A team of researchers in China has published analyzes of samples taken from the market over three years ago that may be linked to the COVID19 outbreak. Huanan seafood and wildlife market takes center stage in search for the origin of coronavirus.
However, this is the first peerreviewed study of biological evidence collected in the market in 2020. By linking the virus to animals sold in the market, it could open new lines of inquiry into how the outbreak came about.
The investigation found that samples that tested positive for the virus also contained genetic material from wild animals.
Some scientists say this is further evidence that the disease originally spread to a human from an infected animal.
Also Read: COVID: Antibody Treatment Reduces Risk of Hospitalization or Death by 39%
However, some people urged caution in interpreting the results. Why it took three years for the genetic content of the samples to become public remains unclear.
An alternative theory is that the virus accidentally leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan.
no conclusive evidence
In February, the Chinese research team posted an early version of their study online. However, at the time, scientists did not publish all of the genetic information found in the samples collected at the market.
Later, another group of researchers not based in China shared their own assessment of these samples from the Huanan market after finding the genetic sequences on a scientific datasharing website.
Also read: COVID: WHO changes vaccination recommendations.
Now, a new study by the Chinese research team, which has already been validated by other scientists before being published in the journal Nature, brings more details about the content of these samples collected in stalls, surfaces, cages and machines inside the market.
Before the 2020 eruption, scientists photographed the animals being sold at Huanan Market (Photo: E. Holmes)
The Chinese research team’s paper showed some samples collected in areas where wild animals were sold tested positive for the coronavirus.
The analysis also showed that animals known to be susceptible to the virus, particularly raccoon dogs, were being sold alive in these locations.
However, the Chinese researchers cautioned that their findings are not definitive proof of how the outbreak began. “These environmental samples cannot prove that the animals were infected,” the article explains.
According to scientists, there is still a possibility that the coronavirus was introduced to the market by an infected person and not an animal.
Professor David Robertson from the University of Glasgow is a virologist who has been involved in the genetic study of the origin of SARSCoV2 since it emerged in 2020.
He told BBC News: “The most important thing is that this very important data set is now being released and is available for others to work on.”
But he added that the contents of the samples were “compelling evidence that the animals were likely infected with the virus.”
“It’s all the evidence that’s important,” he said. “When you combine that with the fact that the first cases of COVID19 in Wuhan are linked to the market, it is strong evidence that transmission from an animal took place here in the market.”
The published findings come amid signs that the lab leak theory is gaining traction among US officials.
The Chinese government has vehemently denied suggestions that the virus originated in a scientific institution, but the US FBI said it now considers that scenario the “most likely”. The US Department of Energy was similarly vocal.
Various US ministries and authorities have dealt with the topic and come to different conclusions. But on March 1, the FBI director accused Beijing of “doing everything possible to try to obstruct and cover up the investigation,” revealing that the agency had “been convinced of the lab leak theory for some time.” .
The FBI has not released its findings, which has frustrated some scientists.
The lead researcher on the new report, from the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing, was contacted by the BBC for comment, but received no response.