A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Fair points. But that work isn't exclusively done at the WIV because as you say yourself the Baric lab are doing it. Istill don't quite see what the new data is. The bovine stuff? What else is there? To me, there is more evidence against lab escape than when we wrote the paper. I think the bats not roosting in winter argument is nothing because I reckon it went through an intermediate host anyway. Do you have a copy of the EgoHealth grant?
-
Aim3: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=9819304&icde=50404048&ddpara m=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=1&csb=FY&cs=DESC&pball=
-
> But that work isn't exclusively done at the WIV because as you say yourself the Baric lab are doing it No, that work _is_ exclusively at WIV AFAIK. Baric's lab is doing (did) gain of function research where they created reverse genetics systems to study the viruses. All of this is done in BSL-3, so much (much!) less risk of exposure. The work in Shi's lab is different - here they are taking bat CoVs and culturing them under BSL-2 in cell lines from different animals - to e.g., understand which ones can infect human cells and what type of mutations that occur inT/C may make them permissive. They probably have more than 10 papers where they describe that type of work onall kinds of SARS-like CoVs.
-
Got it, thanks. That helps.
-
2020-06-11 17:16
Edward C. Holmes
Have the Shi lab published all the viruses they use in these culture experiments? Do they find the same mutations that appear in SARS-CoV-2?
-
In our paper we argue against (a) manipulation and (b) tissue culture. Our main arguments were that manipulation ishard, but the German's came out and created a reverse genetics system of SARS2 in less than two weeks, soclearly it's not that hard. Our arguments against tissue culture mostly came down to the O-linked glycans and a'mucin-like' domain. But by now it seems clear that these don't actually form a mucin-like domain, but rather those glycans modulate the function of the furin site. All our arguments about natural viruses emerging, the RBD identicalin pangolin CoVs, etc., all still stand. The main new things that bothers me the most:1. Lack of selection (a lot of the selection is for replication in a particular host species, so yes, I would assume culture would lover selection during subsequent transmission in humans - however, immune selection will still occur).2. Gain of furin cleavage of bovine CoV in tissue culture.3. Loss of furin site in tissue culture meaning it's active.4. The little details about the furin site - e.g., that it's exactly in the spot where experiments had previously inserted it,the fact that the exact sequence exist in a cat CoV, Shi herself being sketchy with details and considering lab accident, etc. But all of this can go both ways
-
Unclear to me if they published sequences of all these viruses - it's a lot and names are changing over time (e.g.,RaTG13 had a different name previously).
-
And yes - of the six key mutations in the RBD, one of them occur in tissue culture for SARS (*but* it's also present inthe pangolin RBD).
-
Are you saying they deliberately inserted the furin cleavage site? I see no evidence of them ever doing that before. (Idon't think RaTG13 had a different name...I think there a partial sequence from another virus that is identical. Canwe do a quick zoom?