
Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome and Its Probable Synthetic Route - jkhdigital
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X2AUhGhKhaS
======
jkhdigital
(I put this comment on all duplicates of this post)

I posted what appears to be the top comment on the previous submission of a
similar paper describing the probable laboratory origins of SARS-CoV-2
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875758](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875758)),
so I'll try and do another quick summary here. (Caveat: I have no particular
expertise in this area, I just read a lot of scientific research)

The lead author here is an immunologist who, unlike the authors of prior
papers alleging laboratory origin, is Chinese and was trained in Chinese
institutions. At the time of the outbreak Dr. Li-Meng Yan was working in a
public health lab at Hong Kong University and was asked to investigate. She
claims that she fled to the US after realizing that there was a cover-up going
on and she knew too much already.

The most striking and novel claim made here is that the bat coronavirus
RaTG13, which is a 96% genetic match to the novel coronarivus, is a total
fabrication. This argument is based upon a few key observations:

1\. RaTG13 was supposedly discovered in 2013 but not publicly reported until
after the outbreak already started, in a paper (published by researchers
closely affiliated with the WIV) that claimed it as evidence SARS-CoV-2 likely
originated from bats.

2\. A number of independent preprint papers raise significant concerns about
the veracity of RaTG13, and one published paper indicates that the RaTG13
spike protein is actually ineffective at binding to ACE2 receptors in
horseshoe bats (the supposed reservoir).

3\. After excluding RaTG13, the next closest relatives are two bat
coronaviruses (ZC45/ZXC21) that were discovered and characterized by Chinese
military research labs. A Chinese lab published research near the start of the
outbreak which identified these viruses as the closest relatives, and that
same lab was apparently closed for "rectification" shortly thereafter.

The paper goes on under the assumption that ZC45 or ZXC21 was the backbone for
engineering the SARS-CoV-2 virus, noting how the particular characteristics of
the genomic match (100% E protein, 94% Orf8 protein) align with what one would
expect after the gain-of-function modifications that produced the unusual RBM
and furin cleavage site which were also identified in the Sørensen paper. This
paper goes into much more detail on those two points, and provides
counterfactuals to describe how unlikely these observations would be in a
naturally-evolved virus.

In the second half of the paper the authors describe in detail how a lab with
sufficient technical acumen could engineer a virus like SARS-CoV-2 through a
sequence of well-defined steps, with references to published research
demonstrating these capabilities. Then they postulate the exact components
involved in engineering the actual SARS-CoV-2, along with a projected timeline
of six months for the whole process.

