Based on the content of my mentions, I feel like I need to further debunk crazy #nCoV2019 / HIV conspiracy preprint. This is a thread doing so. 1/9
-
-
We see that "insert 2" (YYHKNNKS) doesn't appear to be an insertion at all, but an alignment artifact of the authors. Also, it is present in the closest bat virus RaTG13 with related sequences in closely related viruses. No way this is an insertion into
#nCoV2019. 6/9pic.twitter.com/jUkVSY9nD3
Prikaži ovu nit -
"Insert 3" (GDSSSG) also appears to be a possible alignment artifact, though this is equivocal. However, this "insert" is most definitely in RaTG13. There was no insertion of RNA into the
#nCoV2019 spike protein. 7/9pic.twitter.com/3bW16ZG2UC
Prikaži ovu nit -
"Insert 4" (QTNSPRRA) shares GTNS with the bat virus RaTG13, while PRRA represents unique material in
#nCoV2019. This is a tiny tiny sequence and in no way suggests engineering. This sorts of small indels occur all the time in natural evolution of SARS-like coronaviruses. 8/9pic.twitter.com/w7K9Ca8xHQ
Prikaži ovu nit -
Again, there is absolutely no evidence for either (1) sequence insertions or (2) their relationship to HIV. If you'd like to look at the alignment yourself, I've posted it here: https://trvrb.s3.amazonaws.com/sars-like-spike-alignment.fasta … 9/9
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
To those curious, the bioaxriv submission describing the RaTG13 sequence was posted Jan 23 (to those claiming this sequence was posted in "response" to Pradhan et al. Jan 31):https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v1 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
So why is the 5’ protein spike more homologous with a commercial genetic vector than any wild type sister species?
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.