- Messages
- 7,701
- Edit My Images
- No
Whatever this bats*** RatG13 really is these lazy scientists didn't include that at all, except apparently the last figure in SI? Somehow I'm not too surprised considering I had only trouble repeating Indian chemistry "science" papers.
I would want to see the full differences between the two; I'm a bit too lazy now to figure out a way to run it myself. Also just how common is ratg13 in bats and / or other animal hosts? I see the genome has been published only days ago (instead of 2013 as it would be standard practice) which raises even more questions. Big ones... This is by no means a conclusion yet. Someone should grab a load of bats and run PCR tests on their viruses.
The main point however still remains staying healthy at this troubling time.
From the Nature paper, it looks like the RaTG13 virus had never been fully sequenced before. They got a close match to nCoV with a short bit of sequence they had from the RaTG13 polymerase gene, and must then have been excited enough to pull the bat sample out of the freezer and sequence the whole virus. You can easily take the accession numbers from Zhou et al and run them through pairwise BLAST on the NCBI site if you feel so inclined. RaTG13 is about 96% identical to nCoV, which suggests they had a common ancestor several decades ago. Now another Chinese group is claiming a 99% match to a virus they've found in pangolins (scaly anteaters), though all we have so far is a press release. Unlike the HIV, snake and fish (!) theories, this one isn't being dismissed out of hand, since it's biologically plausible (the pangolin is a mammal, and apparently trafficked in wet markets) and there's some supporting evidence from an independent study:
http://virological.org/t/ncov-2019-...from-a-pangolin-viral-metagenomic-dataset/362
But until they publish their data (there's not even a preprint yet) we won't know how plausible the pangolin is as a potential reservoir.