Researchers are said to have “created a new deadly strain of Covid”. The British reported it
Daily mail
‘on research from Boston University (BU). The results were like
Prepress
published – have not yet been reviewed by independent experts.
The reports were collected from other media and users discussed them on Twitter. the
Boston University
He defends himself against the account, calling it “fake and inaccurate” and stating that this research has made the virus less dangerous.
What did the researchers do in the lab?
“We generated recombinant chimeric Sars-CoV-2 encoding the omicron S gene on the backbone of an ancestral Sars-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus to the naturally circulating omicron variant.”
Mohsan Saeed’s research team at Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) describes his experiments in the publication.
That is: it produced a Sars-CoV-2 virus that has the omicron peak (BA.1) and the remaining genome of the ancestor Sars-CoV-2. By comparing it to the unmodified omicron variant, the researchers wanted to find out why the currently dominant strains usually cause milder courses than the original variant. Their result: It is not due to the spike protein that the virus has weakened, but rather to other parts of the virus genome.
The researchers first conducted their experiments in cell cultures and then with special mice. The crucial sentence in their publication, which currently leads to misunderstandings, is as follows: In these mice, ”
S omicron-carrying virus is a serious disease with a mortality rate of 80%.
‘, while omicron leads to a mild and non-fatal infection.
“They blew the message, misrepresent the study and its goals as a whole,” said Ronald B. Corley, director of NEIDL and president of microbiology at BU Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, of media reports.
Parent virus mortality rate greater than 80%.
As for the mortality rate, Corley notes: Even 80 to 100 percent of infected mice would die from the previous unmodified precursor virus. Independent experts also rank the Boston University study.
Marion Koopmans
, Director of the Department of Virology at Erasmus MC, remembers what is often forgotten behind the “screaming headlines”: “This is an artificial model in mice where even the precursor virus is deadly.” the coronavirus brought these mice far more likely to die than the combined version that has now been created in the lab. Hence the mortality rate of these is lower.
Florian Krammer, professor in the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, explains this in some
Twitter-Tweet
he also states: “To be absolutely clear, the original (unmodified) version of the virus was more lethal than the” chimerical “version with the omicron peak.”
The aforementioned mortality rates for mice are also in no way transferable to humans.
Is the lab version a gain-of-function experiment?
The research group’s experiments are also under discussion for another reason. It is a question of whether they should have obtained certain consents. These would be necessary, for example, if it turned out that the changes in the laboratory made the virus more pathogenic, that is, more pathogenic. This would have acquired skills. The experts then speak of “gain-of-function” (GoF). In gain-of-function experiments, organisms are given new properties. This has included, for example, experiments in which mutations are created to study whether a pathogen becomes more contagious or more lethal.
Since the result for the Boston researchers’ laboratory virus was obviously not clear in advance, it would have required approval. This is how Krammer assesses the situation. Boston University, on the other hand, states in the guidelines of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), “We have met all necessary regulatory obligations and protocols.” Furthermore, this never pursued the goal of “gain-of-function”.
Publication is “irresponsible”
Professor Koopmans notes that it was not the smartest launch of a prepress studio. Critics condemn the experiments as irresponsible. Some see this as a confirmation of the thesis that the corona virus originated in a laboratory accident. Koopmans also evaluates the actions of the researchers as “irresponsible”, but as far as communication is concerned.
Because investigations, like those of US experts, are on the agenda in many countries. However: “In my opinion, putting a preprint online without making a statement is irresponsible,” criticized the public health expert on Twitter. Koopmans adds that, moreover, instead of the misinterpreted sentence, the summary could have read: “The recombinant Omi-S has the same virulence as the parent strain, demonstrating that virulence is not exclusively mediated by Spike.”
Basically, the virologist points out that due to the massive spread of the virus, recombinants similar to those that arose in the experiment also arise naturally. “The type of virus strain that has been tested is one of the scenarios we need to prepare for.” Krammer also remembers the XD variant, which combined the properties of omicron and delta. However, this did not prevail.
