3 ms·
Could anybody explain why the virus was previously considered, at least by some, a mosaic type [in an evident way], while this paper (and the research it's base
by pizza234 5y ago
Could anybody explain why the virus was previously considered, at least by some, a mosaic type [in an evident way], while this paper (and the research it's based on) considers it likely to be chimeric?
- lamontcg 5y agoBecause that's a word that leads one towards assuming it was a lab leak. RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 are different all over their genome. They differ considerably in their spike protein because RaTG13 doesn't bind to ACE2 while SARS-CoV-2 and the pangolin coronavirus they reference do bind to ACE2 so they're more similar there. Evolutionary pressures are sufficient to explain the differences, you don't need human gene splicing. And the differences across the genome are decades different. The word "chimera" is being thrown out there to manipulate you into believing their conclusions, they don't really support it at all.