4 ms·

To summarize, this paper's argument is that SARS-COV-2 can't be lab grown because: 1. It uses a different method of binding to ACE 2 than has previously been fo

To summarize, this paper's argument is that SARS-COV-2 can't be lab grown because: 1. It uses a different method of binding to ACE 2 than has previously been found to be most efficient 2. It has several mutations that are of unknown consequence 3. It doesn't have any retrovirus (tool for manipulating virus) backbone The paper then concludes that SARS-COV-2 must be a result of natural selection. While I think this is possible, they ignore the possibility that the virus is a result of artificial selection. If a laboratory were studying how SARS-COV-2 could pass to humans, they might serially pass the virus between mammals (like pangolins) in order to artificially select for mutations. That is, in fact, exactly what previous scientists did in a 2012 experiment with bird flu. They wanted to make it transmissible between mammals, so they serially passed genetically modified bird flu between ferrets until it was. I wrote this up on my blog:https://get21stnight.com/2020/04/14/why-do-some-viruses-cross-over-from-animals/ https://get21stnight.com/2020/04/14/why-do-some-viruses-cros... . The result of this is that bird flu acquired previously unknown mutations in order to pass between mammals. I'm not saying this is what happened, and there are some key differences (i.e. in the bird flu experiment, scientists had to start off with a genetically modified virus). Still, I disagree that we can definitively conclude this was a result of natural selection.

jostmey 6y ago
Yes, this virus definitely could be the result of artificial selection, negating the whole argument of this nature medicine paper. That said, I agree that the virus likely emerged as a natural phenomena. Both SARS and MERS emerged as natural phenomena, so there's no reason to believe that SARS-Cov-2 is unnatural.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  I don't think they negate it. They state that it is unlikely, and then they note that the debate is not settled: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses."
- ha4fsd3fas 6y ago
  Isn't it unlikely that a naturally emerged virus would have both high virality and mortality rate? I have read that viruses usually have one or the other, which would indicate that both is more rare. Combining the rare odd with the odds that the host happens to infect a human would make it even less likely to happen. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I could be mistaken. I don't think it's very interesting if it was a naturally or artificially selected virus. The more interesting question is was the infected specimen a research subject or not.
  - soperj 6y ago
    Like Spanish Flu? Smallpox? Tuberculosis? SARS was both as well, we just caught it early.
- api 6y ago
  You can't prove it was not engineered or bred/selected (an ancient method of genetic engineering!). But... the burden of proof is on anyone asserting that it was intentionally created to provide evidence. So far I have only seen innuendo and the weakest sort of circumstantial evidence, but if someone can produce something stronger I'd be willing to consider it.
  - downerending 6y ago
    Perhaps, though in this case I'd put that burden as relatively weak. That is, we know that in principle it could have been made, even if we don't (publicly) know how that would have been done in 2019. An additional important point is that there's a middle scenario where a natural virus being studies could have been accidentally mutated and accidentally released. This might be all but impossible to distinguish between origin in the wild. I'd guess intentional manufacture as very unlikely, but sloppy lab practices as not likely but much more likely than that.
  - dwd 6y ago
    There was a spike in non-influenza related pneumonia cases prior to the outbreak, particularly in Australia where it's not flu season. My wife caught it in early March and developed mild bacterial pneumonia but tested negative for flu and Covid-19. Part of the argument for natural evolution is that there are mutations that most likely occured in a human host as they indicated adaption to an immune response. My personal theory is that an individual infected with this unknown virus that was going around came into contact with the bat originated coronavirus in Wuhan (which may or may not have originated in the lab). RNA was exchanged and a novel variation emerged that was now both highly contagious and deadly. But I am not an epidemiologist.
vezycash 6y ago
If I were a scientist trying to create a deadly virus, China with thousands of volunteers in reeducation camps, would be paradise.
burlesona 6y ago
Can you help me understand why scientists would intentionally take a virus that can’t transmit in humans and go to lengths to make it transmissible in humans? Just at a gut level that seems reckless and irresponsible to me, but people talk about it like it’s normal and no big deal... so, help me understand? Also, if it was somehow proven that the virus did come from a Chinese lab, what does that mean? Will the world hold China liable for this mess? That seems unlikely to me, rather I assume it would come down to “big stick diplomacy” and China carries a pretty big stick. But is there any precedent for a disease being leaked from a lab and the lab being held responsible for the consequences?
- jolmg 6y ago
  > if it was somehow proven that the virus did come from a Chinese lab? Will the world hold China liable for this mess? Why necessarily Chinese? There are people that like to hypothesize that perhaps this was a misjudged attempt at biowarfare against China.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jakeogh 6y ago
  Powerful people can be very religious. https://wearethene.ws/notable/95575 https://wearethene.ws/notable/95575
  - dang 6y ago
    Can you please stop posting flamebait to HN?
    - jakeogh 6y ago
      Historically, what I illuded to is almost a law of nature. I could have elaborated, but is it really necessary? People dont need stuff spelled out, and pointing that out didnt start a flame. That's the founder of CNN... his opinions effect people; it shouldn't be off limits to discuss. Parent ultimately was asking about the def of irresponsible is, and might not have considered that other people have other definitions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17781131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17781131
beaunative 6y ago
The problem with artificial selections on virus like SARS-COV-2 is that human do selection much less efficient than our mother nature. Virus that is already spreading in the nature is of far larger quantity than any lab or labs could ever possible achieve. That is, if a natural mutation is going to happen in the lab, it could almsot always be said it has already happened in the nature. On the other hand, unless they are experimenting with humans, current technology simply doesn't allow us to produce a virus that is not fatal to many other animals but human. It is not really a viable theory, unless the ground is that the Chinese biologist are way ahead of us in understanding the DNA, which is quite frankly extremely unlikely as a tiny bit of that would be a nature-worthy paper.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
timr 6y ago
They address this -- there's a discussion of the likelihood of laboratory evolution, and their conclusion is that it's unlikely because the progenitor virus has never been described, and the selection system has never been described. I don't think this is the strongest argument they could have made. To me, the strongest counterargument is that the large insertion (4 amino acids; 12 nucleotides) is statistically unlikely. Even highly efficient laboratory selection systems don't produce those kinds of mutations very often. Maybe you could do it by passing the virus between pangolins or bats over and over again, but that would be an immense amount of work. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No. The parsimonious answer is that it's been circulating in nature.

jostmey 6y ago

Yes, this virus definitely could be the result of artificial selection, negating the whole argument of this nature medicine paper. That said, I agree that the virus likely emerged as a natural phenomena. Both SARS and MERS emerged as natural phenomena, so there's no reason to believe that SARS-Cov-2 is unnatural.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
I don't think they negate it. They state that it is unlikely, and then they note that the debate is not settled: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses."
ha4fsd3fas 6y ago
Isn't it unlikely that a naturally emerged virus would have both high virality and mortality rate? I have read that viruses usually have one or the other, which would indicate that both is more rare. Combining the rare odd with the odds that the host happens to infect a human would make it even less likely to happen. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I could be mistaken. I don't think it's very interesting if it was a naturally or artificially selected virus. The more interesting question is was the infected specimen a research subject or not.
- soperj 6y ago
  Like Spanish Flu? Smallpox? Tuberculosis? SARS was both as well, we just caught it early.
api 6y ago
You can't prove it was not engineered or bred/selected (an ancient method of genetic engineering!). But... the burden of proof is on anyone asserting that it was intentionally created to provide evidence. So far I have only seen innuendo and the weakest sort of circumstantial evidence, but if someone can produce something stronger I'd be willing to consider it.
- downerending 6y ago
  Perhaps, though in this case I'd put that burden as relatively weak. That is, we know that in principle it could have been made, even if we don't (publicly) know how that would have been done in 2019. An additional important point is that there's a middle scenario where a natural virus being studies could have been accidentally mutated and accidentally released. This might be all but impossible to distinguish between origin in the wild. I'd guess intentional manufacture as very unlikely, but sloppy lab practices as not likely but much more likely than that.
- dwd 6y ago
  There was a spike in non-influenza related pneumonia cases prior to the outbreak, particularly in Australia where it's not flu season. My wife caught it in early March and developed mild bacterial pneumonia but tested negative for flu and Covid-19. Part of the argument for natural evolution is that there are mutations that most likely occured in a human host as they indicated adaption to an immune response. My personal theory is that an individual infected with this unknown virus that was going around came into contact with the bat originated coronavirus in Wuhan (which may or may not have originated in the lab). RNA was exchanged and a novel variation emerged that was now both highly contagious and deadly. But I am not an epidemiologist.

vezycash 6y ago

If I were a scientist trying to create a deadly virus, China with thousands of volunteers in reeducation camps, would be paradise.

burlesona 6y ago

Can you help me understand why scientists would intentionally take a virus that can’t transmit in humans and go to lengths to make it transmissible in humans? Just at a gut level that seems reckless and irresponsible to me, but people talk about it like it’s normal and no big deal... so, help me understand? Also, if it was somehow proven that the virus did come from a Chinese lab, what does that mean? Will the world hold China liable for this mess? That seems unlikely to me, rather I assume it would come down to “big stick diplomacy” and China carries a pretty big stick. But is there any precedent for a disease being leaked from a lab and the lab being held responsible for the consequences?

jolmg 6y ago
> if it was somehow proven that the virus did come from a Chinese lab? Will the world hold China liable for this mess? Why necessarily Chinese? There are people that like to hypothesize that perhaps this was a misjudged attempt at biowarfare against China.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jakeogh 6y ago
Powerful people can be very religious. https://wearethene.ws/notable/95575 https://wearethene.ws/notable/95575
- dang 6y ago
  Can you please stop posting flamebait to HN?
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    Historically, what I illuded to is almost a law of nature. I could have elaborated, but is it really necessary? People dont need stuff spelled out, and pointing that out didnt start a flame. That's the founder of CNN... his opinions effect people; it shouldn't be off limits to discuss. Parent ultimately was asking about the def of irresponsible is, and might not have considered that other people have other definitions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17781131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17781131

beaunative 6y ago

The problem with artificial selections on virus like SARS-COV-2 is that human do selection much less efficient than our mother nature. Virus that is already spreading in the nature is of far larger quantity than any lab or labs could ever possible achieve. That is, if a natural mutation is going to happen in the lab, it could almsot always be said it has already happened in the nature. On the other hand, unless they are experimenting with humans, current technology simply doesn't allow us to produce a virus that is not fatal to many other animals but human. It is not really a viable theory, unless the ground is that the Chinese biologist are way ahead of us in understanding the DNA, which is quite frankly extremely unlikely as a tiny bit of that would be a nature-worthy paper.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

timr 6y ago

They address this -- there's a discussion of the likelihood of laboratory evolution, and their conclusion is that it's unlikely because the progenitor virus has never been described, and the selection system has never been described. I don't think this is the strongest argument they could have made. To me, the strongest counterargument is that the large insertion (4 amino acids; 12 nucleotides) is statistically unlikely. Even highly efficient laboratory selection systems don't produce those kinds of mutations very often. Maybe you could do it by passing the virus between pangolins or bats over and over again, but that would be an immense amount of work. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? No. The parsimonious answer is that it's been circulating in nature.