What specific documents did DRASTIC publish about RaTG13 and how have genomic experts assessed them?
Executive summary
DRASTIC — the online Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID‑19 — produced several public analyses and reports focused on the provenance and raw data behind the bat coronavirus sequence RaTG13, most centrally a multi-part investigation titled “Investigation of RaTG13 and the 7896 CLADE” and a series of web threads and preprints that argue RaTG13’s sequencing metadata and raw reads are inconsistent with the published provenance (DRASTIC website; ResearchGate) [1] [2]. Genomic experts and mainstream reviewers have treated DRASTIC’s technical claims as important prompts for clarification but have reached mixed conclusions: some peer‑reviewed and preprint analyses echo concerns about read composition and metadata, while many virologists caution that the observed anomalies do not prove fabrication or engineering and that RaTG13 remains a close but distinct natural relative of SARS‑CoV‑2 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What exactly DRASTIC published about RaTG13
DRASTIC’s public corpus on RaTG13 includes a detailed multi‑part report (“Investigation of RaTG13 and the 7896 CLADE”) circulated on ResearchGate that assembles amplicon sequences, mapping observations and archival metadata and links to threads on the DRASTIC research site highlighting anomalies such as a claimed match between RaTG13 and earlier partial sequences and “molecular overclocking” in short RdRp segments (ResearchGate; DRASTIC site) [2] [8]. The collective and affiliated independent researchers (some named, many anonymous) also promoted an arXiv preprint and subsequent MDPI paper arguing that the RaTG13 sequencing dataset resembles a bat transcriptome rather than a fecal swab, and published supplemental tables and mapping files as part of that forensic genomic effort (arXiv; MDPI; DRASTIC pages) [4] [3] [9].
2. Core technical claims DRASTIC advanced
DRASTIC and collaborators advanced three recurring technical claims: that RaTG13’s published genome corresponds to sequences mentioned earlier under different names in the literature, that read composition (high fraction mapping to bat protein‑coding genes) is inconsistent with a fecal swab and more like a transcriptome or tissue/cell sample, and that short RdRp segments display unexpected molecular‑clock behavior relative to SARS‑CoV‑2 and other clade members [1] [3] [8] [2] [4]. The group released mapped read statistics, GO enrichment analyses and amplicon tables as supporting material in their decentralized publications [3] [2].
3. How genomic experts and formal literature have assessed those claims
Independent genomic scientists and reviewers treated DRASTIC’s work as a valuable forensic prompt: some peer‑reviewed and preprint studies replicated observations that many reads map to bat nuclear and mitochondrial sequences and that metadata timelines merit clarification, leading journals and authors to amend or clarify details about RaTG13’s history (BioEssays commentary and other analyses note the Addendum and call for reevaluation) [5] [10]. Conversely, mainstream virologists emphasize that sequence similarity (RaTG13 ≈96% genome identity to SARS‑CoV‑2) makes it a close but clearly distinct natural relative and that observed differences are too many and scattered for RaTG13 to plausibly be a direct template for engineered SARS‑CoV‑2 — a point reiterated by expert fact‑checks (Health Feedback) and comparative genomic papers [11] [6] [12] [10]. Other domain experts have published methodological critiques and community forum discussions urging caution in interpreting metadata anomalies as proof of malfeasance (Virological.org summary) [7].
4. Where agreement and disagreement remain, and why it matters
There is broad agreement that the provenance and assembly metadata for high‑value genomes like RaTG13 deserve transparency and that DRASTIC’s public analyses prompted useful scrutiny and corrective clarifications in the record [5]. The key disagreements are interpretive: some researchers (including DRASTIC‑affiliated authors) read the read‑level and sample‑type evidence as indicating the published RaTG13 record is inconsistent with declared sampling and thus suspicious, while many genomicists and virologists argue that anomalies can have benign technical explanations (sample handling, sequencing library types, contamination, or lab workflows) and that none of the published analyses proves deliberate fabrication or that RaTG13 was used to engineer SARS‑CoV‑2 [3] [4] [6] [7]. Because the question of origin is consequential, both transparency about raw data and cautious interpretation — reported by DRASTIC and debated by experts — remain central to the continuing inquiry [2] [5].