3 ms·

Those gain-of-function experiments were done at the University of North Carolina. But we know for certain that SARS-CoV-2 was not created through gain-of-funct

Those gain-of-function experiments were done at the University of North Carolina. But we know for certain that SARS-CoV-2 was not created through gain-of-function experiments. It doesn't use any of the standard viral backbones used in such experiments, it has a receptor binding domain that computational chemistry algorithms would not have predicted to work (meaning that nature "invented" it, not scientists), and the virus contains seemingly random differences throughout its genome from all known viruses - that would not be the case for a lab-created virus. The boring answer is the correct one: this virus evolved in nature, and then spilled over into the human population late last year.

yters 6y ago
does gain of function require directly engineering the sequence? i saw one gain of function expeeiment where a cat virus was exposed to mouse material, and underwent zoonosis on its own additionally the sequence can just be manually copied over that paper for some reason ignores plausible alternative approaches to creating viruses in the lab
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Are you suggesting serial passage in the lab? The problem with that theory is that the virus contains thousands of mutations throughout its genome, which would take decades of evolution to accumulate. In the wild, this virus jumps to a new host every few days, meaning that decades of evolution amount to thousands of generations of virus. No lab has the time to pass virus through so many animals.
  - yters 6y ago
    i dont understand why it would have to jump through a bunch of animals first. cant it go from bat to human? fauci was conducting coronavirus gain of function experiments in wuhan in 2019 trying to go from bat to human, so at least some scientists didn't consider the evolutionary distance to be so great UPDATE: newsweek article on fauci https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Fauci was conducting experiments in Wuhan? Where are you getting this from?
      - yters 6y ago
        here is the article about fauci endorsing and funding such research https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...
        DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Good. This is very important reasearch, as the pandemic has shown.
        yters 6y ago
        So I'm still not following. You say it is infeasible for a lab to generate sars2, yet it seems Fauci thinks it is feasible enough to fund an attempt. If I understand your argument, you claim sars2 is too genetically different from the closest public sequences to have been lab engineered. But, what precludes a lab from discovering a virus in the wild that is close to making the jump, and then pushing it the rest of the way? I am not understanding the argument that we have to limit the range of possibility to only the publicly disclosed virus sequences. For example, if you line up the ace2 site between sars2 and sars, they have a lot of similarity. This author claims the section is essentially copied over, although I don't know if it is statistically significant enough to not just be an accident. https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and-logic-behind-the-claim-that-the-wuhan-coronavirus-is-man-made https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and... So, a "lab origin" theorist could say they isolated a virus in the wild, and copied over the ace2 section from sars, and then ran it through human tissue until it gain enough function to spread effectively in the human population. Is that less or more likely than a coronavirus in the wild mutating enough to make such a lethal jump to humans? Is there any way to put a probability on the two theories?
scottlocklin 6y ago
Your statement contradicted itself in several places: a "gain of function" virus would contain random differences, and would look indistinguishable from something "created by nature." Effectively that's how nature makes more virulent viruses; the more virulent examples reproduce more effectively. Just like that's how nature/bakeries makes yeast that works better on flour. No genetic engineering involved. I don't think there is any evidence of this, despite the usual suspects (neocon types on our side, and militarists on the Chinese side) ginning up the case for an "escape from lab" casus belli, but let's get the facts straight.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > a "gain of function" virus would contain random differences, and would look indistinguishable from something "created by nature." No, a chimeric virus created in a gain-of-function experiment would look extremely similar to known viruses, because these chimeras are created by combining elements of known viruses. It would not be 4% different from the closest known natural virus. Accumulating thousands of mutations throughout the entire genome takes decades of evolution. In the wild, that means thousands of generations of hosts. A virus created in a gain-of-function experiment would also use a well-known backbone. It would not be based on some virus that nobody had ever heard of.
  - scottlocklin 6y ago
    Yeah dude that could never happen. Except it already did: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/ https://norkinvirology.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/genetically-modified-emerging-viruses-debate-over-gain-of-function-research/ https://norkinvirology.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/genetically-... https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048 I don't know what your purpose is in regurgitating verifiable but admittedly realistic-sounding bullshit on hacker news, but virtually every statement you have made here is obvious bullshit. I don't even particularly believe the "possibly released from a lab" meme, and am generally against the shadowy dipshits that push it. But you're not helping here.

yters 6y ago

does gain of function require directly engineering the sequence? i saw one gain of function expeeiment where a cat virus was exposed to mouse material, and underwent zoonosis on its own additionally the sequence can just be manually copied over that paper for some reason ignores plausible alternative approaches to creating viruses in the lab

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Are you suggesting serial passage in the lab? The problem with that theory is that the virus contains thousands of mutations throughout its genome, which would take decades of evolution to accumulate. In the wild, this virus jumps to a new host every few days, meaning that decades of evolution amount to thousands of generations of virus. No lab has the time to pass virus through so many animals.
- yters 6y ago
  i dont understand why it would have to jump through a bunch of animals first. cant it go from bat to human? fauci was conducting coronavirus gain of function experiments in wuhan in 2019 trying to go from bat to human, so at least some scientists didn't consider the evolutionary distance to be so great UPDATE: newsweek article on fauci https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Fauci was conducting experiments in Wuhan? Where are you getting this from?
    - yters 6y ago
      here is the article about fauci endorsing and funding such research https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Good. This is very important reasearch, as the pandemic has shown.
        yters 6y ago
        So I'm still not following. You say it is infeasible for a lab to generate sars2, yet it seems Fauci thinks it is feasible enough to fund an attempt. If I understand your argument, you claim sars2 is too genetically different from the closest public sequences to have been lab engineered. But, what precludes a lab from discovering a virus in the wild that is close to making the jump, and then pushing it the rest of the way? I am not understanding the argument that we have to limit the range of possibility to only the publicly disclosed virus sequences. For example, if you line up the ace2 site between sars2 and sars, they have a lot of similarity. This author claims the section is essentially copied over, although I don't know if it is statistically significant enough to not just be an accident. https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and-logic-behind-the-claim-that-the-wuhan-coronavirus-is-man-made https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/blog/scientific-evidence-and... So, a "lab origin" theorist could say they isolated a virus in the wild, and copied over the ace2 section from sars, and then ran it through human tissue until it gain enough function to spread effectively in the human population. Is that less or more likely than a coronavirus in the wild mutating enough to make such a lethal jump to humans? Is there any way to put a probability on the two theories?

scottlocklin 6y ago

Your statement contradicted itself in several places: a "gain of function" virus would contain random differences, and would look indistinguishable from something "created by nature." Effectively that's how nature makes more virulent viruses; the more virulent examples reproduce more effectively. Just like that's how nature/bakeries makes yeast that works better on flour. No genetic engineering involved. I don't think there is any evidence of this, despite the usual suspects (neocon types on our side, and militarists on the Chinese side) ginning up the case for an "escape from lab" casus belli, but let's get the facts straight.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> a "gain of function" virus would contain random differences, and would look indistinguishable from something "created by nature." No, a chimeric virus created in a gain-of-function experiment would look extremely similar to known viruses, because these chimeras are created by combining elements of known viruses. It would not be 4% different from the closest known natural virus. Accumulating thousands of mutations throughout the entire genome takes decades of evolution. In the wild, that means thousands of generations of hosts. A virus created in a gain-of-function experiment would also use a well-known backbone. It would not be based on some virus that nobody had ever heard of.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  Yeah dude that could never happen. Except it already did: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/ https://norkinvirology.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/genetically-modified-emerging-viruses-debate-over-gain-of-function-research/ https://norkinvirology.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/genetically-... https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048 I don't know what your purpose is in regurgitating verifiable but admittedly realistic-sounding bullshit on hacker news, but virtually every statement you have made here is obvious bullshit. I don't even particularly believe the "possibly released from a lab" meme, and am generally against the shadowy dipshits that push it. But you're not helping here.