Coronavirus has mutated into more than 30 strains, say scientists in China

Scientists in China have discovered more than 30 mutations of the new coronavirus, which they say may partly explain why it has been more deadly in certain parts of the world.

Researchers from Zhejiang University said they had "direct evidence" that the virus "has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity".

The study was written by a team including Professor Li Lanjuan, one of China's top scientists who was reportedly the first expert to propose a lockdown in Wuhan - where COVID-19 originated.

Samples were taken from 11 patients admitted to hospitals in Hangzhou, 470 miles east of Wuhan, between 22 January and 4 February during the early phase of the outbreak.

Using "ultra-deep sequencing", researchers identified 33 mutations of the new coronavirus - known as SARS-CoV-2 - of which 19 were new.

The deadliest mutations in the patients in the study had also been found in most patients across Europe, the South Morning China Post reported.


https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-has-mutated-into-more-than-30-strains-say-scientists-in-china-11976380

Thorin wrote:Scientists in China have discovered more than 30 mutations of the new coronavirus, which they say may partly explain why it has been more deadly in certain parts of the world.

Researchers from Zhejiang University said they had "direct evidence" that the virus "has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity".

The study was written by a team including Professor Li Lanjuan, one of China's top scientists who was reportedly the first expert to propose a lockdown in Wuhan - where COVID-19 originated.

Samples were taken from 11 patients admitted to hospitals in Hangzhou, 470 miles east of Wuhan, between 22 January and 4 February during the early phase of the outbreak.

Using "ultra-deep sequencing", researchers identified 33 mutations of the new coronavirus - known as SARS-CoV-2 - of which 19 were new.

The deadliest mutations in the patients in the study had also been found in most patients across Europe, the South Morning China Post reported.


https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-has-mutated-into-more-than-30-strains-say-scientists-in-china-11976380

I wonder if those mutations are a reflection of something in their DNA?,

Perhaps something like this happened 500 years ago in China and many in that region have some sort of inherited resistance?

Much like smallpox, Europeans and American Indians?

The virus that causes Covid-19 is actually all RNA, and it hijacks human cells and forces them to create RNA (which human cells don't normally do; they only naturally create DNA). That said, all mutations have to do with either RNA or DNA; the fact that this virus has mutated into 33 different strands is just bad luck for us at the end of the day.

The scary thing about viruses is that pretty much any of them could mutate into something that most of the human race simply couldn't survive -- something highly contagious and highly deadly -- and that they're mutating all the time, and that we have no way of keeping tabs on these mutations until tens of thousands of people get sick and die.

The only thing working in our favor, really, is that we keep mutating as well, and there will probably always be a certain percentage of the population that can survive any particular virus due to dumb-luck chemistry. 

But we, unlike viruses, can't make millions of new copies of ourselves within days.

Ben Reilly wrote:The virus that causes Covid-19 is actually all RNA, and it hijacks human cells and forces them to create RNA (which human cells don't normally do; they only naturally create DNA). That said, all mutations have to do with either RNA or DNA; the fact that this virus has mutated into 33 different strands is just bad luck for us at the end of the day.

The scary thing about viruses is that pretty much any of them could mutate into something that most of the human race simply couldn't survive -- something highly contagious and highly deadly -- and that they're mutating all the time, and that we have no way of keeping tabs on these mutations until tens of thousands of people get sick and die.

The only thing working in our favor, really, is that we keep mutating as well, and there will probably always be a certain percentage of the population that can survive any particular virus due to dumb-luck chemistry. 

But we, unlike viruses, can't make millions of new copies of ourselves within days.

Pffft...you havnt investigated council sink estates

Victorismyhero wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:The virus that causes Covid-19 is actually all RNA, and it hijacks human cells and forces them to create RNA (which human cells don't normally do; they only naturally create DNA). That said, all mutations have to do with either RNA or DNA; the fact that this virus has mutated into 33 different strands is just bad luck for us at the end of the day.

The scary thing about viruses is that pretty much any of them could mutate into something that most of the human race simply couldn't survive -- something highly contagious and highly deadly -- and that they're mutating all the time, and that we have no way of keeping tabs on these mutations until tens of thousands of people get sick and die.

The only thing working in our favor, really, is that we keep mutating as well, and there will probably always be a certain percentage of the population that can survive any particular virus due to dumb-luck chemistry. 

But we, unlike viruses, can't make millions of new copies of ourselves within days.

Pffft...you havnt investigated council sink estates

While it is normal for RNA viruses to mutate very slowly over time... And while it is a possibility that it could mutate into a more virulent and dangerous form... It is much more highly likely that any mutations would make the virus less dangerous and weaker...

Tommy Monk wrote:
While it is normal for RNA viruses to mutate very slowly over time... And while it is a possibility that it could mutate into a more virulent and dangerous form... It is much more highly likely that any mutations would make the virus less dangerous and weaker...

Should we be making assumptions based upon normalcy when talking about a new physiological phenomenon?  After all, 'new' by definition means tossing out the old.

What if this virus has incorporated automatic mutation into its cycle, perfecting its ability to jump into a new form with each generation or so??  Perhaps its adaptive feature is its ability to mutate.

Wasn't this the story of the book by Michael Crichton, The Andromeda Strain (1969)? The bad part was that it wiped out everything. The good part was that it wiped out itself.

It has been seen to mutate very slowly...

And it's not a new virus... Just new for humans to get it...

Tommy Monk wrote:
It has been seen to mutate very slowly...

And it's not a new virus... Just new for humans to get it...

Slowly?  Over thirty (30) mutations since November?  And it hides in some hosts by leaving them asymptomatic?  That's a pretty tricky l'il bug.

As far as it's being a part of the SARS family, well you have to start somewhere.  Is it a continuation from the past, or is it a novel form going into the future?  Continuity or change; continuity or change?  Which is it?

If you believe the Chinese all of a sudden... Then there are 30 mutations...


But each change will be a different very small blip change in the whole genetic sequence...and normally an error in the viruses replication of itself... So making itself a bad genetic copy of itself and therefore most likely in a way that makes itself work less well than before...

Tommy Monk wrote:If you believe the Chinese all of a sudden... Then there are 30 mutations...

But each change will be a different very small blip change in the whole genetic sequence...and normally an error in the viruses replication of itself... So making itself a bad genetic copy of itself and therefore most likely in a way that makes itself work less well than before...

If you believe that incrementalism is the nature of change. Although Darwin propagated it, there is really no direct evidence to substantiate it. But, keep in mind, cataclysmic, (or catastrophic) change is also a possibility.

It's all relative to time, and the comparative change of events in the environment, but I wouldn't bet that a perceived change will be a "very small blip" when it occurs. It wasn't for Pompeii.

There’s nothing that says genetic change must be small.

Pompeii???


I presume you are talking about the eruption... Which has absolutely nothing to do with the genetics of viruses ..



Normally a mutation in a virus is where it replicates itself but makes a mistake in its genetic replication of itself... Leading to whatever bit it has made a mistake with, not allowing it to work as effectively as before...

it is true that a pathogen generally becomes less virulent over time, because the last thing any parasite wants is to kill its host...(thats not to imply any intelligent thought to the virus, however the "selfish gene effect" is well understood)

Tommy Monk wrote:
Pompeii???

I presume you are talking about the eruption... Which has absolutely nothing to do with the genetics of viruses ..

Yes it does:

Dictionary.com wrote:mutation[ myoo-tey-shuh n ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR mutation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
Biology.
a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.
the act or process of changing.
a change or alteration, as in form or nature.

Mutation = change. We were talking about the nature of change. You have no substantiation that change must be incremental, as opposed to cataclysmic. The same goes for mutation. Change is the essence of change. Why expect it to have immutable qualities.

Tommy Monk wrote:Normally a mutation in a virus is where it replicates itself but makes a mistake in its genetic replication of itself... Leading to whatever bit it has made a mistake with, not allowing it to work as effectively as before...

But nowhere has nature written that it must be a "very small blip". A mutation can be cataclysmic in effect.

I want to move on to Victor's post, as he is a microbiologist. So I won't go into your answer further.

Victorismyhero wrote:it is true that a pathogen generally becomes less virulent over time, because the last thing any parasite wants is to kill its host...(thats not to imply any intelligent thought to the virus, however the "selfish gene effect" is well understood)

I know. That's a strong debate issue in the community of geneticists...in overcoming a host's defenses, what is crossing the line? HIV obviously did.

P.S. Don't worry. I'm not reading you as being anthropomorphic. Chance & necessity works as well as a 'mother nature'. If it succeeds, that's as much as a workable plan.