CLAIM
"this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus [] the HIV virus (AIDS virus)"
DETAILS
Inaccurate: Genomic analyses indicate that the virus has a natural origin, and was not engineered. The so-called unique protein sequence insertions found in the 2019 novel coronavirus can be found in many other organisms, not just HIV.
KEY TAKE AWAY
Genomic analyses of the novel coronavirus show that it was not engineered. In addition, the claim that its genome contains inserted HIV sequences is based on a now-withdrawn preprint of a study that contained significant flaws in design and execution. The so-called HIV insertions identified by the authors are in fact gene sequences that can also be found in many other organisms besides HIV.
REVIEW Numerous articles published in April 2020 report that Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier claimed that SARS-CoV-2 is a manipulated virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China and that Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus [] the HIV virus (AIDS virus). The claim that SARS-CoV-2 contains HIV insertions began circulating in January 2020, and was propagated by outlets such as Zero Hedge and Infowars. Health Feedback covered this claim in early February 2020, and found it to be inaccurate.
Firstly, genomic analysis of the novel coronavirus, published in Nature Medicine, has demonstrated that the virus is not the product of bioengineering, but is rather of natural origin[1]. The current most likely theory, based on what scientists know about viral evolution, is that the virus first emerged in pangolins or bats (or both) and later developed the ability to infect humans. This ability to infect human cells is conferred by the so-called spike (S) protein, which is located on the surface of the enveloping membrane of SARS-CoV-2.
After the 2003-2005 SARS outbreak, researchers identified a set of key amino acids within the S protein which give SARS-CoV-1 a super-affinity for the ACE2 target receptor located on the surface of human cells[2,3]. Surprisingly, the S protein of the current SARS-CoV-2 does not contain this optimal set of amino acids[1], yet is nonetheless able to bind ACE2 with a greater affinity than SARS-CoV-1[4]. This finding suggests that SARS-CoV-2 evolved independently and undermines the claim that it was manmade[1]. Indeed, the best engineering strategy would have been to harness the known and efficient amino acid sequences already described in SARS-CoV-1 order to produce a more optimal molecular design for SARS-CoV-2. The authors of the Nature Medicine study[1] concluded that Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
Secondly, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 contains HIV insertions is based on a preprint of a research study uploaded to bioRxiv on 2 February 2020. A preprint is a study in progress that has not been peer-reviewed by other scientists. The authors of the preprint, titled Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag, claimed to have found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. The authors further asserted that all of [these inserts] have identity/similarity to amino acids residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 [which] is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.
The work was swiftly criticized by experts. In this Forbes article, Arinjay Banerjee, a postdoctoral fellow at McMaster University who has studied coronaviruses, said that:
The authors compared very short regions of proteins in the novel coronavirus and concluded that the small segments of proteins were similar to segments in HIV proteins. Comparing very short segments can often generate false positives and it is difficult to make these conclusions using small protein segments.
Researchers also took to Twitter to demonstrate this problem first-hand. Trevor Bedford, a faculty member at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who studies viral evolution, re-analyzed the gene and protein sequences used by the authors and found that the so-called unique inserts appeared in many other organisms, including Cryptosporidium and Plasmodium malariae, which cause cryptosporidiosis and malaria, respectively.
Assistant professor at Stanford University Silvana Konermann also checked the authors findings and came to the same conclusion, calling the similarity spurious.
This has also been independently confirmed in another published analysis[5]. In other words, these sequences are not insertions, but are rather common sequences found in numerous other organisms such as bacteria and parasites. Therefore, the existence of these sequences in SARS-CoV-2 does not provide evidence of a link to HIV, nor that scientists purposely inserted HIV sequences into the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
In summary, genomic analysis of the virus indicates that it does not contain so-called HIV insertions and that it was not engineered in a lab. Evidence points to the virus having a natural origin.
The only thing accurate about these articles is that Nobel Prize winner and virologist Luc Montagnier did in fact make these claims. Although he holds impressive scientific credentials, his claims run contrary to credible scientific evidence. And despite having won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for his co-discovery of the link between HIV and AIDS, Montagnier now promotes widely discredited theories such as the pseudoscience of homeopathy and that autism is caused by bacteria that emit electromagnetic waves. Articles which repeat Montagniers claims without critically evaluating their veracity exhibit the common appeal to authority fallacy, in which something is assumed to be true simply because the person saying it is considered to be an expert, thereby misleading readers into believing that this theory is scientifically credible. This demonstrates the importance of verifying scientific claims with other experts in the same field, rather than simply taking such claims from a single expert at face value.
SCIENTISTS FEEDBACK [These comments come from an evaluation of a related claim.] Aaron T. Irving, Senior Research Fellow, Duke-NUS Medical School:Its easier to believe misinformation when it is mixed with truth. The region highlighted in the pre-print is indeed an insertion in nCoV-2019 relative to its bat ancestors and indeed it has high identity to the HIV gp120/gag. However, the authors chose to align only this small region and not do a basic check on whether there were other sequences which were also homologous (showing high degree of similarity/identity). As it turned out, the region is also homologous to many unrelated sequences. As such, the conclusions drawn from the data are no longer valid and there are many open-ended questions regarding this region highlighted. I see the authors themselves agree with this criticism by other scientists and have voluntarily withdrawn their preprint pending a much deeper investigation.
The author of this article by European Scientist also compared the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), developed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and found no significant similarity, explaining that In plain English, SARS-CoV-2 is not made of the bat coronavirus and small bits of the HIV virus. Readers who wish to verify the level of sequence identity between the two viruses for themselves are welcome to follow the steps listed in the article.
Read more:
- IOM not webcast today. Why Not? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- National Academies skeptical at Best. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Some Confusion Exists - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Why DTC Genomics IS Medicine. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- First Mari, Now Linda. Who's next? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Is it true? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Re-Reviewing the National Academies - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The problem with nonclinicians....... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Crazy Night of Emails to Government - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Adrienne Carlson's Personalized Medicine. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Tell Me, How do you feel now? Sherpa's RX - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- This Just In. 23andMe to go to GPs. I love my readers!! - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Sorry so long away - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- 2D6 Rears its ugly head..... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Ok, Fine, Back to Plavix - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Kaiser a protoype for Collins' Aim - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- A few months late to the party.... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Stated Another Way....... - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Excuse Me? Harvard and Navigenics? WTF? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Follow up to Yesterday's WTF? Harvard, Navi? and Pfizer??? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Did you get your kit? Thanks Dr. Rob from MedCo - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Gluco...Wha? Parkinson's Disease and Glucocerebrosidase mutations. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Away and now back, What did I miss???? 23andme layoffs? Selling Genomes for cheap up next! - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Change IS Needed. I agree with William, sometimes. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Good Enough Science? Apparently so at 23andme - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Long QT Syndrome, location matters - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Congratulations Generation Health. Nice pick up! - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- An argument 23andSerge can't win...23andme but not medicine - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Stop. Breathe. Repeat. An analysis of the direction of DTC Genomics Field. - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Hey DTC genomics, Stay Private, Stay Alive, Go Public and Die - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- You can't have it both way. Either scared your genome is sold off or not. - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- 15 Days Away Gives Time for Perspective. - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- What about the SACGHS registry? Another missed opportunity? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- AJHG is in and my Favorite Muin is in it! But He Is NOT the Father! - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Navigenics for 23andMe prices? - December 18th, 2009 [December 18th, 2009]
- Lp(a) Maybe there's something there that wasn't there before? - December 24th, 2009 [December 24th, 2009]
- Another Year, Another Bankruptcy - December 31st, 2009 [December 31st, 2009]
- 5 Technologies going bye bye in this decade? - January 6th, 2010 [January 6th, 2010]
- Hackers, HITECH and HIPAA in DTC Genomics, Oh My! - January 7th, 2010 [January 7th, 2010]
- Personal Genomics Flop.....big Belly Flop! - January 8th, 2010 [January 8th, 2010]
- Gotta Love It. Even the daycare....... - January 11th, 2010 [January 11th, 2010]
- Congratulations Navigenics. You ARE a clinical lab! Uh-Oh... - January 12th, 2010 [January 12th, 2010]
- CETP, Jewish Centenarians and Alzheimers - January 14th, 2010 [January 14th, 2010]
- Enter the "Not" DTC Genomics Rep - January 17th, 2010 [January 17th, 2010]
- Why Dr. Vanier's Navigenics appointment is good for PM - January 22nd, 2010 [January 22nd, 2010]
- Holy Crap! MedCo Follows in CVS footsteps - February 3rd, 2010 [February 3rd, 2010]
- FDA, Warfarin, still not as sexy to me. - February 5th, 2010 [February 5th, 2010]
- Hype, Hype, Hype from a single study. - February 11th, 2010 [February 11th, 2010]
- I love my readers, even Renata M! - February 17th, 2010 [February 17th, 2010]
- How can insurers use DTC genomics to profile? - February 17th, 2010 [February 17th, 2010]
- 9p21.....ahem. Paynter et.al. Smackdown. Again. - February 18th, 2010 [February 18th, 2010]
- Hey! It's Pete Hulick! Are you Going to GET? - February 19th, 2010 [February 19th, 2010]
- I was wrong......AHEM - February 28th, 2010 [February 28th, 2010]
- G2C2, finally a tool for genomic education! - March 2nd, 2010 [March 2nd, 2010]
- Just 4 million? What 23andMe is worth. - March 5th, 2010 [March 5th, 2010]
- What a difference a year makes - March 9th, 2010 [March 9th, 2010]
- ........DTC Genomic Medicine? - March 12th, 2010 [March 12th, 2010]
- The FDA, 2c19 and the ACC - March 13th, 2010 [March 13th, 2010]
- The problem with Comparative Whole Genomics...... - March 13th, 2010 [March 13th, 2010]
- BRCA testing by 23andME is the same as Myriad Genetics. - March 15th, 2010 [March 15th, 2010]
- The Argument Against DTC Genomics Marketing and such - March 16th, 2010 [March 16th, 2010]
- A moment of Clarity. Some DTCG is not bad. - March 18th, 2010 [March 18th, 2010]
- SNPs for breast cancer risk? It Depends. - March 18th, 2010 [March 18th, 2010]
- How can MDVIP use Navigenics Test for Medicine? - March 18th, 2010 [March 18th, 2010]
- Why did P&G invest in Navigenics? - March 23rd, 2010 [March 23rd, 2010]
- PGx in DTCG? Doesn't stand up to Useful testing. - March 25th, 2010 [March 25th, 2010]
- End of Gene Patents? - March 29th, 2010 [March 29th, 2010]
- Sherpa Accepting Chief Medical Officership - April 3rd, 2010 [April 3rd, 2010]
- The Rumors of My Death........ - April 20th, 2010 [April 20th, 2010]
- Happy DNA Day! - April 25th, 2010 [April 25th, 2010]
- 99 USD, DNA day and patient letters - April 25th, 2010 [April 25th, 2010]
- 2C19, Navigenics and Clinical Reality. - May 1st, 2010 [May 1st, 2010]
- Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative rising - May 7th, 2010 [May 7th, 2010]
- Personal Genomes in Clinical Care. Quake paper is a waste! - May 11th, 2010 [May 11th, 2010]
- Personal Genomes in Clinical Care. Quake paper Falls Short! - May 13th, 2010 [May 13th, 2010]
- Last post edited by Drew - May 13th, 2010 [May 13th, 2010]
- GateKeeper? FCUK U! - May 13th, 2010 [May 13th, 2010]
- GateKeeper? F! U! - May 15th, 2010 [May 15th, 2010]
- Potential of genomic medicine, LOST - May 19th, 2010 [May 19th, 2010]
- How Bad Can a House Investigation be for DTC Genomics? - May 20th, 2010 [May 20th, 2010]