Politics, prejudice, conspiracy, and media bias reduce the ability to intelligently analyze the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. on the one hand, Anti-Asian prejudice Inflamed at this moment in history by people like our former president, Donald Trump — he, along with his right-wing samurai, had the virus from Chinese laboratories (such as the Wuhan Institute of Virginology). They are in the same area where the outbreak began to test their worldview, which they previously claimed without evidence of their emergence.Meanwhile, good intellectuals Thank you for the work of Chinese scientists By fighting this disease.
Still, other well-meaning scientists are beginning to wonder if there are any benefits to what has become known as the “Laborique” hypothesis.In particular, this theory is based on the new coronavirus. Created In the lab.Also, the Labo Leak hypothesis is that a new coronavirus on purpose Leaked; it’s also a pointless premise with no evidence.
Rather, proponents of the laboratory leak hypothesis, including many scientists, say the virus is likely to have been found in the wild inhabiting animals (probably bats). I was taken to the lab for research. Then, perhaps when scientists became infected, they unintentionally invaded the population.
A March article With MIT Technology Review May piece Both of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists provided a compelling argument that at least the possibility that the virus had escaped from the laboratory should be seriously considered.Recently President Joe Biden Announcement A 90-day review of the cause of the pandemic has been strengthened, as the Chinese government has blocked the World Health Organization from investigating the issue. The issue of identifying the origin of the pandemic is becoming increasingly isolated from Trump’s political brand.
To better understand this issue, Salon spoke with Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology, and pediatrics at the University of Iowa. He has been studying coronavirus for 39 years. As always, the following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and context.
About the Lab Leak hypothesis Breaking news article??
Labrique’s hypothesis changed during this pandemic. Originally, it started as “virus manipulated” or was taken from any source and then manipulated. Currently, the virus is actually present in the laboratory and is changing to increase the possibility of leakage.
There are several parts to that idea. One is that what was in the laboratory was a naturally occurring virus. It is not debated if anything was done in the laboratory. I still think I couldn’t manipulate anything in the lab to make it more toxic because they don’t know how to do it.In my opinion, it is a laboratory accident, not a source of zoonotic diseases. [meaning originating in an animal before crossing over to humans] — The two ideas are getting closer and closer.
Why do you think the idea of a laboratory accident has become more credible?
Partly because there were many problems finding these intermediate animals. [harboring coronaviruses].. We know people found them: [similar] The virus was found in a cave, and some infected people became ill. The virus was similar to SARS-CoV-2 (96% similar), the virus mutated at a constant rate per year, and the virus was 1000 nucleotides different from SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, it is not a direct precursor of SARS-CoV-2. If it is brought into the lab, somehow cloned and then manipulated, it will not become SARS-CoV-2. That is impossible.
So I think I changed my mind — it was very difficult to find these intermediate animals and viruses close to SARS-CoV-2.
Bulletin’s article points out the same. “Both SARS1 and MERS viruses left a large amount of traces in the environment. Intermediate host species for SARS1 were identified within 4 months of the outbreak and MERS hosts were identified within 9 months. Approximately 15 months after SARS2 the epidemic began, and perhaps after intensive research, Chinese researchers found the original bat population, an intermediate species that SARS2 might have jumped to, or a Chinese population that includes Wuhan. I couldn’t find any serologic evidence that I had ever been exposed to the virus before December 2019. ”Is that what you are referring to?
I think it’s accurate. Therefore, in SARS, there is no original virus yet. We know intermediate animals. We know it is a bad virus. No exact precursor has been found, but it is fairly close. MERS was really different because MERS is a camel virus. As a result, people were always around the camel and did not require much detection work to confirm that the camel was infected with the virus. As a result, people were infected from camels.
There is a section from an article that I really want your thoughts on. The author points this out as perhaps the most important sign of potential laboratory operation, so I’ll read it completely to you.
He writes about peaplomers that are external to the virus and basically explains how these two subunits, called S1 and S2, are present in the virus. To separate the S1 and S2 subunits, the virus must have a “cutting” site for this furin (furin is a human protein). This causes the virus to take over and generate a new virus.
As he writes:
“Peplomer has two subunits with different roles. The first is a protein called S1 and the virus’s target, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which covers the surface of cells that cover the human airway. Second, S2 helps the virus anchored in the cell fuse with the cell’s membrane. After the virus’s outer membrane merges with the attacked cell’s outer membrane, the virus’s genome It is injected into the cell and hijacks its protein-producing mechanism and forces, but this invasion cannot begin until the S1 and S2 subunits are detached, and just above the S1 / S2 junction, peplomers There is a furin cutting site that ensures accurate and correct cutting. Location. ”
The author further states that “of all known SARS-related betacoronaviruses, only SARS2 has a furin cleavage site.”
Do you agree with the analysis? If so, do you think it indicates a possible laboratory origin?
Some points about it. So, first of all, I’ve been using a virus called mouse coronavirus, mouse hepatitis virus for years. Some of these strains have furin cleavage sites, but others do not. Therefore, the virus works fine without the furin cleavage site. Second, this article points out that most of these CoV viruses, such as SARS, do not have furin cleavage sites and grow normally. The second point is that if you take a virus that has a wind chime cutting site and remove it, the virus is often attenuated. The virus does not grow well in humans, does not cause so many diseases, and does not spread well. .. However, if you take a furin cleavage site and introduce it into a virus that you never had, it may not always be useful. It’s really often a mixed result. The furin cut site is not an isolated site and may do nothing. It interacts with other parts of the S protein.
Therefore, putting it in a surface glycoprotein does not necessarily improve the way the virus invades cells. So that’s the second point about that argument. The third point is that it seems very random whether these viruses have furin cleavage sites. I don’t know why SARS-CoV-2 is the only one that seems to have it so far. You won’t be surprised to find someone else. As I said, even if this is the only one, it doesn’t surprise me. Why some viruses have them, why some don’t, it’s really a research question, but I don’t know the answer to it. Sure, those who have it aren’t as toxic as those who don’t.
To make sure I understand you correctly. You say that it is certainly unusual for a coronavirus to cleave it, but it does not in itself prove that it came from the laboratory.
exactly. It’s a better way to put it than all the words I’ve used.
I would like to ask a related question.If this leaked out of the lab, it could have originated from it because it was used in Acquisition of functions Studies in which the virus is transmitted repeatedly (usually between animals) in order to propagate the virus and make it more virulent. Do you think it is safe to acquire functional research? Do you think it will work?
I disagree with the first part of your sentence. If it occurs in the lab, it is one of those bad viruses that have been studied and could happen to be a virus that can infect people directly. There is nothing else to acquire or operate. I wouldn’t say if it could infect humans directly and efficiently.
Now there are these stories about canine coronavirus in Malaysia. Canine coronavirusJumps directly from the animal to the person and causes pneumonia in the child. Maybe these viruses can cross without direct adaptation. What I said before this is that viruses don’t infect people very often.The· MERS Viruses are a good example. The virus causes illness. It’s a bad illness, but it doesn’t spread from person to person. It doesn’t really spread unless you are in the hospital. You don’t have to acquire features here to do what we’re talking about.
My next question is about your colleagues, public health professionals, virologists, and other people who are epidemiologists. Based on your case studies, what do you think they are saying about the Labreak hypothesis and the natural explanatory hypothesis?
What people are saying is that, first of all, the set of two ideas is converging because most people believe that it is a natural virus and that it has reached Wuhan. I think. I think we all agree with that, but it’s certainly unclear if it was a laboratory leak or if it happened on a natural route. I think it will be difficult to make a decision without getting more information from China / China laboratories and other sources. The virus may have occurred in Southeast Asia. I want more information from there as well. So for most people, both possibilities are at the table, and what makes people different is that they have a 90% chance of one and 10% of the other, or 10% of one and 90% of the other. Do you think?
