Correction: In an earlier version of the case the study stated that sequences in the coronavirus spike protein appear to be artificially inserted. This conclusion is contested by Norwegian researchers and is not mentioned in the research article. This claim was based on statements from Sørensen to NRK. The case should have had several relevant sources that assessed Sørensen's statements and research. NRK has now published this in a separate case .
NRK wrote that the study mentioned in this case was published in the acclaimed journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics. The correct thing is that the study was published in QRB Discovery, which is a newly established sister publication.
The original case did not indicate that the study should be published in two research articles, of which only one has so far been published. According to researcher Birger Sørensen, the first research article deals with vaccine development, while the second deals with the origin of the virus.
The article is updated with a comment from John Fredrik Moxnes and subject to the researchers' findings.
In a recent study published in the journal QRB Discovery British professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist
(photo 12 years old)
INSERTS: These are the sequences Sørensen thinks point to that the virus has no natural origin. The sequences were first described by Chinese scientists.PHOTO: FACSIMILE / QRB DISCOVERY QUARTERLY
The research duo also points out that the virus has hardly mutated since it began to infect humans, suggesting that it was already fully adapted to humans. According to Sørensen this is quite unusual for viruses that cross species barriers. According to Sørensen the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS and which have never been detected in nature.
“When we technically describe the virus we see that it has not come about in a natural development. It's done by Americans and Chinese as part of what's called ‘gain of function’ studies. It is done all over the world. You say you don't, but it happens all the time in advanced labs according to Sørensen. China and the United States have for many years collaborated on coronavirus research. In so-called gain of function tests the virus' infectivity is artificially increased to make it easier to use in scientific experiments. Such manipulated viruses are called "chimera" .
In recent days Sørensen's findings have sparked fierce debate in the British press. Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of British Foreign Intel MI6 from 1999 to 2004, tells the Daily Telegraph newspaper that the work of the research duo shows that the pandemic that paralyzes the world may have started in a laboratory: “I think this started as an accident. This raises the question of whether China will assume responsibility and whether China should pay compensation. I think this will make all countries think through their relationship with China and how they relate to China's leadership, Dearlove told the newspaper.
However a Downing Street spokesman responds to Dearlove's assertion that there is currently no evidence that the corona virus is man-made. For months there have been claims that the virus may have leaked from the lab to the Virology Institute in Wuhan, one of China's most advanced virus laboratories. The claims are completely rebuffed by the department's management who claim the lab has never had viruses that are at all similar to SARS-CoV-2.”
China has still not identified the zero patient or the exact location where the outbreak started. The Chinese CDC has conducted surveys of the first infected fish market in Wuhan to indicate that the infection did not occur there.
However, Sørensen believes that Chinese scientists have first discussed the modified sequences in the virus surface. But in recent months he believes China has put a lid on all such studies. “The inserted sequences should never have been published. Had it been today it would never have happened. It was a big mistake the Chinese made. The inserted sequences have a functionality that we describe. We explain why they are essential. But the Chinese pointed to them first,” says Sørensen.
In the study Sørensen thanks Chief Scientist John Fredrik Moxnes at the Defense Research Institute (FFI) for "invaluable help" in the work. Moxnes says he has used his knowledge of computing power to work with Sørensen and his company Immunor in vaccine development. “Modern vaccine development is about computing power and biotechnology, in which it is important that Norway is involved,” Moxnes told NRK.
Sørensen believes the current vaccine candidates will be at high risk of side effects because they target the so-called spike protein of the virus, where 80% of the genetic material is so-called human-like. “78.4% of the epitopes in the spike protein are identical to us as humans. And the consequence of this is that there is a 78.4% probability of having side effects in some form of vaccines that target this protein.” Vaccine trials against viruses such as Dengue fever and HIV have shown significant risk that the vaccines can actually lead to more serious illness, through a process called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
Sørensen is now working on developing his own vaccine candidate called Biovacc-19, which targets the 20% of the virus genetic material that is not shared by humans. However there has been little Norwegian interest in funding a vaccine trial in Norway.
“We do not participate in the big game around being first to finish. What we have created is a vaccine candidate that is fundamentally different from everyone else. Anyway the best vaccines will be funded and gain,” says Sørensen. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=https://www.nrk.no/norge/norsk-forsker-skaper-strid-om-virusets-opphav_-_-dette-viruset-har-ikke-en-naturlig-opprinnelse-1.15043634&prev=search
………………..….
5-25 The following interview with Wang Yanyi, immunologist and director of the institute, is the first in this series.
CGTN: Since the outbreak began, there has been speculation that the novel coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. How do you respond to that?
Wang: This is pure fabrication. Our institute first received the clinical sample of the unknown pneumonia on December 30 last year. After checking the pathogen within the sample, we found it contained a new coronavirus, which is now called SARS-CoV-2. We did not have any knowledge before that, nor had we ever encountered, researched or kept the virus. In fact, like everyone else, we didn't even know the virus existed. How could it have leaked from our lab when we never had it?
CGTN: An article published in the periodical Nature in April 2018 mentioned a novel coronavirus originating from bats. And this coronavirus was in your lab. Is this the virus that caused the pandemic?
Wang: In fact many coronaviruses are called "novel" when first discovered, such as MERS (the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), the one you mentioned and SARS-CoV-2. They were all called novel coronaviruses when they were first discovered, which may cause confusion. Actually the virus mentioned in the 2018 article wasn't SARS-CoV-2. The virus in the article mainly causes diarrhea and death among piglets. It was later named SADS. The genome sequence of SADS is only 50 percent similar to that of SARS-CoV-2. It's a rather big difference.
CGTN: But in February the institute published another article in Nature saying you found another novel coronavirus from bats. The similarity between this virus and the SARS-CoV-2 is up to 96.2 percent, which is relatively high. Could it be the source of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Wang: The bat coronavirus you mentioned which has a 96.2 percent genomic similarity to SARS-CoV-2 is called RaTG-13. From the perspective of many non-professionals, the similarity rate of 96.2 percent is a very high number. But coronavirus is one of the RNA viruses that have the largest genomes.
Take the SARS-CoV-2 for example. Its entire genome contains about 30,000 bases. The difference of 3.8 percent means the difference of over 1,100 nucleotide positions. In the natural world it takes a long period of time for a virus to naturally evolve and mutate to become SARS-CoV-2.
Recently we noticed a statement made by Edward Holmes, a world-leading virologist who studies the evolution of viruses. He believes it would take about 50 years for RaTG-13 to naturally evolve into SARS-CoV-2. The difference of over 1,100 positions is huge. And they should respectively match the corresponding nucleotide positions in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, which means it requires more than 1,100 mutations in these exact positions to become SARS-CoV-2. Thus the probability is very low.
Many people might misunderstand that since our institute reported the RaTG-13 genomic similarity to SARS-CoV-2, we must have the RaTG-13 virus in our lab. In fact that's not the case. When we were sequencing the genes of this bat virus sample, we got the genome sequence of the RaTG-13 but we did not isolate or obtain the live virus of RaTG-13. Thus, there is now no possibility of us leaking RaTG-13.
CGTN: You said the institute didn't have the SARS-CoV-2 or the live virus of RaTG-13. Since the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been researching coronaviruses, don't you have any live viruses? What does your virus collection center have?
Wang: Earlier you talked about some research teams from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One of the teams led by Professor Shi Zhengli began studying bat coronaviruses in 2004. But her research has been focused on source tracing of SARS. In their research what they pay more attention to, do more research on and try to isolate and obtain are bat coronaviruses similar to the one that caused SARS.
We know that the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 is only 80 percent similar to that of the SARS virus. It's an obvious difference. Thus in Professor Shi's past research the team did not pay attention to such viruses which are less similar to the SARS virus. This is why they did not try to isolate and obtain RaTG-13, since its genome is only over 79 percent similar to that of the SARS virus.
After many years of research Professor Shi and her team have isolated and obtained some coronaviruses from bats. Now we have three strains of live viruses. One of them has the highest similarity, 96 percent to the SARS virus. But their highest similarity to SARS-CoV-2 only reaches 79.8 percent.
CGTN: The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been dedicated to studying coronaviruses since the SARS outbreak. You've made a lot of effort to track the viruses. After the COVID-19 outbreak began, which is due to a brand new virus, what have you done to track its origin?
Wang: The current consensus of the international academic community is that the virus originated from wild animals. But we still don't clearly know what kind of viruses that all different wild species carry across the globe and where the viruses that are highly similar to SARS-CoV-2 are. This is why collaboration between scientists all over the world is needed to find the answers. Therefore the issue of origin-tracking is ultimately a question of science, which requires scientists to make judgments based on scientific data and facts.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=no&sp=nmt4&u=https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-23/Exclusive-with-head-of-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-Let-science-speak-QJeOjOZt4Y/index.html&usg=ALkJrhj7z-1w7kFeU82vrc9Arh48fRT2gQ
No comments:
Post a Comment