An open debate on SARS-CoV-2's proximal origin is long overdue

Segreto, Rossana; Deigin, Yuri; McCairn, Kevin; Sousa, Alejandro; Sirotkin, Dan; Sirotkin, Karl; Couey, Jonathan J.; Jones, Adrian; Microbiology, Daoyu Zhang Department of; Innsbruck, University of; Austria,; Inc., Youthereum Genetics; Toronto,; Ontario,; Canada,; Solutions, Synaptek - Deep Learning; Gifu,; Japan,; Monforte, Regional Hospital of; Lugo,; Spain,; Compostela, University of Santiago de; LLC, Karl Sirotkin; Mary, Lake; FL,; USA,; Pittsburgh, University of; Medicine, School of; researcher, Independent bioinformatics; researcher, Independent genetics

There is a near consensus view that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include: a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence of recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human ACE2; a novel furin cleavage site insert; a flat glycan binding domain of the spike protein which conflicts with host evasion survival patterns exhibited by other coronaviruses, and high human and mouse peptide mimicry. Initial assumptions against a laboratory origin, by contrast, have remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, over a year after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Given the immense social and economic impact of this pandemic, identifying the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to preventing future outbreaks. The search for SARS-CoV-2's origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin.