ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2025
A Critical Reexamination of Recovered SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing Data.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2025. 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.
- A Critical Reexamination of Recovered SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing Data.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- The Data are Insufficient to Confidently Root the SARS-CoV-2 Phylogenetic Tree.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.Cell · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
In 2021, Jesse Bloom published a study addressing why the earliest SARS-CoV-2 sequences in Wuhan from late December 2019 were not those most similar to viruses sampled in bats. The study concluded that recovered partial sequences from Wuhan and annotation of Wuhan links for other sequences increased support for one genotype as the progenitor of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, we show that the collection date for the recovered sequences was January 30, 2020, later than that of hundreds of other SARS-CoV-2 sequences. Mutations in these sequences also exhibit diversity consistent with SARS-CoV-2 sequences collected in late January 2020. Furthermore, we found that Wuhan exposure history was common for early samples, so Bloom's annotation for a single familial cluster does not support that an early genotype was undersampled in Wuhan. Both the recovered partial sequences and additional annotation align with contemporaneous data rather than increase support for a progenitor. Our findings clarify the significance of the recovered sequences and are supported by additional data and analysis published since mid-2021.
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.