The origins of COVID-19 pandemic: A brief overview.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak that emerged at the end of 2019 has now swept the world for more than 2 years, causing immeasurable damage to the lives and economies of the world. It has drawn so much attention to discovering how the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) originated and entered the human body. The current argument revolves around two contradictory theories: a scenario of laboratory spillover events and human contact with zoonotic diseases. Here, we reviewed the transmission, pathogenesis, possible hosts, as well as the genome and protein structure of SARS-CoV-2, which play key roles in the COVID-19 pandemic. We believe the coronavirus was originally transmitted to human by animals rather than by a laboratory leak. However, there still needs more investigations to determine the source of the pandemic. Understanding how COVID-19 emerged is vital to developing global strategies for mitigating future outbreaks.

Updated analysis to reject the laboratory-engineering hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.

A clear understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is important for future pandemic preparedness. Here, I provided an updated analysis of the type IIS endonuclease maps in genomes of alphacoronavirus, betacoronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. Scenarios to engineer SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory and the associated workload was also discussed. The analysis clearly shows that the endonuclease fingerprint does not indicate a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 and engineering a SARS-CoV-2 virus in the laboratory is extremely challenging both scientifically and financially. On the contrary, current scientific evidence does support the animal origin of SARS-CoV-2.

There is still no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (10.1002/bies.202100137).

The causative agent of COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 4 million deaths worldwide. Understanding the origin of this coronavirus is important for the prevention of future outbreaks. The dominant point of view that the virus transferred to humans either directly from bats or through an intermediate mammalian host has been challenged by Segreto and Deigin, who claim that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 has certain features suggestive of its artificial creation. Following their response to our commentary, here we continue the discussion of the proposed arguments for this hypothesis. We show that neither the existence of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, nor the presence of specific sequences within the nucleotide insertion encoding that site are evidence for intelligent design. We also explain why existing genetic data, viral diversity and past human history suggest that a natural origin of the virus is the most likely scenario. Genetic evidence suggesting otherwise is yet to be presented.

There is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin (DOI: 10.1002/bies.202000240).

The origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the subject of many hypotheses. One of them, proposed by Segreto and Deigin, assumes artificial chimeric construction of SARS-CoV-2 from a backbone of RaTG13-like CoV and receptor binding domain (RBD) of a pangolin MP789-like CoV, followed by serial cell or animal passage. Here we show that this hypothesis relies on incorrect or weak assumptions, and does not agree with the results of comparative genomics analysis. The genetic divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and both its proposed ancestors is too high to have accumulated in a lab, given the timeframe of several years. Furthermore, comparative analysis of S-protein gene sequences suggests that the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 probably represents an ancestral non-recombinant variant. These and other arguments significantly weaken the hypothesis of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, while the hypothesis of a natural origin is consistent with all available genetic and experimental data.