This particular animal is a raccoon dog. (Cloudtail_the_Snow_Leopard/Getty Images)

Once more, we're discussing the source of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that has caused COVID-19.

The US Department of Energy's assessment put more focus on the laboratory leak hypothesis than before; however, the agency had little faith in this result.

The Huanan wet market in Wuhan, now forever connected to the start of the pandemic, had its viral and animal genetic material examined and released this week, which is of great significance.

I had the honour of being selected as the Australian representative for the World Health Organization (WHO) to investigate the source of SARS-CoV-2. My journey to Wuhan in early 2021 was a fact-finding mission and I had the opportunity to visit the now-closed market.

Our latest findings have made it more likely that raccoon dogs at the market served as the source of SARS-CoV-2, possibly passing it on to humans.

It begs the question of how different the last three years would have been if we'd had the same evidence then. We could have spared ourselves the massive energy and media coverage that has been spent on less probable sources of the pandemic. Perhaps our research efforts would have been more effectively directed.

The perplexities, shifts, and conundrums

At the beginning of January 2020, soon after the first instances of the COVID-19 virus were reported in Wuhan, samples were taken from different areas in the market. Testing of these environmental samples revealed both SARS-CoV-2 RNA and human DNA, though no animal swabs tested positive for the virus.

I was part of the WHO team that was presented this in January 2021 while we were researching the source of the pandemic.

In February 2022, the paper was released to the public prior to its formal review.

So that others could analyze it further, the authors of the preprint had to provide the metagenomic information that showed SARS-CoV-2 and human sequences were present, but not animal sequences.

Journals often mandate publishing data as a way to foster collaborative science and guarantee openness.

Not until the beginning of March 2023, though, was the worldwide community provided with the information.

A "drop" of environmental metagenomic sequences were put into GISAID, the global, open-access repository for viral sequences, at that time.

An international group of independent specialists were given the task of examining the samples. They discovered a huge amount of raccoon dog and other creature DNA when SARS-CoV-2 was tested, and this was a shocking revelation.

A global research team has recently released their findings, available as a preprint, which indicate that raccoon dogs can contract and spread SARS-CoV-2.

It was remarkable to observe the proximity of the viral and animal specimens in the corner of this massive market. It was later discovered (despite being denied by the Chinese authorities initially) that wild and domesticated animals were being traded in that particular region of the marketplace. This area has since been linked to the original human cases of the virus.

The international team's analysis of the sequences prompted the Chinese scientists who conducted the market testing to be contacted for comment and to discuss the noteworthy discovery that a great deal of raccoon dog and other animal DNA was mixed in with the SARS-CoV-2 sequences.

The study authors were approached and GISAID subsequently removed the sequences from its open database within a few hours. It is not common for this to take place in an open database such as GISAID, and hence it would be beneficial to understand why that happened. For more information, clarity can be sought.

What makes this job so significant?

No evidence has been provided to definitively conclude that raccoon dogs were responsible for SARS-CoV-2. It is conceivable that they acted as a connection between bats and people. Bats are known to contain many coronaviruses, among them some that are linked to SARS-CoV-2.

The evidence, however, seems to confirm the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is linked to both animals and humans.

Data for alternative hypotheses of SARS-CoV-2's origins, such as a laboratory leak, contaminated frozen food, and acquisition outside of China, is sparse. Nevertheless, further study of animal links to SARS-CoV-2 should be considered in light of the growing evidence that points to the Huanan market in Wuhan as the source of the outbreak.

The WHO recently pointed out that it was unfortunate that it had taken a long time for this early work to come to light and that the raw data was hard to access. points made recently.

It could be argued with compassion that the incorrect assessment of the preliminary data obtained in the beginning of 2020 was conducted and the scientists failed to detect the animal associations.

Without any proof, one might cynically suggest that the importance of the information was acknowledged, yet not openly provided. This is something that the Chinese researchers from the Chinese Center for Disease Control would need to respond to.

What are the consequences of this postponement?

Had it been realized earlier in 2020, further investigations to discover the source of the virus in animals could have been launched.

Tracing back from the current shut-down market to the original animal sources and the individuals who managed them is a very challenging task after three years have passed.

The discussion surrounding the potential viral source could have been less heated had there been more accurate responses. Even though all theories should continue to be investigated, gathering earlier data would have enabled a more thorough examination of some of them.

It is improbable that this work would have altered the path of the pandemic, as the virus had already diffused across the globe and had developed efficient human-to-human transmission. Nevertheless, it could have aided in guiding research and improving future preparations for pandemics.

What is the next step?

It is plain to see that the ideal approach for conducting research on a global scale is to promote open access to sequence information. This is a lesson for the future to bear in mind.

Denying oneself access to data or not seeking help for complex analyses will impede progress.

Due to the back-and-forth between various nations, mainly the US and China, mistrust has grown and advancement has been inhibited even more.

Though WHO has been reproached for its missteps with regards to handling the pandemic, and for their collation of data to explore the beginnings and further research, it still stands as the most suitable international organization to promote the open exchange of information.

Most scientists are motivated by their desire to uncover answers to important questions, and it is essential to enable them in this endeavor.