管理员
|
《科学》杂志：病毒起源地可能不是武汉华南海鲜市场 来源：澎湃新闻 | 2020年01月28日 07:43 新型冠状病毒发源地可能并非是此前被一致认定的武汉华南海鲜市场，而是存在新的可能性。 1月26日，《科学》杂志（Science Magazine）最新发表的《武汉海鲜市场可能并非新型冠状病毒发源地》报道指出，有学者认为，根据中国学者最新在权威医学杂志《柳叶刀》上发表的论文，对此前被认为的新型冠状病毒的起源地——武汉华南海鲜市场表示了质疑，并提出了新的可能性。  此前，《柳叶刀》上发表的论文首次披露了，此次疫情中最早接受病患定点治疗的武汉市金银潭医院收治的前41名患者的情况。在论文中，他们追踪了第一批41个确诊病例的病史，其中总共有13个病例与华南海鲜市场无接触史，27个病例曾到访过海鲜市场。在最早出现的4名感染者中，有3人没有华南海鲜市场暴露史。 上述论文第一作者、武汉市金银潭医院副院长黄朝林在接受财新记者采访时表示：“从现在整个发病情况来看，海鲜市场已经不是唯一的暴露源。（新型冠状病毒起源）是多源性。”但黄朝林认同该病毒有较大可能来源于野生动物。 论文通讯作者、中日友好医院呼吸与危重症医学科主任医师曹彬在回复《科学》杂志时也表示，“现在看起来很明确，华南海鲜市场不是唯一的疫源地，但说实话，我们还不知道病毒到底来自哪里。” 论文指出，首批病人中最早出现的病例为去年12月1日，该病例与华南海鲜市场无接触史。该病例和后续病例之间也没有发现流行病学联系。 乔治敦大学传染病专家丹尼尔·卢西（Daniel Lucey）在接受《科学》采访时表示：“13个人和这个市场没有任何联系。这不是个小数字。”他认为，如果数据真实准确，那么最早的感染可能发生在去年11月。因为在感染和症状出现之间有一段潜伏期。他表示如果是种情况，新型冠状病毒最初可能源自其它地方，在更早的时候就已经在人群中悄无声息地传播，随着传播到海鲜市场后，才在12月下旬出现华南海鲜批发市场的大量病例。 他还补充道，另外两种情况是，病毒的来源是一群被感染的动物，或者是某一种进入海鲜市场的动物。 基于此，卢西建议，对相关的人和动物（包括来自其他动物市场的供应商）血液样本可以尽快进行回溯分析，这可能会更加清楚地拨开新型冠状病毒起源的迷雾。 此前据武汉卫健委通报，第一例患者在去年12月8日出现症状，而报告中说大多数病例与1月1日关闭的华南海鲜市场有关。 编辑：涂悦清 责任编辑：王敬东  [p]The Huanan seafood market in Wuhan has been widely considered the source of the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. But the virus may have infected people elsewhere first. REUTERS[/p][/p][p] Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally By Jon CohenJan. 26, 2020 , 11:25 PM As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published inThe Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis. The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019—and those reports simply said “most” cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January. Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts. The Lancet paper’s data also raise questions about the accuracy of the initial information China provided, Lucey says. At the beginning of the outbreak, the main official source of public information were notices from the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. Its notices on 11 January started to refer to the 41 patients as the only confirmed cases and the count remained the same until 18 January. The notices did not state that the seafood market was the source, but they repeatedly noted that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission and that most cases linked to the market. Because the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission noted that diagnostic tests had confirmed these 41 cases by 10 January and officials presumably knew the case histories of each patient, “China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market,” Lucey tells ScienceInsider. (Lucey also spoke about his concerns in an interview published online yesterday by Science Speaks, a project of the Infectious Disease Society of America.) Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin, says the 1 December timing of the first confirmed case was “an interesting tidbit” in The Lancet paper. “The scenario of somebody being infected outside the market and then later bringing it to the market is one of the three scenarios we have considered that is still consistent with the data,” he says. “It’s entirely plausible given our current data and knowledge.” The other two scenarios are that the origin was a group of infected animals or a single animal that came into that marketplace. Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a “most recent common ancestor”—meaning a common source—as early as 1 October 2019. Bin Cao of Capital Medical University, the corresponding author of The Lancet article and a pulmonary specialist, wrote in an email to ScienceInsider that he and his co-authors “appreciate the criticism” from Lucey. “Now It seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus,” he wrote. “But to be honest, we still do not know where the virus came from now.” Lucey notes that the discovery of the coronavirus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome, a sometimes fatal disease that occurs sporadically, came from a patient in Saudi Arabia in June 2012, although later studies traced it back to an earlier hospital outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Jordan in April 2012. Stored samples from two people who died in Jordan confirmed they had been infected with the virus. Retrospective analyses of blood samples in China from people and animals—including vendors from other animal markets—may reveal a clear picture of where the 2019-nCoV originated, he suggests. “There might be a clear signal among the noise,” he says.[p]Posted in: doi:10.1126/science.abb0611  Jon Cohen Jon is a staff writer for Science.  来源：澎湃新闻 | 2020年01月28日 07:43 原标题：《科学》杂志：病毒起源地可能另有他处，最早感染或在11月 《科学》杂志：病毒起源地可能不是武汉华南海鲜市场 新型冠状病毒发源地可能并非是此前被一致认定的武汉华南海鲜市场，而是存在新的可能性。2020-01-28海鲜市场病毒起源地 Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally By Jon CohenJan. 26, 2020 , 11:25 PM Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally |
|
管理员
|
沙发#
发布于：2020-01-28 09:37
华南海鲜市场“翻盘”？未必是新型冠状病毒发源地！
科技日报 2020-01-27 科技日报记者 张佳星 1月27日，《科学》（Science）在线发表题为《武汉海鲜市场可能不是新病毒在全球传播的源头》的报道。 华南海鲜市场1月1日便被封市，一度被认为是“万恶之源”。据报道，科研人员首次从华南海鲜市场的585份环境样本中，检测到33份样品含有新型冠状病毒核酸，并成功在阳性环境标本中分离病毒，提示该病毒来源于华南海鲜市场销售的野生动物。 “翻盘”的证据 然而，《科学》上的这篇论文作者却认为，海鲜市场可能不是新型冠状病毒的传播源头，这又是为什么呢？ 文章认为，中国作者在《柳叶刀》上发文的41个病例中，只有27个病例有在华南海鲜市场环境中的暴露史。此外，在时间链条上，12月8日第一位被确诊的患者也没有与华南海鲜市场的交集。 “这篇《科学》论文作者还根据研究人员提交到GenBank（基因序列数据库）中的2019-nCoV序列，进行了进化树分析。”北京化工大学教授童贻刚解释，他们对27个序列进行分析、推算，认为这一病毒演化成现在的样子，发生在大约10月1日。 如果进化到以人类为宿主的时间点发生在10月1日前后，那么就有了2个月的时间盲区，这期间在其他环境中传播被带到海鲜市场成为可能。 因此，文中推测新型冠状病毒到达海鲜市场的路径有3种，除了被一个动物、一群动物带到海鲜市场之外，还有可能由1个人带到海鲜市场。 海鲜市场是集散地， 但可能不是“第一站” 目前为止，第一例患者的行踪路线图无法提示更多的信息。“综合41个病例，大部分病例找到了海鲜市场作为共同点，而少数病例没有关系，因此可以肯定海鲜市场是‘集散地’，但却并不一定是病毒从野生动物到人类社会的‘第一站’。”童贻刚说。 童贻刚认为，这一定程度上解释了没有海鲜市场暴露经历的人也有被感染的原因。 更多的谜团待解 “虽然不在海鲜市场，但一定在武汉附近的某个地方。”童贻刚认为，对于溯源，最理想的是找到中间宿主，从而获得病毒存在的直接证据。 目前，科技部已经成立应急专项进行病毒溯源的研究，童贻刚参与其中，他表示，未来的工作将在武汉周边的动物身上做调查，找到了真正的宿主，这将有利于彻底切断传播的源头。 目前已知有7种冠状病毒（包括2019-nCoV在内）能够导致人类呼吸系统疾病，但迄今为止，仅有传染性非典型肺炎（SARS）和中东呼吸综合征（MERS）导致了大规模爆发且死亡率高（分别为10%、37%）。童贻刚团队近年来发现了多起导致家养或者野生动物大规模死亡疫情的新型冠状病毒。有专家表示，应将冠状病毒列为重点关注的病毒，密切了解其进化动态，以防其进化为人类致死的病毒类型。 来源：科技日报 编辑：张爽 审核：管晶晶 来源：澎湃新闻 | 2020年01月28日 07:43 《科学》杂志：病毒起源地可能不是武汉华南海鲜市场 http://news.cctv.com/2020/01/28/ARTItaq5CZsWBbPkSz5XamCw200128.shtml? 记者再探武汉华南海鲜批发市场 武汉华南海鲜市场检出大量新型冠状病毒 北京日报·2020-01-27 01:53:00
|
|
管理员
|
板凳#
发布于：2020-01-28 10:21
News WUHAN SEAFOOD MARKET MAY NOT BE SOURCE OF NOVEL VIRUS SPREADING GLOBALLY By Jon Cohen | Jan 27th, 2020 REUTERS As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. ... “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.The Lancet paper’s data also raise questions about the accuracy of the initial information China provided, Lucey says. ... Retrospective analyses of blood samples in China from people and animals—including vendors from other animal markets—may reveal a clear picture of where the 2019-nCoV originated, he suggests.
AAAS.org |
一键同布到我集网·各家微博
