可你引用的文章也不认为是基因工程改造的产物啊——

来源: yesterday*once*more 于 2020-03-13 20:24:53 [] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 阅读数 : (1524 bytes)
 
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for human ACE2 receptor binding with an efficient binding solution different to that which would have been predicted. Further, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one would expect that one of the several reverse genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would have been used. However, this is not the case as the genetic data shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone17. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in a non-human animal host prior to zoonotic transfer, and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage in culture could have given rise to the same observed features.

所有跟帖： 

• It is also questionable whether generation of the O-linked glyca -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (727 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 20:34:21

• 所以石正丽也坚持说要找到中间宿主来自证清白, 因为她也知道这变异是不可能的 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 20:36:19

• 我不认为找到中间宿主对证明这个突变不是人为有多少用。你引用的文章的结论很清楚第说明了。 -yesterday*once*more- ♂ 给 yesterday*once*more 发送悄悄话 (98 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 20:44:15

• intense program of passage in cell culture or animals with ACE-2 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (529 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 20:48:44

• 你引用的原文并没肯定是人工合成的，并列提了动物形成。咋你的主贴就变成了结论是人工合成呢？ -古安- ♀ 给 古安 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:09:31

• 读原文, 读懂原文. 你自信比石正丽更知道她发现的病毒和她进行的跨种群传播 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:22:06

• 在活体动物或者人中进行强行传代怎么到你嘴里就成了自然选择的一部分了 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:25:40

• 你先去建议作者改写他们的conclusions吧 -古安- ♀ 给 古安 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:32:25

• We must therefore consider the possibility of a deliberate or in -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (268 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 20:52:24

• 你上面的二点, 第一是中间宿主的发现, 这也是石正丽说的, 第二是在人群中传播多年, 这个被文章中的血清学证明不存在, 你是说 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (770 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:00:55

• 哎，不是我的两点，是你引用的文章的结论。 -yesterday*once*more- ♂ 给 yesterday*once*more 发送悄悄话 (35 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:05:35

• 你不是翻译原文。论文的原文结论和你主贴的结论不同 -古安- ♀ 给 古安 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:12:54

• a deliberate or inadvertent release of SARS-CoV-2. -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:18:52

• 拜托，你引用就要完整把人家整句话说出来，有这么掐头去尾？ -古安- ♀ 给 古安 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:26:58

• 专家们原话是武肺是人为释放或者不小心传出实验室是要考虑的 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:33:24

• 作者在Conclusions明明写着没证据支持人工合成，你非要自己搞出个不一样的结论，你还先去建议作者改写结论吧 -古安- ♀ 给 古安 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:30:15

• 博后已经把专家的二个结论放在上面了，全文就是围绕这二结论拿出科学依据，第一个当然不存在 -janeice65- ♀ 给 janeice65 发送悄悄话 (250 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:40:24

• LOL, 能接受你这说法要么不懂英语，要么纯粹是立场决定。连这么清清楚楚的conclusions都能twist，服了 -古安- ♀ 给 古安 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 03/13/2020 postreply 21:47:22

请您先登陆，再发跟帖！