Boston University COVID strain

The University's research took the spike protein from the BA.1 omicron variant and placed it on the original strain of the COVID-19 virus.

But when they gave them the original COVID-19 virus with the new omicron spike protein 80-percent of the mice died. And it says, too, that it did combine the omicron variant’s spike protein with the original virus for testing on mice. Because, according to reports, when the researchers infected mice with the BA.1 omicron variant they mostly had mild cases and survived.

Boston University scientists have produced a new COVID strain that is highly potent and has an 80 per cent probability of killing an infected mammal.

The views expressed here are that of the respective authors/ entities and do not represent the views of Economic Times (ET). Researchers noticed that the mice reacted differently to the original strain than to the new one, which was mild on the mammals. [Richard Ebright](/topic/richard-ebright)of [Rutgers University](/topic/rutgers-university)and a leading chemist, believe that if research is carried out, it helps us understand what goes wrong. [Omicron](/topic/omicron)strain, the mice just suffered mild symptoms when exposed to the virus. [Wuhan Laboratory](/topic/wuhan-laboratory)started the coronavirus pandemic. This protein is what clings onto the human cells and then attacks them.

The university has called some headlines claiming they have developed a "more deadly" strain of the virus "false and inaccurate."

And this study was part of that, finding what part of the virus is responsible for causing severe disease. Boston University first clarified in a statement that the research was not gain-of-function research, and therefore did not make a more severe version of the omicron variant, instead making “the virus replicate less dangerous.” The space is completely sealed and the lab is fitted with proper, sophisticated filtration and decontamination technology. “Our whole goal is for the public’s health. Furthermore, this research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations, including the FDA. “The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif...

A preprint describes how a research team created a new hybrid version of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that killed 80% of the mice that it had infected.

For example, preprints have allowed scientists to more quickly communicate information on the transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 and the efficacy of vaccines and treatments. In his tweet thread, Krammer added that the group got in trouble “because they did not ask for permission” and not because of the experiment itself per se: Of course, when researchers get grants from the NIH, they don’t necessarily have to give the NIH a heads up about everything that they plan on doing. Krammer argued that the experiments conducted by the Boston University team weren’t that different from what nature has already done. You know the saying, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Well, what about when a tree falls in people’s bedrooms, bathrooms, or wherever they happen to be reading their social media feeds? You may counter that when you mess with a virus’s genetic make-up, how can you know for sure whether the virus may get weaker versus stronger? For example, giving a virus the ability to infect a species of animal that it wasn’t previously able to infect would qualify as gain-of-function research. The pre-print credited NIAID, which is led by Anthony Fauci, MD, as one of the funders of this research. Now, you may argue that while the virus happened to get a little weaker in this case, who’s to say that the opposite couldn’t have resulted instead. This was indeed more than the 0% of mice who died after being infected with the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2. Or was this perhaps loss-of-function research that was indeed of public benefit that could lead to better therapeutic interventions? These days, if you think that posting something that talks about a lab-created virus killing mice wouldn’t create a commotion, then in the words of the heavy metal band Judas Priest, you’ve got another thing coming.

Researchers extracted Omicron's spike protein — the unique structure that binds to and invades human cells and attacked it to the original wildtype strain ...

If we are to avoid a next lab-generated pandemic, it is imperative that oversight of ePPP research be strengthened,” Ebright said. “If we are to avoid a next lab-generated pandemic, it is imperative that oversight of enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research be strengthened,” he added. “In…mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80 percent,” they wrote in the paper. With the life coming back to normal as Covid-19 on the retreat, a new Covid strain which has 80% kill rate has been found in the US. A team of Boston University scientists claimed that they have made a hybrid virus — combining Omicron and the original Wuhan strain — that killed 80 per cent of mice in a study, according to DailyMail.com. Experts have slammed the scientists for “playing with fire” and involving in such a “dangerous virus manipulation” research which has not been peer-reviewed.

The hybrid virus created at BU was found to be more lethal to mice than omicron variant, but less so than the original COVID-19 strain.

[Daily Mail](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11323677/Outrage-Boston-University-CREATES-Covid-strain-80-kill-rate.html), say that university researchers made a new more lethal, hybrid strain of the virus by combining "Omicron and the original Wuhan strain — that killed 80 percent of mice in a study." In other words, the hybrid virus created at BU was found to be more lethal to mice than omicron, but less so than the first Washington strain. ““First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. That line is concerning the strain's supposed kill rate on mice, something NEIDL Director and BU Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine Chair of Microbiology Ronald Corley says media reports are solely looking at, misunderstanding the study. [STAT](https://www.statnews.com/2022/10/17/boston-university-researchers-testing-of-lab-made-version-of-covid-virus-draws-government-scrutiny/). In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous.

Boston University COVID researchers have combined the omicron variant spike protein with the original virus, testing the created strain on mice “to help fight against future pandemics,” according to BU. The scientists in BU's National Emerging ...

“It should however be noted that the K18-hACE2 mouse model is a well-established model for investigating the lethal phenotype of SARS-CoV-2.” “One potential limitation of our study is the use of K18-hACE2 mice for pathogenesis studies instead of the primate models that have more similarities with humans,” the study reads. The research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee, which consists of scientists as well as local community members.

Boston University issued a statement Tuesday defending its research of a COVID-19 Omicron strain when they took the variant's ...

There has been widespread speculation that scientists at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, contributed to the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan. Certain reports about the study were “false and inaccurate,” Boston University official Ronald Corley said in a statement. “First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at England’s University of East Anglia, said, referring to the top level of biosecurity used in laboratories. Furthermore, this research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations, including the FDA. “The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif…

Researchers at Boston University say they have developed a new COVID strain that has an 80% kill rate following a series of similar experiments first ...

The World Health Organization continues to face criticism for its handling of the crisis in its early, most pivotal, days. The omicron variant is highly transmissible, even in those who are fully vaccinated. In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous," the statement read. [team of scientists](https://www.foxnews.com/science) from Florida and Boston at the school's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories. "First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-COV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. They then documented how the mice reacted to the hybrid strain.

Boston University scientists have created a hybrid version of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Their experiments sparked controversy, with heated ...

"Whereas Omicron causes a very mild disease in these animals." The mice used by the researchers for the study, however, might not have seemed to them to be a close enough analogue. "First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. Corley,](https://profiles.bu.edu/Ronald.Corley) the director of NEIDL, said in the statement that the Daily Mail report "sensationalized the message" and misrepresented "the study and its goals in its entirety." For a virus to be defined as an ePPP, it has to be reasonably expected to produce pandemic potential results in humans. The scientists also didn't divulge to NIAID if their experiments could create an enhanced pathogen of pandemic potential (ePPP), according to STAT. Scientists at Boston University's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) created the chimeric virus to study how omicron versions of the virus, which first appeared in 2021, evade immunity built up against past strains and yet cause a lower rate of severe infections. [said in a statement](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/). Eberling said that NIAID would have "conversations over upcoming days" with the researchers. "Consistent with studies published by others, this work shows that it is not the spike protein that drives Omicron pathogenicity, but instead other viral proteins. Yet the hybrid virus was still less deadly than the original Wuhan variant of the virus, which killed 100% of infected lab mice. Their experiments sparked controversy, with heated headlines claiming that the researchers made the virus more lethal and university officials denouncing these claims as "false and inaccurate."

Boston University is defending a study involving a lab-made hybrid COVID-19 strain amid national scrutiny.

"First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the [original] SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous." Researchers at the university's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories created a hybrid variant that combined the omicron variant's spike protein with the original virus strain from Wuhan, China. "Determination of those proteins will lead to better diagnostics and disease management strategies." [The Brink](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/), the organization's research publication. [defending](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/) a study involving a lab-made hybrid COVID-19 strain amid national scrutiny.

Boston University is defending its research of testing a created COVID strain on mice, as BU on Tuesday emphasized that the university "fulfilled all ...

“All research at Boston University, whether funded by NIAID or not, follows this same protocol.” BU reiterated on Tuesday that the research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee, which consists of scientists and local community members. We believe that funding streams for tools do not require an obligation to report.” We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions. NIAID funding was acknowledged because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research; they did not fund this research directly,” the university added. “The experiments reported in this manuscript were carried out with funds from Boston University.