https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122013068
Many of you may recall a study from over two years ago which found traces of covid RNA in sewage water in Lombardy, Italy.
This is not that study. This is a study released this month which confirms those earlier findings. A new strain which predates the Wuhan alpha strain was sequenced, labeled proCoV2.
Abstract
As a reference laboratory for measles and rubella surveillance in Lombardy, we evaluated the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and measles-like syndromes, providing preliminary evidence for undetected early circulation of SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 435 samples from 156 cases were investigated.
RNA from oropharyngeal swabs (N = 148) and urine (N = 141) was screened with four hemi-nested PCRs and molecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 infection was found in 13 subjects. Two of the positive patients were from the pandemic period (2/12, 16.7%, March 2020–March 2021) and 11 were from the pre-pandemic period (11/44, 25%, August 2019–February 2020).
Sera (N = 146) were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies. Five of the RNA-positive individuals also had detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. No strong evidence of infection was found in samples collected between August 2018 and July 2019 from 100 patients. The earliest sample with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was from September 12, 2019, and the positive patient was also positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG and IgM).
Mutations typical of B.1 strains previously reported to have emerged in January 2020 (C3037T, C14408T, and A23403G), were identified in samples collected as early as October 2019 in Lombardy. One of these mutations (C14408T) was also identified among sequences downloaded from public databases that were obtained by others from samples collected in Brazil in November 2019.
We conclude that a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor capable of producing a measles-like syndrome may have emerged in late June-late July 2019 and that viruses with mutations characterizing B.1 strain may have been spreading globally before the first Wuhan outbreak.
Our findings should be complemented by high-throughput sequencing to obtain additional sequence information. We highlight the importance of retrospective surveillance studies in understanding the early dynamics of COVID-19 spread and we encourage other groups to perform retrospective investigations to seek confirmatory proofs of early SARS-CoV-2 circulation.
The paper has serological data, though. PCR contamination wouldn't be enough.
deleted by creator
Yes, that's exactly the issue. They consistently found negative results before a certain date, which makes this kind of contamination unlikely, especially across two different types of test that would require two different types of contamination. And while ELISA is sensitive, it's about 1000x less sensitive than rtPCR, and antibodies are far more fragile than RNA fragments.
deleted by creator
I've mentioned processing time for contamination already and already touched on why it's still unlikely. The problem is that you need this time to concord between different tests
Again, what kind of contamination would work for this? Contamination for both antibodies and RNA is extremely unlikely. You'd need to mix samples or to sneeze on all of the equipment. And it still wouldn't work for the negative controls, as well as for the simply negative samples later on. I can understand RNA contamination because that happens easily enough since RNA fragments are relatively durable, but for simultaneous contamination with both, I don't see it.
They also shipped off an ELISA test to another lab, which gave concordant results. So really there would need to be persistent sample contamination or mixup. It's possible, but it's very unlikely, and this isn't the first study with these results.