The SARS-CoV-2-like virus found in captive pangolins from Guangdong should be better sequenced

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus responsible of the Covid-19 pandemic, were sequenced in several Sunda pangolins ( Manis javanica ) seized in the Guangdong and Guangxi provinces of China between 2017 and 2019 1-3 . These viruses belong to two lineages: one from Guangdong ( GD/P ) and the other from Guangxi ( GX/P ). The GD/P viruses are particularly intriguing as the amino-acid sequence of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein is very similar to that of the human SARS-CoV-2 virus (97.4%) 2 . This characteristic suggests that GD/P viruses are capable of binding human ACE2 receptor and may therefore be able to mediate infection of human cells. Whereas all six GX/P genomes were deposited as annotated sequences in GenBank, none of the two GD/P genomes assembled in previous studies 2,3 are currently available. To overcome this absence, I assembled these genomes from the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) data available for SARS-CoV-2-like viruses detected in five captive pangolins from Guangdong. I found the genome assemblies of GD/P virus of poor quality, having high levels of missing data. Additionally, unexpected reads in the Illumina sequencing data were identified. The GD/P2S dataset 2 contains reads that are identical to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting either the coexistence of two SARS-CoV-2-like viruses in the same pangolin or contamination by the human virus. In the four other GD/P datasets 1 many mitochondrial reads from pangolin were identified, as well as from three other species, namely, human, mouse and tiger. Importantly, I only identified three polymorphic nucleotide sites between the five GD/P sequences. Such low levels of polymorphism may reasonably be accounted for by sequencing errors alone, thus raising the possibility that the five pangolins seized in Guangdong in March 2019 were infected by the same virus strain, most probably during their captivity.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.07.077016: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.