Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35303887›Full record

ReviewBMC medical genomics2022

SARS-CoV-2: tracing the origin, tracking the evolution.

Konstantinos Voskarides

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Konstantinos VoskaridesDepartment of Basic and Clinical Sciences, University of Nicosia Medical School, Nicosia, Cyprus. voskarides.c@unic.ac.cy.ORCID 0000-0002-3705-3451

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain. Findings support a "bat origin" but results are not highly convincing. Studies found evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was around for many years before the pandemic outbreak. Evidence has been published that the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 already had the capability to bind strongly to the human ACE2 receptor. This may be an indication that many other animal viruses are capable to jump to humans, having already affinity for a human receptor. This is quite worrying since current ecosystems' collapse brings people to high proximity with animals, increasing probabilities for random viral transitions. On the other hand, future adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 is of great concern. Virus-host interactions are complicated and unfortunately, we still do not have accurate tools for predicting viruses' future evolution. Viral adaptation is a multifactorial process and probably SARS-CoV-2 will not become soon, as we wish, a harmless infection. However, humanity is currently under the largest vaccination program and it's of great interest to see if vaccinations will change the evolutionary game against the virus.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AnimalsEcosystemHumansPandemicsSpike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2COVID-19FitnessGeneInfectionMolecular evolutionMRCAMutation

Identifiers

PMID35303887
PMCPMC8931788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.