ArticleBioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology2021
There is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240).
Article in BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- SARS-CoV-2 in brief: from virus to prevention.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2022Article
- There is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240).BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2021Article
- Original Hosts, Clinical Features, Transmission Routes, and Vaccine Development for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the subject of many hypotheses. One of them, proposed by Segreto and Deigin, assumes artificial chimeric construction of SARS-CoV-2 from a backbone of RaTG13-like CoV and receptor binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin MP789-like CoV, followed by serial cell or animal passage. Here we show that this hypothesis relies on incorrect or weak assumptions, and does not agree with the results of comparative genomics analysis. The genetic divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and both its proposed ancestors is too high to have accumulated in a lab, given the timeframe of several years. Furthermore, comparative analysis of S-protein gene sequences suggests that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 probably represents an ancestral non-recombinant variant. These and other arguments significantly weaken the hypothesis of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, while the hypothesis of a natural origin is consistent with all available genetic and experimental data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.