Reading Room Production — page 93
of 496 pages · text recovered by OCR
← p.92 p.94 → · this page in the original PDF · package
In addition, the thesis of our graduate student is currently embargo becuase of knowledge property protection and we
don't know why this thesis was uploded in the google drive and misused by the consparicy people.
I hope I clarify your concern.
Best regards,
Zhengli,
Miowh.iov.cn
From: Clare Thomas
Date:
1-06-25 02:09
To:
wh.iov.cn
Subject: RE: A question about the addendum to your Nature paper
Dear Zhengli,
I wonder whether you have had a chance to consider my email below? I am sorry to bug you about it, but
we do have an obligation to look into any queries that we receive about any Nature paper that we publish. I
can imagine that you must be quite frustrated with these sorts of queries, but if there is an explanation for
the apparent discrepancy highlighted to us then it would be great if you could please let us know.
Many thanks in advance and all the best,
Clare
From: Clare Thomas
Sent: 23 June 2021 17:07
To: Bown iov.cn' Blown.iov.cn>
Subject: A question about the addendum to your Nature paper
Dear Zhengli,
I hope you're well. We have been contacted by someone who claims that a thesis from the Wuhan Institute
of Virology contains information that seemingly questions the relationship of RaTG13 to the sample
originally named 4991. You can see the correspondence that we've received below. We have not clicked
on these links, so have not looked at the thesis itself, but would you please be able to provide some
clarification about these claims? I believe the concern is that if Ra4991 and RaTG13 are the same virus, as
claimed in the addendum, then their identity to SARS-CoV should be the same and the table pasted below
indicates that they differ to some extent in the spike gene.
Thanks in advance and best wishes,
Clare
Clare Thomas
Senior Editor
Nature
A Dissertation submitted to The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2019 by Yu Ping at the Wuhan
institute of Virology has recently surfaced online.
Original: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cJBY AkjkZX9KbNfHCaeaaMhNDefflelg
English translation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15U2uE7Erm0QxRbf8Q VRPRMpssCoYhGvT/edit
The document has been uploaded by an anonymous user on Twitter, and contains potentially new information
the RATG13 virus sequence and its relationship to bat sample 4991.
The RATG13 sequence was first mentioned in the article "A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new
coronavirus of probable bat origin» published by Nature. In the addendum to this article, that was published
This is our OCR of the page, with running headers and footers removed. The
Committee's PDF
is authoritative; quote from it. Machine-readable, including the uncleaned
text: /api/page/reading_room/93
Records on this page
| Record | Date | Type | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| A question about the addendum to your Nature paper | 2021-06-23 | 93–94 | |
| reading_room:email:00098 | 2021-06-27 | 92–93 | |
| RE: A question about the addendum to your Nature paper | 2025-01-06 | 93 |