Coronavirus and the laboratory thesis: analyzes with weak points

In the last few days, a supposedly sensational preprint has been circulating through the media : German researchers are certain that 99.9 percent of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus came from a laboratory.
This would of course be a sensation, as it could clearly blame China for the pandemic and trigger a social and political earthquake. But according to experts, the individual analyzes have glaring weaknesses.

Quick first criticisms of the preprint

The preprint by the scientists Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen with the title “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2” (can be viewed HERE and HERE ) is carefully crafted and also very transparent about the methodologies and analyzes used concerns. That's why other experts were able to react quickly.

For example, the director of the Institute of Virology at the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Prof. Friedemann Weber, criticizes the analyzes in a long Twitter thread with many graphics:

By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load content

Always unblock Twitter tweets

The microbiologist Alex Crits-Christoph also describes the analysis errors in great detail on Twitter:

By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load content

Always unblock Twitter tweets

Alex Washburne, who worked on the pre-pint, also addressed some of the criticisms on Twitter:

By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load content

Always unblock Twitter tweets

And that's a good thing, because that's what preprints are for: so that other experts can take a closer look and make criticisms and suggestions before a study can be published in a specialist journal.

The first critical review of the preprint in German comes from a biologist who writes on Twitter under the pseudonym “ BissigesMäuschen .” He describes the problem with the preprint in great detail in an article on “Audience” (see HERE ).

A scientific opinion on the emergence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

The Würzburg University Hospital has now published a scientific statement on the occasion of current reports on the emergence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (see HERE ), in which they address individual points in the preprint.

In conclusion, the experts from Würzburg University Medicine state that the analyzes have significant methodological weaknesses and that there is therefore no reliable evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is of synthetic origin.

1. The interface pattern can also have arisen naturally

The preprint discusses 5 interfaces that can be found several times in a certain pattern in the coronavirus and thus suggest that the virus was created synthetically by re-gluing certain genomes together.

In fact, such “glues” or “interfaces” can be found in synthetically produced viruses - but also often in closely related coronaviruses. These viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, were obviously not included in the analyzes carried out.

In addition, some interfaces that are unfavorable for genetic work appear to have been deleted or changed, while other coronaviruses have many more interfaces in the corresponding segments. But this is also incorrect, as many closely related bat coronaviruses such as BANAL-20-103 and BANAL-116 also only have 5 or 7 interfaces with similarly sized genome fragments.

2. The location of the interfaces is not a sure indication

The spike protein in the coronavirus is particularly interesting because it can (or not) infect a person. According to the authors of the preprint, the most important part of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 could be exchanged and changed relatively easily using the interfaces there, which is not possible with any other coronavirus because either the interfaces are missing or additional interfaces are too much of the genome would dismember.

In fact, this seems to be an indication, as in previous experiments in the Wuhan laboratory, certain interfaces were used to clone coronavirus genomes from bats and to carry out so-called gain-of-function experiments.

But now the problem: In those experiments, the interfaces were positioned in such a way that they enabled the entire spike protein to be exchanged, not just the small but most important part.

If the interfaces were actually in the same place in the past experiments, it would really be an indication that it may have been a laboratory accident. However, the interfaces discovered are often also found in coronaviruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

In addition, there is now a high number of coronavirus mutations: the artificially inserted areas should have disappeared long ago and the artificially eliminated ones should have reappeared. Instead, the Omicron variants have exactly the same patterns as the original viruses from Wuhan.

3. The statistical analyzes are flawed

The preprint is correct that the analyzed combination of restriction enzymes (BsaI and BsmB) is actually not suitable for most coronaviruses to divide the genome into 5 to 7 individual pieces of a suitable size, which leads to the conclusion that the selection of enzymes the circulating coronavirus is not of natural origin.

However, by incorporating the algorithms clearly published in the preprint, the experts at Würzburg University Medicine managed to find a suitable combination of restriction enzymes for practically every coronavirus genome.

In other words: In the preprint, only this one combination of restriction enzymes was considered and compared with other coronaviruses. What was overlooked, however, was that such combinations with similar restriction enzymes are also possible with all other coronaviruses.

4. The analyzes of the evolution of related coronaviruses in the computer are not convincing

In the preprint, the authors tried to use computer simulations to allow two related coronaviruses to evolve so that they would have a pattern comparable to that of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which was not successful, which is why it is concluded that it must have arisen artificially.

However, the authors would also have had to experiment with similar restriction enzymes in the simulation, since (as mentioned in point 3) the exact same combination as in SARS-CoV-2 is possible with very few other coronaviruses, but the same combinations with different restriction enzymes.

The described calculation of the probability with which the observed cutting pattern of SARS-CoV-2 could have arisen naturally is also incorrect, as the probabilities are linked to 5 different criteria, which, however, are not independent of each other. The method used for combining these probability values ​​is also not suitable, and each individual probability used is already affected by sources of error.

Conclusion

To be clear again: The preprint is not a “conspiracy paper” based on conspiracy myths, but rather a carefully prepared and very transparent work, which also enables open discussion and analysis.

At first glance, the authors also provide good arguments that appear to support the laboratory thesis. But only apparently, because the individual analyzes are incorrect or at least doubtful and are not convincing as a whole.

The question therefore remains open as to whether the coronavirus arose naturally, as most experts still suspect, or whether it escaped from a laboratory accidentally or intentionally. The research in this regard will certainly not be finished yet.

Article image: Pixabay

Additional source:

The Economist

Interesting in this context: A Chinese virologist claims to have proven that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory.
– Study does not prove that the coronavirus came from a laboratory!