COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1080 [SLACK_001294] · slack_pm:msg:11251

Page text: p.1080 · original PDF

Date
2022-01-27 14:06
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Kristian G. Andersen
Topics
Furin cleavage site and molecular featuresNatural origin / zoonotic spillover

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

Yeah, but notice our discussion of "passage". The Pangolin RBD _disproves_ that, but we didn't catch that until later- we use the RBD to say "not engineering" but we didn't yet use it to say "not passage". That only came after peer review

In context

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

  1. 2022-01-27 13:53 Andrew Rambaut open
    OK. Good. More evidence of science being done
  2. 2022-01-27 13:57 Andrew Rambaut open
    From the 8th Feb version on GoogleDocs: > Although RaTG13 remains the closest relative to 2019-nCoV across the genome as a whole, the Malayan pangolin CoVs are identical to 2019-nCoV at all six key RBD residues. Analyses of these pangolin viruses are ongoing, although they do not carry the furin cleavage site insertion.
  3. 2022-01-27 13:57 Robert F. Garry open
    I think the key for me was when one of us pointed out that "if the RBD was natural, then the whole thing is natural." Also we were arguing all sides of this from the get go - the whole o-linked glycan thing which was discussed on theconf call was pointing to natural although I do agree with K that it's as likely as not that that's a common regulatory mechanism for FCS rather than immune evasive - still think that it could possibly have some role there though too -the FCS is a major epitope in other class I fusion proteins in SARS-CoV-2 it isn't AFAIK which is strange.
  4. 2022-01-27 13:58 Andrew Rambaut open
    And if it is used as a regulatory system there is no way a human designer would know how to do that
  5. 2022-01-27 14:06 Kristian G. Andersen
    Yeah, but notice our discussion of "passage". The Pangolin RBD _disproves_ that, but we didn't catch that until later- we use the RBD to say "not engineering" but we didn't yet use it to say "not passage". That only came after peer review
  6. 2022-01-27 14:07 Kristian G. Andersen open
    And by disproving - I mean, it disproves that the specific RBD mutations seen in SC2 arose via culture passage, but,of course, it doesn't directly disprove passage itself.
  7. 2022-01-27 14:09 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Thinking of sending this to Fox - because somebody's gotta at least get it on the record... Thoughts? ```Dear Timothy, No, I do not believe that origin theories were obscured or suppressed, although the question has become heavily politicized by lab leak proponents. I can categorically say that for the research I have been involved with, such allegations, including those recently made in a Fox New Special Report, are false. Our scientific investigations -published in scientific journals - have only been driven by scientific enquiry. Any suggestions to the contrary are false. The events you describe date back to the Trump White House, and it is public knowledge that the question of origin was taken up by the White House Office and Science Technology Policy, immediately following early discussions:https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/02/national-academies-provide-rapid-response-to-white-house-on-coronavirus-data-needs#As was the case in early 2020, available evidence point strongly towards a natural emergence of SARS-CoV-2, ashas been the case for other pandemics. Best, Kristian```
  8. 2022-01-27 14:12 Robert F. Garry open
    Fauci and Collins made zero edits to out papers - the CREID Grant was written, reviewed and scored prior to the Feb 1 conf call.
  9. 2022-01-27 14:15 Edward C. Holmes open
    No harm in doing so but it will have zero impact I think.

Full conversation →