Chinese scientists have identified a newly discovered bat coronavirus, called HKU5-CoV-2, that uses the same ACE2 receptor as SARS-CoV-2 to enter human cells, according to a study in the journal Cell and covered by Reuters. While lab tests confirm it can infect ACE2-expressing human cell models, the virus binds to ACE2 with much lower affinity than SARS-CoV-2, potentially reducing its pandemic risk. University of Minnesota expert Dr. Michael Osterholm told Reuters the concerns of a new outbreak were “overblown.” He cited existing immunity against related viruses to support the claim.
In their paper in Cell, researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and colleagues report using cryo-electron microscopy to show that HKU5-CoV-2’s receptor-binding domain has an RBD footprint largely shared with other ACE2-utilizing coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and NL63. Experiments also reveal the virus can infect human respiratory and intestinal organoids, underscoring its potential tissue range. Although the study highlights a possible zoonotic threat, the authors stress more data is needed to gauge the virus’s real-world impact.
Despite a brief boost in vaccine-makers’ share prices after this news (Moderna stock rose more than 5%, Pfizer over 1%), the study authors emphasize that HKU5-CoV-2’s limitations should prevent undue alarm.
The news surfaces as the U.S. government has moved toward the lab-leak hypothesis regarding COVID‑19, though confidence remains low. A January 2025 CIA assessment echoes a December 2024 House Oversight Committee report citing SARS‑CoV‑2’s furin cleavage site and the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s bat coronavirus research. While White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt labels the lab-leak conclusion “confirmable truth,” critics note the low-confidence assessment and point to numerous publications (in Science, Nature, and elsewhere) supporting an animal-to-human spillover. With debates about EcoHealth Alliance’s “gain-of-function” work ongoing, the exact origins of COVID‑19 remain unresolved, underscoring how divergent intelligence findings and peer-reviewed studies continue to produce inconclusive assessments.
