Skip to content
Back to the collection

Isolation of SARS-CoV-2-related coronavirus from Malayan pangolins

Kangpeng Xiao, Junqiong Zhai, Yaoyu Feng

Show all 25 authors

Niu Zhou, Xu Zhang, Jie-Jian Zou, Na Li, Yaqiong Guo, Xiaobing Li, Xuejuan Shen, Zhipeng Zhang, Fanfan Shu, Wanyi Huang, Yu Li, Ziding Zhang, Rui-Ai Chen, Ya-Jiang Wu, Shi-Ming Peng, Mian Huang, Wei-Jun Xie, Qin-Hui Cai, Fang-Hui Hou, Wu Chen, Lihua Xiao, Yongyi Shen

2020 · Nature

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
7
Readers
3
Months
7
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

7 selected excerpts · 7 total mentions

tripletao
Neutral mention · rule
The WIV had the largest program in the world to sample novel sarbecoviruses from nature. At the beginning of the pandemic, the published virus closest to SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13) was from the WIV. Closer viruses (BANAL) have since been published, by a different group but from areas where the WIV was also recently sampling. There's no serious question that the WIV has unpublished viruses--even with no attempt at secrecy, every active research group has unpublished work. Researchers found an unpublished merbecovirus in contamination from shared equipment. This isn't related to SARS-CoV-2, but shows the claim that the WIV had zero unpublished viruses to be specifically false.…
Read the full comment
Public access to the WIV's database of viral genomes was removed early in the pandemic, and never restored. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.12.528210v2 Pangolins were initially proposed as the proximal host, but that's been abandoned for years. After a long delay, the paper in Nature was extensively corrected, following Alina Chan's discovery that the alleged multiple samples were all from a single batch of smuggled pangolins. These were probably infected during trafficking, in the same way that housecats are sometimes infected by SARS-CoV-2 but aren't the source. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v2 The goal of research like DEFUSE was gain of function, a deadlier or faster-spreading virus. That goal wasn't always successfully achieved, but that's true for all goals. The point is that skilled researchers specifically trying to achieve a goal (like by directed evolution during serial passage, or by genetic engineering) are much more likely to do so than would random point mutations alone. None of this means it's certain that SARS-CoV-2 arose from an accident at the WIV. The picture that you've received isn't accurate, though.
gus_massa
Neutral mention · rule
One of the links goes (after a few steps) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x that now has a warning: > 11 November 2020 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the identity of the pangolin samples reported in this paper and their relationship to previously published pangolin samples. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.
tripletao
Neutral mention · rule
> It took something like 15 years to find the bat population likely to have been the source of SARS-CoV-1. This is true but misleading. It took a long time to find the reservoir host (i.e., the animal in which most of the virus evolved) for SARS-1, but the proximal host (i.e., the animal that actually infected the first humans) was found within about a year. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/01/who-sees... Based on the WIV's pre-pandemic research, we knew immediately that the reservoir host of SARS-CoV-2 is bats. We still haven't found the proximal host. It's almost certainly not pangolins, and Nature eventually published an extensive correction to their pangolin paper. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x#change-his...
tripletao
Neutral mention · rule
Pangolins were proposed very early in the pandemic, but have been pretty much abandoned. It eventually came to light that all the pangolin papers were based on the same one batch of smuggled pangolins. This makes it more likely that those pangolins were infected by a smuggler (in the same way that housecats or mink have been infected by people), and not the other way around: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v2 Nature eventually published an extensive correction to their pangolin paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x#change-his... Lately I've seen proposals that raccoon dogs were the intermediate host, or that bats directly…
Read the full comment
infected humans. All of these are speculative, since no infected animal (except animals probably infected by humans) has been found. The absence of infected animals isn't proof of unnatural origin, but it's different from SARS-1 and MERS, despite a much greater effort to search.
tripletao
Neutral mention · rule
Pangolins were an early suspect, but Alina Chan discovered that the multiple pangolin papers were all from the same batch of smuggled pangolins. This makes it much more likely that the pangolins were infected by something else, in the same way that housecats get infected by their human owners. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1.... Because of this, Nature has placed an editor's note on their pangolin paper: > 11 November 2020 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the identity of the pangolin samples reported in this paper and their relationship to previously published pangolin samples. Appropriate editorial action…
Read the full comment
will be taken once this matter is resolved. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x No one is seriously proposing pangolins anymore, not even Daszak and the Chinese. The proximal host for MERS (camels) was identified in a little over a year, and for the original SARS (palm civets) in a little less. For SARS-CoV-2, despite the much greater effort, we're still waiting.
tripletao
Neutral mention · rule
They haven't found the virus in bats. The closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 found in the wild was a different virus found in bats, RaTG13. As you wrote above yourself, there's no known animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. Laboratory attempts to infect bat cells (e.g. [1]; but there have been many others) with SARS-CoV-2 have been unsuccessful. This was the significance of the pangolins, which were initially proposed to be the proximal animal host. But while it initially seemed that multiple infected pangolins from different sources had been found, it later turned out multiple seemingly independent papers had been written based on the same pangolins[2]. This means it's much…
Read the full comment
more likely that something else infected those pangolins, in the same way e.g. that some housecats have been infected by their owners. Nature has added an editor's note[3] to one of the pangolin papers, and even Daszak and the Chinese have pretty much abandoned the pangolins. So for now, there's no known animal host for SARS-CoV-2, unlike for the original SARS-CoV (palm civets) or MERS-CoV-2 (camels). Perhaps the animal reservoir just hasn't been found yet; but it's also possible that animal reservoir doesn't exist, because SARS-CoV-2 originated from serial passaging in a WIV lab. That's just natural evolution under unusually fast selective pressure, so any arguments that SARS-CoV-2 shows no evidence of genetic engineering are inapplicable to that theory. 1. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/12/20-2308_article 2. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v2 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.