My co-authors @stevenemassey@Daoyu15@ydeigin@quay_dr and I have just published another #pangolin CoV preprint. We review pangolin fecal samples DG14 and DG18 and find GD PCoV read distribution consistent with contamination by PCR targeted seqs.
In samples DG14 and DG18 we plasmid sequences containing Sus scrofa CD163 and a lager plasmid sequence containing SP6 RNA polymerase. Both of these plasmids have far higher read mappings than the GD PCoV in the dataset.
We also add to our previous analysis of GX PCoV sample GX/P3B and find numerous cloning vectors in the dataset and human genomic content.
Finally we review the human, mouse and tiger mitochondrial content in the Liu et al. (2019) pangolin datasets first identified by Hassanin (2020) and infer a combination of upstream and index hopping causes.
The paper builds on pangolin RNA-Seq dataset analysis below.
Our analysis of a novel SARS2r-CoV identified in game animal datasets in China shows the CoV to be related to GX #pangolin CoV and bat-SL-CoVZC45 in different sections of the partial genome researchsquare.com/article/rs-183…
We found the novel CoV phylogeneticly groups with GX PCoVs in the NSP4, NSP10 and a 297nt section of the RdRp coding regions. NSP4:
Engineering CoVs using reverse genetics has been steadily advancing for the last 20 years. Its interesting, publishable work. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32711735/
I can understand that you would be really annoyed if some group were working on a full length infectious clone, messed up and a lab worker got infected and infected others outside the lab.
You may even publically attempt to publish a paper 'proving' the virus couldnt have escaped from a lab, while privately thinking it probably did theintercept.com/2022/01/12/cov…
Taking a (realistically) conservative estimate of 10% probability of a Wuhan virology lab accident while conducting research on a SARS-CoV-2 projenitor virus, we can use a decision tree (usually used before know outcome, here we dont know the mechanism)
We can then estimate the lives lost cost as way of rationalizing whether an extensive investigation of all research groups funding and collaborating with Wuhan labs in the lead up to the COVID-19 pandemic should be conducted
Two insightful articles from Jan 2020. 26th @sciencecohen : "The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace," Daniel Lucey asserts.
Jan 31st "Ebright tells ScienceInsider that the 2019-nCoV data are "consistent with entry into the human population as either a natural accident or a laboratory accident." science.org/content/articl…
Shortly after, the Lancet letter, Zhou et al., Liu et al. and then the proximal origin paper were poblished and used to shut down objective discussion of origin
How EHA managed to bypass the pause on potential pathogen GOF research by rewording the monitoring clause, outsourced to Wuhan, breached terms on mulitiple occasions and has not subpoenad yet is beyond me
Independent scientists proposing valid hypotheses or towing with party line: "Given the finding of SARS-CoV-2 on the surface of imported food packages, contact with contaminated uncooked food could be an important source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"
"Recently, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found in human serum samples taken outside of China before the COVID-19 outbreak was detected, which suggests that SARS-CoV-2 existed for some time before the first cases were described in Wuhan." science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
"This disease outbreak—which started from a local seafood market" (with no data provided to definetively support such a strong conclusion) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32015507/ I suspect the latter of the 2