文学城２月份有一篇分析文章，下面是要点：

武汉病毒整体和舟山病毒算最接近，大约89.12%相似度，可是最令人惊异的是，两者E蛋白绝对完全相符，共有75个氨基酸：mysfvseetg tlivnsvllf lafvvfllvt lailtalrlc ayccnivnvs lvkpsfyvys rvknlnssrv pdllv

单独拿出S蛋白比较，武汉病毒和舟山病毒仅81%的相似度。更重要的是，中间有四小段插入片段是武汉病毒的S蛋白有而舟山病毒S蛋白没有的。

更加令人惊奇的是，比较武汉病毒和舟山病毒的核酸，发现有一大段是舟山病毒没有而武汉病毒被插进去的（21697-23074，长度1378）

最令人吃惊的是，用BLAST搜索这段1378长度的插入核酸，一无所获，找不到天然类似的来源。可是它有一个来源，就是中国科学家在1980年代做的pShuttle-SN，核酸编号为AY862402。这强烈暗示这个核酸是舟山病毒人工插入一段1378长度的核酸制造的，插入片段包含了pShuttle-SN的部分结构。

最后，从微生物演化树的角度来说，武汉病毒也非常可疑：

注意亮点，所有分叉都可以几乎100%溯源，知道蛋白或核酸的序列来自哪个祖先，可是武汉病毒分叉的溯源率仅76%，有24%的东西讲不清楚来自哪里，这是来自人工拼接的重大嫌疑。

“以上种种证据，强烈证明武汉病毒是刻意人工制造的高传染性的大规模毁灭性生化武器”（原文）。

以上是原作者的推论，不是闫博士讲的，但好像很有道理的样子。不同意的，请去文学城找原作者算帐，不要找我啊，我只是搬运一下信息

之前一直觉得是自然采集来失误泄露的 如果是人造的也同样有可能意外泄露吧

能人工合成的东西，大自然也能产生出来？

你倒是说说看大自然什么时候会产生塑料啊？

洗地啊？

墙贴留名，闫博士是英雄！

早晚把罪魁祸首送去远东军事法庭审判，反人类罪这是。

不光是你担心，北京不都开始宣传布置怎么躲导弹核弹之类的了嘛。

都是前几个月的阴谋论，都被学界唾弃的东西，又翻出来了。

[url]https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/2019-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-does-not-contain-pshuttle-sn-sequence-no-evidence-that-virus-is-man-made/[/url]

2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) does not contain “pShuttle-SN” sequence; no evidence that virus is man-made

1.3k

SHARES

ShareTweet

CLAIM

2019 novel coronavirus contains "pShuttle-SN" sequence proving laboratory origin

VERDICT

SOURCE: Alex Jones, Mike Adams, Infowars, Natural News, 2 Feb. 2020 

DETAILS

Inaccurate: A comparison of the nucleic acid sequence of the 2019 novel coronavirus with pShuttle-SN reveals that the 2019-nCoV genome does not contain a pShuttle-SN sequence as claimed.

KEY TAKE AWAY

The pShuttle-SN vector was designed by researchers seeking to develop a potential SARS vaccine. However, the 2019 novel coronavirus does not contain a sequence from the pShuttle-SN vector as claimed. There is no evidence supporting the claim that 2019-nCoV is man-made.

SUMMARY

The article containing this claim was published in early February 2020 and went viral on Facebook within days, receiving more than 23,000 interactions and 900,000 views on Facebook. Published by InfoWars, it states that the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is man-made and that this is proven by the presence of a “pShuttle-SN” sequence in the viral genome. Identical or similar claims have been repeated in outlets such as Natural News and The HighWire.The claim is based on another article published on 30 January 2020 and authored by James Lyons-Weiler who formerly worked at the University of Pittsburgh as a bioinformatician. Lyons-Weiler claimed that a gene sequence in the 2019-nCoV genome, which he named INS1378, is similar to part of the sequence of the pShuttle-SN expression vector. pShuttle-SN was created in a laboratory as part of an effort to produce a potential SARS vaccine^[1]. Based on this observation, he posited that 2019-nCoV was a man-made virus that arose from the SARS vaccine experiments.

Experts who examined Lyons-Weiler’s hypothesis found it to be scientifically unsound. Aaron Irving, a virologist and senior research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School, pointed out that the similarity between INS1378 and pShuttle-SN is actually low, with only a 67% match between the DNA sequences. Lyons-Weiler acknowledged this finding in his article, but InfoWars and other outlets did not.

In fact, conducting a multiple sequence alignment of INS1378 against all sequences in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database demonstrates that INS1378 has a much higher similarity to bat coronaviruses than to pShuttle-SN, which does not even appear in the list of 100 closest matches. This result thereby refutes Lyons-Weiler’s suggestion that the “unique sequence” in 2019-nCoV is more strongly related to pShuttle-SN than to other coronaviruses. The screenshot below shows the results of the multiple sequence alignment, which lists the first 30 most similar sequences to INS1378.

Steven Salzburg, a computational biologist and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, highlighted that “the two aligned sequences are distantly related, but this would argue against [Lyons-Weiler’s] claim. If the insert came from a commercial vector, it would be near-identical.”

In short, Lyons-Weiler’s analysis does not support his claim that 2019-nCoV is a laboratory-engineered virus or that the virus is linked to a SARS vaccine. Inaccurate interpretation of his analysis by InfoWars and other outlets have further compounded the scientific errors, resulting in an inaccurate and highly misleading report.

SCIENTISTS’ FEEDBACK

Aaron T. Irving, Senior Research Fellow, Duke-NUS Medical School:

The original blog post by James Lyons-Weiler lists 4 options for how 2019-nCoV originated. He rejects options 1 and 2 [which state that 2019-nCoV arose naturally] as he is not an expert in virus evolution and so disregards the valid science. Option 3 is kind of crazy and completely irrelevant; SARS and 2019-nCoV are only BSL3 pathogens so it doesn’t even matter if Wuhan has a BSL-4 lab.Lyons-Weiler suggests option 4 to be most likely. Option 4 shows that the “INS1378” insert in 2019-nCoV has homology to pShuttle-SN, a vector used in an attempt to create a SARS vaccine. This is normal and expected, since it is based on SARS-CoV. He even states himself there is “low sequence homology” with only a 67% match (for this insert) at the nucleic acid level (as shown in the screenshots).

He also looks at a partial protein sequence from this insert where there is only a “62% identity” to SARS-CoV and a “70% identity” to a bat SARS-like virus. Alex Jones of InfoWars incorrectly interpreted the “92% query cover” as homology when in fact it means only 92% matched (at 62% homology) and 8% of this protein chunk has no match at all.

They claim this as a statement from Lyons-Weiler when it is actually their own poor reporting. Indeed, when you perform BLAST on the insert as provided in Lyons-Weiler’s link—and “blast” it against everything in the NCBI database (with dissimilar/low homology options included), the pShuttle-SN result is not even in the top 100 results (limit of BLAST results) due to the really low homology. There is no other mention of any of the other 100 results which include bat SARS-like viruses and SARS itself, all more homologous then the vaccine attempt. This is just another example of poor science and people showing only part of the result, possibly to suit their own agenda.

READ MORE

Lyons-Weiler’s analysis has also been criticized by other experts in this article by FactCheck.org and another article by Science-Based Medicine.

We reviewed a similar claim regarding “HIV insertions” in 2019-nCoV, which was also found to be inaccurate.

Several competing hypotheses have been proposed to explain where the novel coronavirus actually came from. Health Feedback investigated the three most widespread origin stories for the novel coronavirus (engineered, lab-leak or natural infection), and examined the evidence for or against each proposed hypothesis in this Insight article.

REFERENCES

• 1 – Liu et al. (2005) Adenoviral expression of a truncated S1 subunit of SARS-CoV spike protein results in specific humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV in rats. Virus Research.

狗急跳墙，气急败坏了哦