Lab crafts mutant Covid-19 strain with 100% kill streak in humanized mice | Hacker News Reader

Lab crafts mutant Covid-19 strain with 100% kill streak in humanized mice

nypost.com

22 pointshammock21 comments

The headline "crafts" seems a bit misleading? Also "Covid-19 strain" is also kind of misleading?

The lab did not take SARS-COV-2 and breed/select for lethality.

The lab looked at a virus that is related to SARS-COV-2 that was isolated back in 2017. The virus is called GX_P2V - while it's not SARS-COV-2, it is highly related. GX_P2V does not cause illness in humans. The lab claims that after some fairly typical lab actions (ie, not directed evolution or specific gain of function research), GX_P2V picked up some mutations (they call this strain GX_P2V(short_3UTR)). This strain initially showed low pathogenity in hamster models, but was later (in this study) shown to be 100% lethal to humanized mouse models (n=4).

If you believe the paper at face value, this was not gain of function research - there was no "crafting". Just a "weird lab thing happened", and then follow up experiments. The "typical lab action" here is just... growing the virus in media. They claimed that after a few passes through the grow/harvest/concentrate cycle ("passages"), that the short_3UTR variant was present.

Can we ban any link to the New York Post, please? For every "article" they "write", there are better sources to link to. Every single time.

To be sure, this kind of research, whether ‘craft’ or ‘natural’ is the correct word, is simply too risky to continue. The juice is not worth the squeeze.

By "this kind of research" you mean growing and studying coronaviruses in general?

Study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008v1

Perhaps the people behind this are secretly anti gain of function research, and are doing this in hopes of sparking a movement to limit or ban GOF? That's what I'll tell myself, at least.

Words words words... HUMANIZED MICE ... words and talking as if the world is a logical and sane place

Can you please explain more?

Why the fuck would anyone do this?

So they can try to be prepared for when such a mutation does arise in the wild? I agree it's incredibly risky, but...?

What does this gain them over hypothesizing that it can happen and working accordingly? Researchers always make this kind of claim but it’s bullshit. When we’re interested in making earthquake resistant structure we use shake tables, not full on earthquakes. When we want to make more fire resistant buildings we don’t go about making better fires. When we want to understand the harms of child sexual abuse we E: dom't go around raping children.

Everyone involved in this should be permanently barred from entering laboratories or working in the broader field at all. They can go become artesian lumberjacks or subsistence farmers.

> When we want to understand the harms of child sexual abuse we do go around raping children.

That's one way to go about it, I suppose.

Thank you.

That's an incredibly stupid analogy.

We don't allow people to make automatic weapons. We don't even allow people to buy automatic weapons manufactured under government license after something like 1980. We don't allow people to build nuclear weapons. You're not allowed to broadcast radio waves willy nilly. Fact is we restrict things people are allowed to do all over the place in many different areas of life for the purpose of public safety. Yet we have researchers doing GOF research creating lethal germs that can spread through the air and kill the majority of people exposed with simply institutional review board at most.

From a layman's perspective, the GOF research that may or may not have caused covid in the first place, never actually yeiled anything useful for the pandemic. I'm pretty pro research, but I haven't seen anything good come from GOF.

Cause it will likely happen in nature as well.

What selective pressure exists in nature to result in a virus like this naturally evolving?

Do terrorist cells count?

Selective evolutionary pressure is the mechanism. Mutants like this would be benign in a host (bats) and lethal in another species.

Viruses do not want to be 100% lethal or have rapid action. That is bad for their spread and longevity. If a virus always kills its host and does it quickly, how does the virus spread? A virus does better when it can incubate awhile, hopefully asymptomatically, while its host goes about normal business, while the viral load increases and the contagion can spread in the open.

By the time that symptoms are noticeable and debilitating, it's game over, because the host is going to notice, and curtail his activity, thus curtailing spread of the virus and limiting its longevity.

People were so afraid of Ebola, but its lethality was a key factor in limiting its spread and keeping it rather contained, geographically speaking. The main fear about COVID-19 was asymptomatic infection and the resultant spread from people who had no idea they were carriers, and that's why socal distancing and face mask mandates were so important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com