Erebus

The Origins of SARS-CoV-2 · source record · paper

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

Peng Zhou; Xing-Lou Yang; Xian-Guang Wang; and 26 others; Zheng-Li Shi; Nature · 2020

AI-verified citationSRC-ZHOU-2020
identifier / locator
Nature 579(7798):270–273; DOI 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
url
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
verification note
Open-access full text fetched 2026-08-26; the whole-genome identity figure quoted verbatim from the Results.
reliability notes
  • The paper that established the closest known bat relative; authored by the institute whose research is itself under scrutiny, which is a conflict to note rather than a reason to discount the sequencing.
  • Reports identity figures and concludes probable bat origin; it does not itself argue that the relative is too distant to be a progenitor, and that inference is not attributed to it here.
  • Later peer-reviewed papers give the same relative's identity as 96.1 percent rather than 96.2, so this case attributes any figure to the source stating it rather than asserting one canonical value.

Evidence drawn from this source

Supports· strongCOV-E016

The closest known relative, at roughly 96 percent whole-genome identity

what the source states
"Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13, with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%." On the spike: "The receptor-binding spike protein encoded by the S gene was highly divergent from other CoVs … with less than 75% nucleotide sequence identity to all previously described SARSr-CoVs, except for a 93.1% nucleotide identity to RaTG13."
what we infer
Roughly four percent whole-genome divergence represents decades of independent evolution, which is why no sampled relative can be the immediate progenitor. Note that the paper reports identity figures and concludes probable bat origin; the "too distant to be a progenitor" inference is drawn elsewhere, and is not attributed to these authors. Later peer-reviewed papers give this same figure as 96.1 percent.
limitations
  • Authored by the institute whose research is itself under scrutiny in this case — a conflict to record, not a reason to discount the sequencing.
  • A statement about sampled diversity, not existing diversity.
Peng Zhou (2020)AI-verified citationCOV-C013