On January 4, 2024, a pre-printed study was uploaded to bioRxiv (Bio-Archive) servers by a group of Chinese researchers at Beijing University of Chemical Technology. The paper, which has not yet gone through the peer-review process, describes a study that tested the lethality of a coronavirus on mice. The virus has been genetically modified to more accurately study how diseases affect people. According to the study, all of the mice injected with the active version of the virus died within eight days of infection.
The study was shared by scientists on platform X (formerly Twitter) who discussed the findings and benefits of conducting the research.
Cell culture-adapted mutant SARS-CoV-2r pangolin virus, lethal to hACE2 mice, appears to cause late-stage brain infection.
Peking University group, preprint published on January 4, ’24. https://t.co/mW4E8Ry7V3— MJ Allen (@MJnanostretch) January 7, 2024
As the research spread on social media, tabloids such as The Daily Mail and New York Post picked up on the issue, adding fear-mongering headlines to the story and claiming that the researchers had created the virus. This was not true.
We examine some major rumors below.
First: The preprint and study are real. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bio-Archive has become a tool through which researchers can quickly share information and discoveries with colleagues without going through the long and laborious academic publishing process. It is a reliable source; However, since the articles uploaded to the site have not been peer-reviewed, it is necessary to approach scientific findings with some caution.
Second: The virus used in the experiment is not a “new, mutated strain of COVID” as claimed in The New York Post’s headline about the study. Coronaviruses (including SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19) are a family of viruses that share similar structures. The specific coronavirus used in the study, GX_P2V, was isolated from a pangolin coronavirus in 2017. The most accurate comparison might be to call SARS-CoV-2 and GX_P2V “cousins.”
Third: The virus has mutated from its original isolate, but it would be a bit unfair to claim that scientists “created” the virus. Since coronaviruses (and viruses in general) are known to rapidly mutate their genetic instructions, it is not surprising that the virus used in the study mutated from the moment it was isolated. In the paper (and in previous research by the same group), the researchers note that this particular variant of GX_P2V contains the mutation because it is better adapted to the cell cultures in which it grows.
Fourth: The study was too small. Since you can’t inject someone on the street with a virus you know next to nothing about, the researchers used lab mice instead. These mice were genetically modified to contain human proteins that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter cells. The researchers used just 12 of these mice to study the virulence of the virus, and only four were injected with live virus, and all of them died. While this is indeed a 100% lethality rate, there is not enough data about the virus to panic.
Fifth: At least one researcher had former ties to the Chinese military, as claimed by The Daily Mail. This was a point emphasized by many on social media who suggested that the Chinese military had created a biological weapon that it could use to destroy its political enemies.
The research was conducted by a team that included professor Tong Yigang, who previously studied and taught at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, which is part of the army’s research division. Tong is not currently affiliated with that organization, and Snopes was unable to find any other evidence that confirms or denies possible connections to the Chinese military.
What most people, virologists and conspiracy theorists, were concerned about was the logic of conducting the study. There are two potential explanations for the origin of the COVID-19 outbreak: the zoonotic transmission hypothesis, meaning that an infected animal transmitted the disease to zero patients, and the laboratory leak hypothesis, meaning that safety protocols in a laboratory containing the pathogen were not followed. It was effectively tracked and from there zero patients were infected with coronavirus.
Unfortunately, neither can be completely ruled out, but as Snopes reports, most, if not all, scientists and government agencies accept the animal-to-human hypothesis.
However, in the wake of the outbreak, virologists are exploring safety procedures to ensure their research never becomes a threat to the public. Therein lies the academic criticism of the study: figures such as Francois Balloux, director of the Institute of Genetics at University College London, criticized the X researchers for not considering whether the potential findings were worth the risks of conducting the study.
I looked at the preprint. Terrible study, completely meaningless from a scientific standpoint. I can’t see any vague interest in what could be learned by infecting a strange kind of humanized mouse with a random virus. Conversely, I could see how such things could go wrong…
— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) January 10, 2024
Downsides, of course, could include another global pandemic. Snopes reached out to Balloux, along with study researchers and other experts in the field. We’ll update this story if we get feedback.
Resources:
034860 - K18-hACE2 Strain Details. https://www.jax.org/strain/034860. Access date: January 17, 2024.
Balloux, François et al. “Past, Present and Future Epidemiological Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2.” Oxford Open Immunology, vol. 3, no. June 1, 2022, p. iqac003. DOI.org (Cross reference)https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfimm/iqac003.
Board of Directors, Editorial Office. Chinese Toys with New Covid Strain: When Will the Madness End? January 17, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/01/17/opinion/china-toys-with-new-covid-strain-when-will-the-madness-endchina-toys-with-deadly-new – covid-tension-madness-when-will-it/.
Domingo, Jose L. “An Updated Review of the Scientific Literature on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Environmental Research, vol. 215, December 2022, p. 114131. PubMed Centerhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131.
“https://Twitter.Com/Angryman_J/Status/1746805633549324476.” X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Angryman_J/status/1746805633549324476. Access date: January 18, 2024.
“https://Twitter.Com/Examachine/Status/1747418249371750897.” X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/examachine/status/1747418249371750897. Access date: January 17, 2024.
“https://Twitter.Com/MJnanostretch/Status/1744829422274781455.” X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/MJnanostretch/status/1744829422274781455. Access date: January 17, 2024.
Izzo, Jack. “Is a New ‘Disease X’ Epidemic on the Horizon?” SnopesJanuary 15, 2024, https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/01/15/what-is-disease-x/.
Kasprak, Alex. “DOE and FBI Say COVID ‘Most Likely’ Had Lab Origins — But Don’t Say Why.” SnopesMarch 3, 2023, https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/03/fbi-doe-covid-origin/.
Lu, Shanshan et al. “Induction of Significant Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 by a Highly Attenuated Pangolin Coronavirus Variant with a 104nt Deletion in the 3′-UTR.” Emerging Germs and Infections, vol. 12, no. 1, December 2023, p. 2151383. DOI.org (Cross reference)https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2022.2151383.
Rasmussen, Angela L., et al. “Virology—The Way Forward.” Journal of VirologyEdited by Stacey Schultz-Cherry, January 2024, p. e01791-23. DOI.org (Cross reference)https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01791-23.
Tilley, Caitlin. “Chinese Scientists ‘Create’ Covid Strain with 100% Killing Rate in Mice.” Online MailJanuary 16, 2024, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12969105/chinese-scientists-lab-coronavirus-kill-rate-mice.html.
Tong, Yigang. https://en-life.buct.edu.cn/2020/0411/c2454a123023/page.htm. Access date: January 17, 2024.
Wei, Lai et al. Fatal Infection of Human ACE2-Transgenic Mice Caused by SARS-CoV-2-Related Pangolin Coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR). bioRxiv, January 4, 2024. bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008.