An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not established, but most papers point out to a zoonotic origin of this coronavirus.

  • An important number of available papers on the origin of SARC-CoV-2 are not experimental studies.

  • The hypothesis of an unnatural origin of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be yet scientifically discarded.

Abstract

More than two and a half years have already passed since the first case of COVID-19 was officially reported (December 2019), as well as more than two years since the WHO declared the current pandemic (March 2020). During these months, the advances on the knowledge of the COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible of the infection, have been very significant. However, there are still some weak points on that knowledge, being the origin of SARS-CoV-2 one of the most notorious. One year ago, I published a review focused on what we knew and what we need to know about the origin of that coronavirus, a key point for the prevention of potential future pandemics of a similar nature. The analysis of the available publications until July 2021 did not allow drawing definitive conclusions on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Given the great importance of that issue, the present review was aimed at updating the scientific information on that origin. Unfortunately, there have not been significant advances on that topic, remaining basically the same two hypotheses on it. One of them is the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, while the second one is the possible leak of this coronavirus from a laboratory. Most recent papers do not include observational or experimental studies, being discussions and positions on these two main hypotheses. Based on the information here reviewed, there is not yet a definitive and well demonstrated conclusion on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Keywords

COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
Zoonotic origin
Laboratory leak
Hosts

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Cited by (0)

View Abstract