• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

NSR - On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2?

sharon sanders

Editor-in-Chief & President
h/t Shiloh


On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2

Xiaolu Tang, Changcheng Wu, Xiang Li, Yuhe Song, Xinmin Yao, Xinkai Wu, Yuange Duan, Hong Zhang, Yirong Wang, Zhaohui Qian ... Show more
Author Notes
National Science Review, nwaa036, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036
Published:

03 March 2020


ABSTRACT


The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic started in late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has since impacted a large portion of China and raised major global concern. Herein, we investigated the extent of molecular divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and other related coronaviruses. Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting the divergence between the two viruses is much larger than previously estimated. Our results suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination.

Population genetic analyses of 103 SARS-CoV-2 genomes indicated that these viruses evolved into two major types (designated L and S), that are well defined by two different SNPs that show nearly complete linkage across the viral strains sequenced to date. Although the L type (∼70%) is more prevalent than the S type (∼30%), the S type was found to be the ancestral version.

Whereas the L type was more prevalent in the early stages of the outbreak in Wuhan, the frequency of the L type decreased after early January 2020. Human intervention may have placed more severe selective pressure on the L type, which might be more aggressive and spread more quickly.

On the other hand, the S type, which is evolutionarily older and less aggressive, might have increased in relative frequency due to relatively weaker selective pressure.

These findings strongly support an urgent need for further immediate, comprehensive studies that combine genomic data, epidemiological data, and chart records of the clinical symptoms of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance...searchresult=1
 
Response to “On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2”

Oscar A. MacLean*, Richard Orton, Joshua B. Singer, David L. Robertson.
MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research (CVR).

Summary
Given these flaws, we believe that Tang et al. should retract their paper, as the claims made in it are clearly unfounded and risk spreading dangerous misinformation at a crucial time in the outbreak.
http://virological.org/t/response-to-on-the-origin-and-continuing-evolution-of-sars-cov-2/418
 
I have been keeping eye on the new sequences and mutation and ignored this paper as I do not believe it is possible to make the calculation. The reason for this is where and when the two strains emerged and spread. The first graphic show the cases over time with ORF8 L84S divided by colour. The second shows where they came from with the time scale showing when.
ORF8 L84S.JPG


cov by country.JPG
 
Fascinating. Thank you all for providing a critique of that paper. So, do you think the serine/leucine divergence is significant after all?
 
Back
Top Bottom