Science desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 6

How did viral proofreader · NSP14 evolve?

We can read here:

"As NSP12 duplicates the coronavirus genome, it sometimes adds a wrong letter to the new copy. NSP14 cuts out these errors, so that the correct letter can be added instead." The genetic code for this proofreader is:

"gcugaaaauguaacaggacucuuuaaagauuguaguaagguaaucacuggguuacauccuacacaggcaccuacacaccucaguguugacacuaaauucaaaacugaagguuuauguguugacauaccuggcauaccuaaggacaugaccuauaga agacucaucucuaugauggguuuuaaaaugaauuaucaaguuaaugguuacccuaacauguuuaucacccgcgaagaagcuauaagacauguacgugcauggauuggcuucgaugucgaggggugucaugcuacuagagaagcuguugguaccaauu uaccuuuacagcuagguuuuucuacagguguuaaccuaguugcuguaccuacagguuauguugauacaccuaauaauacagauuuuuccagaguuagugcuaaaccaccgccuggagaucaauuuaaacaccucauaccacuuauguacaaaggacu uccuuggaauguagugcguauaaagauuguacaaauguuaagugacacacuuaaaaaucucucugacagagucguauuugucuuaugggcacauggcuuugaguugacaucuaugaaguauuuugugaaaauaggaccugagcgcaccuguugucua ugugauagacgugccacaugcuuuuccacugcuucagacacuuaugccuguuggcaucauucuauuggauuugauuacgucuauaauccguuuaugauugauguucaacaaugggguuuuacagguaaccuacaaagcaaccaugaucuguauuguc aaguccaugguaaugcacauguagcuaguugugaugcaaucaugacuaggugucuagcuguccacgagugcuuuguuaagcguguugacuggacuauugaauauccuauaauuggugaugaacugaagauuaaugcggcuuguagaaagguucaaca caugguuguuaaagcugcauuauuagcagacaaauucccaguucuucacgacauugguaacccuaaagcuauuaaguguguaccucaagcugauguagaauggaaguucuaugaugcacagccuuguagugacaaagcuuauaaaauagaagaauua uucuauucuuaugccacacauucugacaaauucacagaugguguaugccuauuuuggaauugcaaugucgauagauauccugcuaauuccauuguuuguagauuugacacuagagugcuaucuaaccuuaacuugccugguugugaugguggcaguu uguauguaaauaaacaugcauuccacacaccagcuuuugauaaaagugcuuuuguuaauuuaaaacaauuaccauuuuucuauuacucugacaguccaugugagucucauggaaaacaaguagugucagauauagauuauguaccacuaaagucugc uacguguauaacacguugcaauuuagguggugcugucuguagacaucaugcuaaugaguacagauuguaucucgaugcuuauaacaugaugaucucagcuggcuuuagcuuguggguuuacaaacaauuugauacuuauaaccucuggaacacuuuu acaagacuucag"

How did viruses like this evolve such a proofreader? Or was it stolen from proofreaders of cells? Count Iblis (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of viruses is not understood, but the line leading to today's coronaviruses may have had many millions if not billions of years to evolve proofreader-encoding genes. Subissi et al. have hypothesized that the original proofreading capability was acquired by a nidoviral ancestor of moderate complexity, allowing the considerable complexity of coronaviruses relative to other non-proofreading viruses to evolve. --Lambiam 15:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

covid-19 / quotients Y={X by inhabitants} and {Y by previous year's Y}?

Hi! Can I see how many people per million people contracted that SARS-CoV-2 somewhere? I mean: Now it looks like America would be first, but my feeling says, that germany is even firster somehow... I would also like to see, how the {overall deaths per day} are different now and which real cause is more often now... Because: There is rumour, that there was no single real Covid-19 death so far, since the SARS-CoV-2 was there purely coincidentally... Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the infobox of our 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article for maps (some which need to be toggled on) showing per capita rates. That article's references include two Our World in Data pages: Total confirmed cases of COVID-19 per million people & Total confirmed deaths due to COVID-19 per million people. Those maps give numbers via hover boxes and also allow CSV file downloads from their DATA tab. Perhaps someone here knows a site which provides those number in tabular form.

You also seem to be asking one or two other questions. Please clarify your "Y by previous year's Y". Regarding rumors, we have Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vs Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, though I don't understand your specific question so I don't know if either addresses it. -- ToE 14:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh... the "per capita" gfx is cool (u can make it look like a movie with the slider below it...)... the "Y" would be "deaths per capita" or "flu death per capita" or "domestic violence death per capita"... i thought it might be easier to see, if/that something strange is in the neighbourhood... instead of "previous year" it might be interesting to look at "previous pandemic"... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers are only of limited relevance, as different countries have vastly different testing strategies. Countries which test more (say for instance South Korea or Germany) could have higher rates per capita, just because they've found more of the cases out there. In other words, to some extent the per capita numbers reflect testing scale as much as actual disease progression. The real comparable statistic would be positive cases per tested capita, although even that could be skewed by differing testing eligibility criteria. Something to keep in mind. Fgf10 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yup... sometimes they say, that they want to do random tests... like in South Korea... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, South Korea is not really doing random testing. I don't think anyone really is in a meaningful fashion [1] [2] [3] (last one obviously not an RS). South Korea is simply testing a lot of people, with very lax selection criteria and I think a large amount of self selection [4] [/www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/13/815441078/south-koreas-drive-through-testing-for-coronavirus-is-fast-and-free], both of which mean it's still not random testing; along with extensive contact tracing and again readily testing contacts. I think some countries have some limited surveillance testing systems which may be sort of random (often only symptomatic patients but possibly randomly selection people who otherwise don't meet their criteria to look for community transmission), but I don't think any country is doing it at a significant scale. Some places are looking at random antibody testing but these are still fairly new and the effectiveness unclear [5] [6] Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]