Comment by svscam | Hacker News Reader

Comment by svscam | Hacker News Reader

Here's a likely related paper from 2007:

https://jvi.asm.org/content/82/4/1899

In this study, a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-based pseudovirus system was employed to address these issues. Our results indicated that the SL-CoV S protein is unable to use ACE2 proteins of different species for cell entry and that SARS-CoV S protein also failed to bind the ACE2 molecule of the horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus pearsonii. However, when the RBD of SL-CoV S was replaced with that from the SARS-CoV S, the hybrid S protein was able to use the huACE2 for cell entry, implying that the SL-CoV S proteins are structurally and functionally very similar to the SARS-CoV S. These results suggest that although the SL-CoVs discovered in bats so far are unlikely to infect humans using ACE2 as a receptor, it remains to be seen whether they are able to use other surface molecules of certain human cell types to gain entry. It is also conceivable that these viruses may become infectious to humans if they undergo N-terminal sequence variation, for example, through recombination with other CoVs, which in turn might lead to a productive interaction with ACE2 or other surface proteins on human cells.

Look at the authors:

Zhengli Shi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Zhengli

She is a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Shi and her colleague Cui Jie found that the SARS virus originated in bats.

Can someone with a better understanding of molecular biology and virology explain what this means? I don't want to jump to conclusions.

The paper describes how virologists in Wuhan engineered a "SARS-like" virus -- previously limited only to bats -- specifically to make it infective in humans via the ACE2 receptor. That's the same receptor used by the SARS-CoV-2 bug we're fighting now.

Note that the paper was submitted 12 years ago. They've had a lot of time to work out the kinks, if they were so inclined.

EDIT:

I want to repeat what I've said in other comments, because what I initially said was inaccurate. These researchers didn't actually create a new coronavirus, but rather a much simpler and safer virus purpose-built to test some receptor-binding structures.

This is a well-established way to study viruses safely, and this kind of work is critical if we're to learn how to develop vaccines faster in response to epidemics.

SARS infected 8000 humans in 2002. It was a coronavirus. (That's why the current one gets the "-2" suffix.) Nature beat the researchers by a number of years (and they were presumably trying to figure out how).

According to the paper, you're exactly right.

Why on earth would they do this? What sort of application does this have or serve?

If it's a bioweapon, why was it published?

Is there any concrete genetic or documented evidence to show COVID-19 is engineered? This is a big claim and has severe ramifications for China, if true.

According to the paper, they did it in order to figure out why SARS-CoV was able to infect humans, while numerous other SARS-like viruses are not. Their hyposthesis was that the critical feature is a particular sequence in the protein found on the "spike" that the virus uses to bind to host receptors. By constructing a new SARS-like virus with the desired spike protein, they were able to validate that hypothesis.

It seems to me that if there was any malign intent behind this work, they would not have published a paper on it. Obviously, that's doesn't preclude the possibility of an accidental release from the same lab twelve years later. As far as I know, there's no way to prove whether 2019's coronavirus was engineered in any way.

I want to repeat what I've said in other comments, because what I initially said was inaccurate. These researchers didn't actually create a new coronavirus, but rather a much simpler and safer virus purpose-built to test some receptor-binding structures. This is a well-established way to study viruses safely.

This kind of work is critical if we're to learn how to develop vaccines faster in response to epidemics.

From

> "The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution".[19] Bedford further explained, "The most likely scenario, based on genetic analysis, was that the virus was transmitted by a bat to another mammal between 20–70 years ago. This intermediary animal—not yet identified—passed it on to its first human host in the city of Wuhan in late November or early December 2019" [1]

"20-70 years ago"! [2] Also important: "was transmitted by a bat to another mammal". That could imply it wasn't from bat soup or bats directly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_...

[2] https://archive.is/X3VGB

What I said above isn't entirely accurate. The virus that the researchers created wasn't actually a coronavirus. It was a pseudovirus based on HIV, built to express the functional spike proteins of interest. This was obviously much safer than creating a highly infective coronavirus, which I doubt anyone could have done back then anyway.

Wow. Quite an eerie find. Where did you come across it?

Prof. SHI Zhengli elected a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology [1]. Seems to be a widely respected scientist in this specific field.

[1] http://english.whiov.cas.cn/ne/201903/t20190308_206697.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com