New Study Suggests That There Are Two Types Of Coronavirus Strains

A new study from Beijing University says two different coronavirus strains have been discovered, one of which is more aggressive. European researchers, however, questioned this and even called for the study to be withdrawn.

A study published in the National Science Review by Jian Lu, a bioinformatics researcher at Peking University, points to the discovery of two different strains of coronavirus. One of them is more aggressive than the other. European scientists question the research results, however, and the World Health Organization (WHO) asks for restraint with hasty theses.

It is reported that the said study was carried out on the basis of 103 DNA samples, with the result that two strains of the virus could be detected, which were named S and L. 30% of the samples corresponded to type S, while the other 70% were to be assigned to type L.

The Chinese scientists involved in the study classified type L as the more aggressive, which spreads faster. Type S is of older origin and has probably been in contact with people for a number of years without drawing attention to itself, as the symptoms are only mild.

The new study from China

The new study was carried out by Peking University and the Pasteur Institute Shanghai. It highlights the fact that type S of the coronavirus is the older form, i.e. the original virus. Mutations, natural selection and recombination resulted in type L, which was most frequently detected when the viral disease broke out in China.

The researchers said the frequency with which type L occurs is decreasing, at least in China. This is countered by the fact that, according to the study, 27 of the 103 samples came from cases from Wuhan (China), 96% of which were demonstrably type L and only 4% type S.

The other 73 samples analyzed in the study, on the other hand, come from cases outside of China. The ratio is different here: 61.1% are assigned to type L and 38.4% are assigned to type S.

This would mean that the more aggressive Type L has not spread as massively outside of China. The researchers believe it is possible that this was due to the strict security measures and precautionary measures that were used in China. It is also possible that the selection pressure on type S was weaker.

The need for new studies

So far, there have only been hypothetical assumptions regarding the nature and multiplication of the two coronavirus strains. Therefore, the study closes with the note that further research is needed on this. It goes on to say that only a combination of genetic analysis with epidemological information and medical statistics about COVID-19 can provide reliable answers.

Dr. José Antonio Pérez Molina, specialist in infectious diseases at the Hospital Ramón y Cajal Clinic in Madrid and member of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, abbreviated SEIMC), pointed out that the occurrence of two different Virus strains are normal for this type of microorganism.

He went on to explain that the less disease-causing viruses are usually the predominant ones because they can multiply better in the population. It is also usually the case that the virus with the higher capacity to spread, albeit with a lower mortality rate, prevails.

Controversy regarding the two strains of the virus

Some scientists are critical of the way in which the research results have been interpreted. Dr. Isabel Sola, head of the coronvirus laboratory of the National Biotechnological Center, which is subordinate to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, abbreviated: CSIC), emphasizes that there is not enough information to draw such conclusions about the virulence of a virus strain in the To draw comparison to the other.

Dr. Oscar A. MacLean from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, points out that 111 mutations of the virus have been detected so far, none of which really played a role in the epidemic. He goes on to explain that the new study from China lacks methodological limitations, starting with the small amount of samples.

MacLean and his team went even further; they urged the Chinese researchers to retract their conclusions, which would only create further confusion. The World Health Organization (WHO), however, warned against over-interpreting the findings and made it clear that the two strains are basically the same virus.