EpiStack

H-34 - SARS-CoV-2 originated as an infectious clone assembled in vitro (a reverse-genetics system)

1 min read

Properties12
type
hypothesis
id
H-34
state
merged
question
Did SARS-CoV-2's genome arise from in-vitro genome assembly (a reverse-genetics system) or from natural evolution?
statement
SARS-CoV-2's genome was assembled in vitro from lab-synthesized fragments via a Type IIS restriction-enzyme reverse-genetics / in-vitro genome-assembly system — with the BsaI/BsmBI sites (notably the pair flanking S1/RBD) reflecting purposeful placement to enable receptor-binding-domain swaps and furin-site insertion — i.e. it has a synthetic, deliberately-engineered origin.
merged_into
H-43 - Research-related origin of a laboratory-manipulated virus (engineered lab leak)
source
S-48 - Bruttel, Washburne & VanDongen 2022-23 — Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin
locator
  • S-48: Abstract / Conclusion; Results (Fig 3A/B)
merged_from
additional_sources
—
generalization_note
Widened to also carry the 'restriction map purposefully designed for RBD swaps / furin-site insertion' reading (absorbed H-35, same source S-48); both rest on the same BsaI/BsmBI fingerprint observations (O-65/O-66/O-67) and no curated observation separates them. Kept distinct from the phylogenetic-chimera hypothesis (H-39) and the serial-passage hypothesis (H-40), which different genome observations discriminate. additional_sources empty because H-35 shares H-34's source S-48.
quote
SARS-CoV-2 is an anomaly, more likely a product of synthetic genome assembly than natural evolution

SARS-CoV-2’s genome was assembled in vitro from lab-synthesized fragments via a Type IIS restriction-enzyme reverse-genetics / in-vitro genome-assembly system, i.e. it has a synthetic (lab-engineered) origin.

Graph View

Show model graphinteractive Bayesian view — separate from the graph above
added after the FLF submission deadline

Backlinks