downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theor…
“the incredible difficulty of isolating live virus from bat samples, which are usually fecal samples, and that this is extremely unreliable and usually not successful”
downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theor…
How can we know those samples come from TG?
Sample IDs in a location are assigned as follow: 1. Anal / pharyngeal swab (trapped bats), 2. Tissue (from trap “accidents”), 3. Fecal swabs (from the floor next day). Non-bats (e.g. rodents) probably at the end too (traps overnight).
Sample IDs in a location are assigned as follow: 1. Anal / pharyngeal swab (trapped bats), 2. Tissue (from trap “accidents”), 3. Fecal swabs (from the floor next day). Non-bats (e.g. rodents) probably at the end too (traps overnight).
Hence, usual mismatches of totals among articles could come from a different counting: 1. bats and/or non-bats, 2. swabs and/or tissue, 3. errors (e.g. mixing samples of different locations)
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/1272171319044509696
For Apr-2013 there should be 52 samples from Jinning (Hu et al., 2017) and around 52 from TG. Although Ge et al. (2016) mentioned “bat fecal swabs” from the mine, Wang (2014) mentioned “mainly bat anal swab and pharyngeal swab” for the first 2 trips.
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…
The tissue sample IDs fall right after the range of samples of the 3rd trip to TG, but has sense they were not counted by Ge et al. (2016). Moreover, if they were collected from accidents, it means there were swabs immediately before in the same location
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
[SPOILER ALERT] In a new thesis from @TheSeeker268, although referring to Jinning, Tan (2016) gives some clues on how this could be done.
Wang et al. (2017b) mentioned sampling in Yunnan but attribute positive samples only to Jinning, but it has not sense (going back to Jinning and month totals would not match).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Should be an error or laziness to give details. Similarly, Tan et al. (2017) wrongly mentioned only Mojiang when it was Mojiang and Chuxiong. Btw, so many “accidents” that day! Or they just wanted more samples of tissue?
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/1357728204803440641
LBZ (GIABR) is co-author in articles of the 3rd trip to TG (including famous SADS article that uses RsLu4323). Wang et al. (2017b) even acknowledged him performing the sampling. We know he also accompanied them in other trips.
nature.com/articles/s4158…
nature.com/articles/s4158…
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/1271619394813206529
That SADS article clearly needs a long Addendum. In addition to explaining that cell line of RsLu4323:
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/1367278368450899972
Credits: @TheSeeker268 & #DRASTIC team
Recap. Most probably from Mojiang mine Apr-2013:
These cell lines:
- Rs kidney cells 4318
- Lung primary cells RsLu4323
- Kidney primary cells RaK4324
Also tissue collected for:
- Ra4331 ACE2 mRNA
- Ra4325 (BtHBV)
- Ra4328 (BtHBV)
These cell lines:
- Rs kidney cells 4318
- Lung primary cells RsLu4323
- Kidney primary cells RaK4324
Also tissue collected for:
- Ra4331 ACE2 mRNA
- Ra4325 (BtHBV)
- Ra4328 (BtHBV)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
