Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jessica Hockett's avatar

I am noticing that the pre-print and published versions of the paper that classified and (re)named 2019-nCoV as SARS-CoV-2 include the following acknowledgement:

(Pre-Print https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862v1.full) "The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of all researchers who released SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences through the GISAID initiative and particularly the authors of the MN908947 genome sequence."

(Published version https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z ) "We thank all researchers who released SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences through the GISAID initiative and particularly the authors of the GenBank MN908947 genome sequence: F. Wu, S. Zhao, B. Yu, Y. M. Chen, W. Wang, Z. G. Song, Y. Hu, Z. W. Tao, J. H. Tian, Y. Y. Pei, M. L. Yuan, Y. L. Zhang, F. H. Dai, Y. Liu, Q. M. Wang, J. J. Zheng, L. Xu, E. C. Holmes and Y. Z. Zhang.

Why was "that" sequence the one that received the ICTV-CSG's attention (although more than one sequence was obviously being looked at)?

I may need to re-read those papers -- and the emails in my own article. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read

Expand full comment
Pete Ross's avatar

"Phylogenetic analysis of the complete viral genome (29,903 nucleotides) revealed that the virus was most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) that had previously been found in bats in China."

Since the first SARS outbreak hoax in 2002, they always fishing for such 'virus' sequences and they decided this time it was a bingo.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts