Skip to content
The methodOpen data
Back to the collection

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

Peng Zhou, Xing-Lou Yang, Xian-Guang Wang

Show all 29 authors

Ben Hu, Lei Zhang, Wei Zhang, Hao-Rui Si, Yan Zhu, Bei Li, Chao-Lin Huang, Hui-Dong Chen, Jing Chen, Yun Luo, Hua Guo, Ren-Di Jiang, Mei-Qin Liu, Ying Chen, Xu-Rui Shen, Xi Wang, Xiao-Shuang Zheng, Kai Zhao, Quan-Jiao Chen, Fei Deng, Lin-Lin Liu, Bing Yan, Fa-Xian Zhan, Yan-Yi Wang, Geng-Fu Xiao, Zheng-Li Shi

2020 · Nature

Biology & medicineEconomics
Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
5
Readers
3
Months
4
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Abstract Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) 18 years ago, a large number of SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoVs) have been discovered in their natural reservoir host, bats 1–4 . Previous studies have shown that some bat SARSr-CoVs have the potential to infect humans 5–7 . Here we report the identification and characterization of a new coronavirus (2019-nCoV), which caused an epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome in humans in Wuhan, China. The epidemic, which started on 12 December 2019, had caused 2,794 laboratory-confirmed infections including 80 deaths by 26 January 2020. Full-length genome sequences were obtained from five patients at an early stage of the outbreak. The sequences are almost identical and share 79.6% sequence identity to SARS-CoV. Furthermore, we show that 2019-nCoV is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus. Pairwise protein sequence analysis of seven conserved non-structural proteins domains show that this virus belongs to the species of . In addition, 2019-nCoV virus isolated from the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of a critically ill patient could be neutralized by sera from several patients. Notably, we confirmed that 2019-nCoV uses the same cell entry receptor—angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2)—as SARS-CoV.

Metadata: Crossref. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

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

5 selected excerpts · 5 total mentions

DiogenesKynikos
Neutral mention · rule
Your account name is ratg13, yet you're making wildly incorrect claims about RaTG13. > RATG13 had to be retrieved from the trashbin of history The WIV is the institute that publicized the existence of RaTG13 and highlighted its relation to SARS-CoV-2. They published a very high-profile Nature article on it early on in the pandemic.[0] What's the conspiracy theory here? That the WIV secretly turned RaTG13 into SARS-CoV-2, and then when the pandemic broke out, proceeded to publish a detailed description of RaTG13 and its relation to SARS-CoV-2 in one of the most prominent international scientific journals? 0. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7
Original comment Early ‘lab-grown’ Covid virus found in sample lends weight to Wuhan theory
hajile
Neutral mention · rule
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 We have a substantially (96.2%) similar virus with known killing potential (3 out of 6 miners who caught it). It is discovered in 2013, but isn't added to any databases (despite the deaths making it very notable) until late January of this year. The mine samples came from Yunnan province, but the research was done in Wuhan which is in Hubei province (Those provinces aren't even adjacent) at a lab which just so happens to be rather close to the seafood market where the first cases allegedly happened.
Original comment Unusual Features of SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Lab Modification
Thorrez
Neutral mention · rule
These 5 from 2020 all seem to be peer reviewed. I'm no expert though. > (Zhou et al., 2020; Wrapp et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2020; Walls et al., 2020; Letko et al., 2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2507 https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00127-20 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.19.956581 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y
Original comment The Case Is Building That Covid-19 Had a Lab Origin
hajile
Neutral mention · rule
Yet somehow, it's a very close match (96%) for a bat coronavirus. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 Magically, that virus was allegedly discovered in 2013, but despite their claim that it killed 3 out of 6 infected people, they somehow "forgot" to mention it to anyone anywhere or enter the genome into any public databases. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-re... Even when you move away from politically-funded research, the story still stinks (well, CCP-sponsored research is still political).
Original comment Unusual Features of SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Lab Modification
DiogenesKynikos
Neutral mention · rule
This article is written in a highly conspiratorial tone, but the author does not appear to understand several basic things about coronavirus research. > Evidence seen by The Sunday Times suggests that a virus found in its depths — part of a faecal sample that was frozen and sent to a Chinese laboratory for analysis and storage — is the closest known match to the virus that causes Covid-19. This has been publicly known for months. It was published in biorRxiv in January and appeared in Nature in early February.[1] > The virus was a huge discovery. It was a “new strain” of a Sars-type coronavirus that, surprisingly, received only a passing mention in an academic…
Read the full comment
paper. RaTG13 was one of hundreds of SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in these bat caves. In 2013, it was not considered a major discovery. One reason is that it is only 80% similar to the original SARS. At the time, researchers were much more interested in viruses that were more like 99% similar to SARS. Those viruses were studied much more intensively, and were the subject of numerous papers. > What happened to the virus in the years between its discovery and the eruption of Covid-19? Why was its existence tucked away in obscure records, and its link to three deaths not mentioned? The article never provides any evidence that these people became sick from RaTG13. There are hundreds of known SARS-like coronaviruses, and there are estimated to be thousands of as-of-yet undiscovered ones. The author of this article seems to be under the impression that RaTG13 is the only known SARS-like coronavirus. > These produced a remarkable finding: while none had tested positive for Sars, all four had antibodies against another, unknown Sars-like coronavirus. There was a study published in 2016 that found that 3% of people tested in a region of the countryside in Yunnan province had antibodies against SARS-like coronaviruses.[2] The sorts of spillover events described in this article are probably not uncommon at all. It has always just been a question of when a spillover event would lead to sustained transmission, instead of petering out. The rest of the article goes on to try to suggest that RaTG13 leaked from a lab. RaTG13 is separated from SARS-CoV-2 by decades of evolution. It's the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, but not its ancestor. It's sad that tabloids are going after the people who have spent decades trying to understand these types of viruses, so that we would be prepared for new outbreaks. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178078/
Original comment Seven year coronavirus trail from mine deaths to a Wuhan lab

Keep following the thread.

More in Biology & medicine

More from the same topics.