COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.1032-1033 [SLACK_001246] · slack_pm:msg:10796

Page text: p.1032, p.1033 · original PDF

Date
2021-11-26 13:43
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Edward C. Holmes
Topics
Wuhan Institute of Virology collaborationFurin cleavage site and molecular featuresBiosafety and biosecurityLab-leak / accidental release hypothesisNatural origin / zoonotic spillover

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

We have something else to discuss. Andrew & I were on a call with Jeremy and Greg Towers from UCL. The short story is that Greg was interviewing a postdoc from WIV and was very concerned about their biosafety. It relates to the attached paper. Basically, they have collected saliva and tissue samples from bats across China which are then stored in VTM. They then culture them to look for rhabdoviruses and Greg is worried that they could have cultured a CoV at the same time. He asked the postdoc what they did to prevent this and he said that they deep sequenced the samples and found no CoV which Greg doesn't think is good enough. Personally, I agree with Greg that this sort of procedure is no longer acceptable. However, I find this a weak theory for the origin of SC2 as itrequires a whole series of unlikely events: (i) the bat sample has the virus; (ii) the virus grows in culture; (iii) that virus is then transmitted to the lab worker in an accident; (iv) the furin cleavage site is retained despite culture inVeroE6 and an R. affinis cell line; (v) there is a virus in the sample despite there being no sequence evidence; (v)the infected lab worker then has to pass it on. And of course we now have all the market stuff. That said, they clearly need have a lot of bat tissues at WIV. I know the French authors on the paper and I will follow up with them. Interested in your thoughts. [shared file(s): Luo_viruses-13-00064-v2.pdf]

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

StatementGradeAttributionStance
The short story is that Greg was interviewing a postdoc from WIV and was very concerned about their biosafety. quoted / not their view quoted_external message body appears to be pasted content asserts
However, I find this a weak theory for the origin of SC2 as itrequires a whole series of unlikely events: (i) the bat sample has the virus; (ii) the virus grows in culture; (iii) that virus is then transmitted to the lab worker in an accident; (iv) the furin cleavage site is retained despite culture inVeroE6 and an R. affinis cell line; (v) there is a virus in the sample despite there being no sequence evidence; (v)the infected lab worker then has to pass it on. quoted / not their view quoted_external attribution frame: 'He asked' asserts
That said, they clearly need have a lot of bat tissues at WIV. quoted / not their view paraphrase_third_party reporting frame: 'That said,' asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

  1. 2021-11-26 13:43 Edward C. Holmes
    We have something else to discuss. Andrew & I were on a call with Jeremy and Greg Towers from UCL. The short story is that Greg was interviewing a postdoc from WIV and was very concerned about their biosafety. It relates to the attached paper. Basically, they have collected saliva and tissue samples from bats across China which are then stored in VTM. They then culture them to look for rhabdoviruses and Greg is worried that they could have cultured a CoV at the same time. He asked the postdoc what they did to prevent this and he said that they deep sequenced the samples and found no CoV which Greg doesn't think is good enough. Personally, I agree with Greg that this sort of procedure is no longer acceptable. However, I find this a weak theory for the origin of SC2 as itrequires a whole series of unlikely events: (i) the bat sample has the virus; (ii) the virus grows in culture; (iii) that virus is then transmitted to the lab worker in an accident; (iv) the furin cleavage site is retained despite culture inVeroE6 and an R. affinis cell line; (v) there is a virus in the sample despite there being no sequence evidence; (v)the infected lab worker then has to pass it on. And of course we now have all the market stuff. That said, they clearly need have a lot of bat tissues at WIV. I know the French authors on the paper and I will follow up with them. Interested in your thoughts. [shared file(s): Luo_viruses-13-00064-v2.pdf]
  2. 2021-11-26 13:47 Kristian G. Andersen open
    We have known this since the very beginning - I mentioned it on our very first call that I was concerned about themcollecting and growing sampling from bats under BSL-2. This work is exactly that.To be clear, this type of work is approved under BSL-2 almost universally - I can do it at my lab here at Scripps (and,in fact, we have). I'm fully in agreement that further precautions are required, but a single paper like this changes nothing - again, it's no secret this is how it has been done and I/we flagged it on day 1. Adds credence to the fact that we should consider a lab leak, but doesn't change any of the data showing it isn't.
  3. 2021-11-26 13:50 Edward C. Holmes open
    I agree. Greg was definitely worried about a lab leak but was more concerned about putting in procedures to improve biosafety and I agree with that.
  4. 2021-11-26 13:53 Kristian G. Andersen open
    I think we all agree: • Lab leak a potential concern • Actual data strongly pointing to no lab leak • Biosafety needs to be strengthened given how widespread SC1-like and SC2-like viruses are across SE Asia I don't think anybody with expertise would disagree on any of these points
  5. 2021-11-26 13:54 Edward C. Holmes open
    Totally agree.

Full conversation →