ArticleBioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology2021
There is still no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (10.1002/bies.202100137).
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.Environmental research · 2022Review
- The origins of COVID-19 pandemic: A brief overview.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2022Review
- There is still no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (10.1002/bies.202100137).BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2's origin should be investigated worldwide for pandemic prevention.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The causative agent of COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 4 million deaths worldwide. Understanding the origin of this coronavirus is important for the prevention of future outbreaks. The dominant point of view that the virus transferred to humans either directly from bats or through an intermediate mammalian host has been challenged by Segreto and Deigin, who claim that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 has certain features suggestive of its artificial creation. Following their response to our commentary, here we continue the discussion of the proposed arguments for this hypothesis. We show that neither the existence of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, nor the presence of specific sequences within the nucleotide insertion encoding that site are evidence for intelligent design. We also explain why existing genetic data, viral diversity and past human history suggest that a natural origin of the virus is the most likely scenario. Genetic evidence suggesting otherwise is yet to be presented.
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.