The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, has been identified as an epicenter of the early spread of COVID-19. Researchers studied the genetic material from hundreds of swabs taken from the walls, floors, machines, and drains in the market. This helped them identify which animals were present in areas where most of the COVID-19 virus samples were found.
The species found in these areas include the European rabbit, Amur hedgehog, masked palm civet, hoary bamboo rat, raccoon dog, Malayan porcupine, Reeves’s muntjac, and Himalayan marmot.
This research adds more support to the idea that the market played a key role in spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus from infected animals to humans.
The researchers used a technique called metagenomic sequencing. This method studies all the genetic material in a sample and identifies which animals it came from.
Although their DNA was discovered very close to the virus, sometimes on the same swab, the investigation, which was published on Thursday in the journal Cell, does not establish that the virus infected the animals. This indicates that there’s a good chance the animals contracted the infection at the market.
Dogs, raccoon dogs, and rabbits are the animals in the market that are known to be sensitive to COVID-19 infections. Given that they have been demonstrated to spread the virus, raccoon dogs are a prime contender to be the animals that originally exposed humans to the virus.
Examining the history of viruses
To figure out when the virus first appeared and what it’s most closely related to, the international team of scientists studied the genetic material from samples found in the market.
Dr. Kristian Andersen, a senior researcher and expert in infectious disease genetics from the Scripps Translational Research Institute in California, compared this process to “carbon-dating viruses.”
It is possible to estimate the age of the COVID-19 virus by knowing how frequently it changes or mutates. The virus accumulates around two genetic mutations per month.
The virus that caused the pandemic is thought to have appeared between mid-November and mid-December of 2019.
According to their investigation, the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is currently on the market originated simultaneously with the virus that caused the wider pandemic, indicating that the two viruses are identical.
According to Andersen, the timing of the emergence of the virus found in the market would have been different from the emergence of the virus. These are what caused the pandemic if it had originated somewhere else first. And then traveled to the market where its spread was amplified, as suggested by a lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin. The date of birth of the pandemic virus would be earlier. The same conclusion is drawn by other lines of evidence.
In a metropolis of twelve million people, the market was home to over one-third of the first 174 individuals who contracted COVID-19. Many others, in the meantime, did not have a direct relationship to the market.
Andersen claimed to have been “flabbergasted” when he initially noticed how tightly this clustering was packed.
His mind was completely blown when he began examining the hundreds of swabs that had been collected in the market in January 2020 and began “looking at what’s happening inside the market, and I saw that clustering of environmental positivity.” “It’s unbelievable what I’m seeing here,” Andersen remarked.
The presence of both the “A” and “B” lineages of the virus, which were circulating in the early stages of the pandemic, on the swabs taken at the market is another significant indicator that the market may have been the source of the outbreak.
Increasing evidence of animal origins
According to Andersen, scientists have never before had this much data, at this degree of specificity, about a pandemic.
The results are in good agreement with identical research conducted by Chinese scientists and published in the journal Nature in 2023. When the analysis’s source data was covertly uploaded to GISAID in March 2023—a website where researchers can exchange viral genetic sequences—it aroused a brief international flurry of curiosity.
The data was found in 2023 by Professor Florence Debarre of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, who promptly notified other scientists. She co-wrote this new paper with Andersen as a senior author.
The current study, according to Debarre, “adds a greater weight of evidence because, as data continue to accumulate, all the results go in the same direction, which is an origin linked to wildlife trade in the Huanan market.”
This work builds on several significant scientific publications from the same research team that have been published in prestigious journals and suggest an animal source for the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Andersen is aware that many people would quickly reject the results of the new study about the causes of the COVID-19 outbreak when they see his name attached to it. He claims not to give a damn.
They’ll simply remark, ‘Oh, yes, we can’t believe any of this,’ after perusing the paper’s author list. So there’s no need for us to even read the paper,” Andersen remarked.
Among the most well-known heads of a multinational team of experts, Andersen has been examining data gathered in the early stages of the pandemic to determine the exact cause of the worldwide health emergency.
Government inquiries and social media theories have focused heavily on Andersen since he had a change of heart. Initially, he thought that SARS-CoV2 originated from a Wuhan lab that was modifying similar viruses. However, he later published a research paper outlining the likely source of the COVID-19 pandemic virus, which was likely transferred from infected animals to humans through a process known as spillover.
These kinds of animal spillovers are how most pandemics start.
Those who support the lab leak scenario believe that Andersen was coerced into altering his mind by senior scientists at the National Institutes of Health.
None of it is true, according to Andersen. He just altered his idea, which is what scientists do when they come across data that defies their earlier theories.
According to Debarre, she also initially thought the virus came from a lab.
It could have originated in a lab. According to Debarre, “It’s a plausible theory for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 that needed to be seriously considered and that we did consider.”
She stated that Andersen is renowned for being the first “lab leaker.”
Since we are scientists and follow the data, we were all receptive to the notion of a lab leak. Thus far, every known data point, regardless of the type of data, supports an animal overflow occurrence that most likely occurred in the Huanan market.
Insights from previous pandemics
It is crucial to comprehend the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to comprehend the events surrounding COVID-19 as well as potential future pandemic threats.
According to Andersen, a lot of effort has been made since the pandemic to enhance lab safety and reduce the possibility of harmful viruses accidentally leaking into the environment. However, the commerce in wild and farmed animals, which still carries significant hazards, has received far less attention.
“The illegal wildlife trade, which is a $50 billion+ annual industry in China, has received a lot of attention,” Andersen remarked.
Andersen notes that in the samples taken from the Huanan market, they also discovered the H9N2 flu virus, another virus on the verge of breakout.
It serves as a sobering reminder that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t particularly exceptional, he claimed. Simply put, it was a virus that happened to be present at the ideal moment.
The H5N1 bird flu virus in the United States on dairy and poultry farms may be causing the same situation as what occurred in Wuhan in 2019. It’s a game of chance as long as the virus continues spreading, he declared.
Andersen stated that although he feels that there should be greater control around the study of viruses in labs, animal markets require more consideration.
“Unregulated wildlife trading is a bigger boogie monster that is directly in front of us,” Andersen added. “And we’re not even talking about that.”
