[trhway]

the "gain-of-function" experiments - ie. increasing the deadliness and transmissibility of a virus - doesn't seem to require any meaningful technology, at least not the way it was done in the Wuhan labs to the coronavirus[1]. Such "improved" virus wouldn't look like a "lab made". In theory similar gain-of-function experiments could have resulted in the human transmissible HIV back then.

[1]https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...

[DiogenesKynikos]

Those gain-of-function experiments were done at the University of North Carolina.

But we know for certain that SARS-CoV-2 was not created through gain-of-function experiments. It doesn't use any of the standard viral backbones used in such experiments, it has a receptor binding domain that computational chemistry algorithms would not have predicted to work (meaning that nature "invented" it, not scientists), and the virus contains seemingly random differences throughout its genome from all known viruses - that would not be the case for a lab-created virus.

The boring answer is the correct one: this virus evolved in nature, and then spilled over into the human population late last year.

[scottlocklin]

Your statement contradicted itself in several places: a "gain of function" virus would contain random differences, and would look indistinguishable from something "created by nature." Effectively that's how nature makes more virulent viruses; the more virulent examples reproduce more effectively. Just like that's how nature/bakeries makes yeast that works better on flour. No genetic engineering involved.

I don't think there is any evidence of this, despite the usual suspects (neocon types on our side, and militarists on the Chinese side) ginning up the case for an "escape from lab" casus belli, but let's get the facts straight.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> a "gain of function" virus would contain random differences, and would look indistinguishable from something "created by nature."

No, a chimeric virus created in a gain-of-function experiment would look extremely similar to known viruses, because these chimeras are created by combining elements of known viruses. It would not be 4% different from the closest known natural virus. Accumulating thousands of mutations throughout the entire genome takes decades of evolution. In the wild, that means thousands of generations of hosts.

A virus created in a gain-of-function experiment would also use a well-known backbone. It would not be based on some virus that nobody had ever heard of.

[scottlocklin]

Yeah dude that could never happen. Except it already did:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

https://norkinvirology.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/genetically-...

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/3048

I don't know what your purpose is in regurgitating verifiable but admittedly realistic-sounding bullshit on hacker news, but virtually every statement you have made here is obvious bullshit.

I don't even particularly believe the "possibly released from a lab" meme, and am generally against the shadowy dipshits that push it. But you're not helping here.

[DiogenesKynikos]

What happened?

Are you saying that a chimeric virus created in a lab was found to have thousands of seemingly random mutations throughout its genome?

Or are you claiming that a chimeric virus was created using a backbone that nobody had ever heard of?

Be specific, because it's impossible to respond if you vaguely call what I'm saying BS.

[yters]

does gain of function require directly engineering the sequence? i saw one gain of function expeeiment where a cat virus was exposed to mouse material, and underwent zoonosis on its own additionally the sequence can just be manually copied over that paper for some reason ignores plausible alternative approaches to creating viruses in the lab

[DiogenesKynikos]

Are you suggesting serial passage in the lab?

The problem with that theory is that the virus contains thousands of mutations throughout its genome, which would take decades of evolution to accumulate. In the wild, this virus jumps to a new host every few days, meaning that decades of evolution amount to thousands of generations of virus. No lab has the time to pass virus through so many animals.

[yters]

i dont understand why it would have to jump through a bunch of animals first. cant it go from bat to human?

fauci was conducting coronavirus gain of function experiments in wuhan in 2019 trying to go from bat to human, so at least some scientists didn't consider the evolutionary distance to be so great

UPDATE: newsweek article on fauci https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...

[trhway]

>cant it go from bat to human?

That is the answer you get from the experiments, if it jumps then it can, if it doesn't jump, keep trying different strains and generations selectively bred in mice/ferrets/etc. (in addition to using human cells in vitro to filter the candidates at various stages, an interesting modern possibility is to use mice seeded with human cells with the receptors of target type like ACE2 in this case and/or with human cells from respiratory surfaces). In general it is like you'd selectively breed new type of apple or grain, condensing the decades of chaotic natural selection into managed selection over few years or even months when it comes to fast iterating objects like for example viruses and bacteria.

So far it looks like the experiments did succeed. China is a country where prison inmates voluntarily donate organs while still alive, and in general it sounds like their prisons are very harsh, comparable or even worse than for example in Russia. Compare to that getting infected with a flu and spending few weeks in a nice lab hospital being well fed and relieved from the hard labor and abuse by the guards and other prisoners - i suspect there would be a line to sign up for those experiments.

[DiogenesKynikos]

I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Fauci was conducting experiments in Wuhan? Where are you getting this from?

[yters]

here is the article about fauci endorsing and funding such research

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...