https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16166518/ 
More on ACE2 Tampering by the WIV.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15791205/ 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111894/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18448527/ 
More! The WIV seems to have quite a huge library of chimeric and non-existent-in-nature ACE2. They may pre-adapt some RBDs to them, or vice-versa.

The “bat ACE2” in the “Nature” article? Well, wonder why they never tell the sequence? That is because the WIV have been using techniques like phage display and yeast display to adapt a false animal ACE2 to CoV2 before it was released!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7111894/

The RhiLu1.1 cells, from Rhinolophus Alcyone, express ACE2, but is insensitive to CoV2 entry. The ACE2 plasmid, allegedly derived from the very same cell line, somehow permit it? This simply illustrated that whatever the “bat ACE2 plasmid” they were using, it must be INAUTHENTIC!

If they can have ACE2 mRNA from RhiLu1.1, it mean that this cell have the exact same ACE2 as their “expression plasmid”. However, despite the same VSV Pseudovirus entry test, the authentic RhiLu1.1, allegedly contained ACE2 mRNA, can not become infected. Then, How could you

Extract ACE2 from a non-susceptible cell line if it contains an susceptible ACE2? If it don’t express ACE2, you can’t get the mRNA so no cDNA clone for you. If it express ACE2 for a cDNA clone, then the cell line itself must be susceptible. Therefore, fraudulent bat ACE2 have

Been circulating in the virologist community since late 2015 to late 2019! Fraudulent “bat ACE2” in plasmid form is in Shi’s possesion since late January—and all they need is to clone the plasmid and sprinkle it in The right dataset–boom! CoV2-Suspectible ACE2!

However, such ACE2 will be absent in all BioSamples of the same species described previously—2 Ra BioSamples before contained ACE2 that are identical to that of Rs and Rp. 1 Ra BioSample from an non-linked lab censored the N terminus of the ACE2. Other BioSamples don’t allow

BLAST—presumable to hide until they find the right ACE2 to stick into them!

In fact, no BioSamples or SRA from after May should be trusted for their ACE2–they all have a very late publication date after article—which is classical sign of frantic researchers searching out and replacing ACE2 from their fraudulent in-house clone. Jun 1 dataset simply cut

Off their ACE2 N terminus—presumably because someone searched the old (authentic) BioSample and found out that real Ra ACE2 is identical to that of Rs in the critical Virus-binding domain. And that Rs is non-susceptible to RaTG13. So censor it before Shi could get something that

Would hopefully work. (But is absent in previous Ra samples—it is at best a cell-line adaptation, at worst, faking ACE2 to fit the RBD. They have a plan of this RBM since late 2018–plenty of time to fake an ACE2 for it.) however, previous Ra virus data and previous ACE2 data

Mean that RaTG13-Ra affinity would be much lower than any other Ra-infecting virii, and almost certainly much lower than CoV2-Ra affinity. Most likely: SARS1>SL-CoV>CoV2>RaTG13 in term of Ra affinity. The D501 handicap and the H505 handicap hit it stone-hard as it should. No

Evidence of these being favored in that species.

Another red flag is E445 which is again, the inly negativel charged residue in all of Sarbecoviruses. It is going to hit ACE2 hard.

Dataset XGD01: ACE2 SP porportion from human contamination. VBM1 and VBM2(21-194) missing.

Dataset Bat_Virome_130528_Lane1: identical to Rp and Rs.

Anal Swab: Identical to R.Sinicus.

It appear that none of the SRA-derived R.Affinis ACE2 fragments from legitimate BioSamples, differ from the ACE2 of Rhinolophus that does NOT support infection of RaTG13. whatevery they attempt to spin, it will be invalid since it came out of the blue, and don't exist in nature.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/itempdf74155353254prod/12057996/In_Silico_Analysis_of_Intermediate_Hosts_and_Susceptible_Animals_of_SARS-CoV-2_v1.pdf

The best case is that it exist only in a cell line, like the RhiLu1.1 cell line whose ACE2 was not susceptible to CoV2 infection, yet the plasmid they used, allegedly from a different clone of the same cell line, could.

The worst case is that it was completely fraudulent, like the mixed-up “RaTG13 Spike”in the https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.20.213280v1
Which goes against all other publications when tested on Manis Javanica ACE2.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.032342v1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7337384/

ACE2 sequence isolated from Bat-Virome sample. identical to Rs.

@threadreaderapp Unroll