Three weeks ago, *The Prepared* was among the first in the English-language press to report on a groundbreaking study suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 had evolved into a more transmissible variant. A more contagious strain of the virus that causes COVID-19 would be alarming—second only to a more deadly one. Given the strength of the original research, we felt confident enough to highlight the findings in our headline and analysis, though we included some cautionary notes.
It turns out those warnings were more important than we realized. We may have been too quick to accept the study’s conclusions at face value. A new preprint from an international team of statistical geneticists has cast serious doubt on the earlier claim, suggesting that the D614G mutation likely does not increase the virus's transmissibility.
So, this is our *mea culpa*. In the spirit of scientific integrity and journalistic transparency, we want to explain where the original work may have gone off track—and how the new analysis changes the story.
### What the New Analysis Shows
The original paper by Korber et al. identified a consistent rise in the prevalence of the D614G variant over time, which they interpreted as evidence of natural selection rather than a random founder effect. The new study, led by Dorp et al., introduces a different approach. It examines whether the same pattern appears across multiple independent outbreaks of the mutation. The results suggest it does not—implying that D614G may not actually make the virus more transmissible.
This raises a key question: How do we tell the difference between **selective pressure** (where a mutation gives the virus a real advantage) and **founder effects** (where a mutation spreads by chance)?
Korber’s team argued that the widespread and consistent rise of D614G was unlikely to be due to randomness alone. But the new analysis challenges that assumption, using a more refined method called the Ratio of Homoplasic Offspring (RoHO), which looks at mutations that arise independently in different lineages.
### Different Methods, New Insights
The new study benefits from thousands more sequences from GISAID, giving it a broader dataset. It focuses on **recurrent mutations**, those that appear multiple times in different parts of the viral genome. Instead of just comparing cases with and without a mutation, it looks at each independent occurrence and compares it to its closest relatives. This helps distinguish between true selective advantages and random spread.
The results are striking: none of the recurrent mutations showed a consistent increase in prevalence across all their independent origins. In fact, several showed a **negative enrichment**, meaning they appeared often but were less likely to spread. D614G, in particular, showed no significant advantage—it rose in frequency at the same rate as other mutations without it.
Additionally, the analysis found that many of these mutations involved a specific type of base change (C→U), which could be linked to human RNA editing rather than viral replication errors. This opens up new possibilities for understanding why certain mutations become more common.
### Why We Got It Wrong
The science around SARS-CoV-2 is still evolving, and early studies can sometimes mislead. The idea that D614G increased transmissibility had a lot of support:
- A repeated rise in prevalence across geographies
- A change in the spike protein, which is crucial for infection
- A plausible mechanism based on protein structure
- Some clinical data showing higher viral loads
- Support from respected scientists
But the new analysis suggests that much of this was due to **chance** or **biases** in the data. While the original study raised valid concerns, the follow-up shows that the evidence for increased transmissibility was weaker than it seemed.
We’re still waiting for more research, including lab experiments and further clinical studies, to clarify things. But for now, the balance of evidence leans toward the conclusion that D614G probably doesn’t make the virus more infectious.
In short, we got it wrong. And we're sorry.
Self-Inking Stamp Ink,Self Inking Stamp Ink,Black Stamp Ink,Office Stamp Refill Ink
Huhua Stationary Co., Ltd , https://www.huhuastamp.com