3 ms·

important information: the genetic code is redundant, there are more than one codons corresponding to an amino acid. keep in mind a codon is three "letters" ht

by rolph 5y ago

important information: the genetic code is redundant, there are more than one codons corresponding to an amino acid. keep in mind a codon is three "letters" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeneticCode21-version-2.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeneticCode21-version-2.s... [start at centre find first letter move to ring 2 find second move to ring 3 find third, find amino acid coded] notice that there is more than one codon corresponding to most amino acids, and some codons are control words. also you needto look at 2 things, regarding Fig1b there is comparison between two different coronavirus CoV-ZXC21 [upper sequence] vs. the 2019-nCoV [lowersequence] the regions are different 651-661 in the first case, and the region 676-690 in the second case[2019CoV] these are different coronavirus so this is expected however they both correspond to a domain of the Spike protien [S] what is being demonstrated is that there is a region in the 2019-CoV spike protien that is "novel" ; 2019-CoV predecessors dont have this sequence. this sequence is a cleavage recognition site. this in basic terms "arms" the coronavirus to fuse with a cell when cloven at the sequence by "furin" this means the 2019-CoV is more likely to initiate fusion functions inside of a host rather than elsewhere, thus more viral copies would be capable of actually causing infection before being disrupted by the surroundings. the basis of many gain of function research gone wrong concerns is the presence of this cleavage recognition sequence. The Double codon insertion is being used to bolster the idea that this is engineered, the major fault in the premise is that there is no natural way for such insertion to occur. look at TABLE1 below Fig1 and you will see that other coronavirus as well as conspecific virus have such a cleavage site thus a natural origin for the sequence is not impossible. i have mentioned recombination, and transversion as completely plausible natural phenomenon that have been recognized for some time, thus the statement that there is no natural way for this [insertion] to occur is fallacious.

gus_massa 5y ago
Can I ask for a favor? Can you look at this old withdraw preprint of 2020? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.... (HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204866 ) Rebuttal?: https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-2019-ncov-genome-doesnt-actually-seem-engineered-from-hiv/ https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-2019-ncov-genome-doesnt-... (Tiny HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22211992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22211992 ) My question is about Figure 2, where they show the insertions of Covid-19 compare with other variants. Why do they have more coincidences than in the figure 1 of the OP? I don't think that the old article is correct. I'm just curios because I see the tables in the old preprint and the sequences look similar, but in the new paper they don't look similar at all.
- rolph 5y ago
  the old [withdrawn] paper apparantly was withdrawn, due to manipulation of data. there is the issue of sequence similarity, not only to some domains of an HIV protien, but also similarity to a number of other entities. it was this paper that drove the misinfo regarding 2019-CoV being chimeric with HIV [UNTRUE] one must take convergent selection into account. this means many unrelated organisms evolve the same solution to a problem because it is the only solution to the problem that doesnt produce disadvantage. i took a look at Steven Quays back story , and it is not to his credit regarding any declaration about the origin of 2019-CoV. his research consists of a bayesian analysis of sequence data, no wet work is produced. the paper in question here: https://zenodo.org/record/4642956 https://zenodo.org/record/4642956 is not published in an accredited journal, despite modifications. this smells like duck seems to walk like a duck, i have yet to recieve any corresponence so i dont know if it sounds like a duck, but im hunching it would. there is more to this, but i think the direction this is going should be implict by now.

by rolph 5y ago

gus_massa 5y ago

Can I ask for a favor? Can you look at this old withdraw preprint of 2020? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.... (HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22204866 ) Rebuttal?: https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-2019-ncov-genome-doesnt-actually-seem-engineered-from-hiv/ https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-2019-ncov-genome-doesnt-... (Tiny HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22211992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22211992 ) My question is about Figure 2, where they show the insertions of Covid-19 compare with other variants. Why do they have more coincidences than in the figure 1 of the OP? I don't think that the old article is correct. I'm just curios because I see the tables in the old preprint and the sequences look similar, but in the new paper they don't look similar at all.

rolph 5y ago
the old [withdrawn] paper apparantly was withdrawn, due to manipulation of data. there is the issue of sequence similarity, not only to some domains of an HIV protien, but also similarity to a number of other entities. it was this paper that drove the misinfo regarding 2019-CoV being chimeric with HIV [UNTRUE] one must take convergent selection into account. this means many unrelated organisms evolve the same solution to a problem because it is the only solution to the problem that doesnt produce disadvantage. i took a look at Steven Quays back story , and it is not to his credit regarding any declaration about the origin of 2019-CoV. his research consists of a bayesian analysis of sequence data, no wet work is produced. the paper in question here: https://zenodo.org/record/4642956 https://zenodo.org/record/4642956 is not published in an accredited journal, despite modifications. this smells like duck seems to walk like a duck, i have yet to recieve any corresponence so i dont know if it sounds like a duck, but im hunching it would. there is more to this, but i think the direction this is going should be implict by now.