A Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin
2020 · paper · Biomedicine
Identifies and characterizes a new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) behind a pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan. Its genome is 96% identical to a bat coronavirus and 79.6% to SARS-CoV, and it uses the ACE2 receptor like SARS-CoV.
Checked: PDF from nature.com, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
12 findings
Substance Text says the S gene has "less than 75% nucleotide sequence identity to all previously described SARSr-CoVs, except for a 93.1% nucleotide identity to RaTG13 (Extended Data Table 3)", but Extended Data Table 3 gives S nucleotide identities of 77.8% for Bat SARSr-CoV ZC45 and 77.1% for Bat SARSr-CoV ZXC21.
- p. 2 Results, right column (S gene divergence)
with less than 75% nucleotide sequence identity to all previously described SARSr-CoVs, except for a 93.1% nucleotide identity to RaTG13
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3, row 'Bat SARSr-CoV ZC45', column S
77.8/82.3
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3, row 'Bat SARSr-CoV ZXC21', column S
77.1/81.7
- p. 2 Results, right column (S gene divergence)
with less than 75% nucleotide sequence identity to all previously described SARSr-CoVs, except for a 93.1% nucleotide identity to RaTG13 (Extended Data Table 3)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read the S column (nt/aa) on the page 16 image: RaTG13 93.1/97.7, ZC45 77.8/82.3, ZXC21 77.1/81.7; every other row is between 71.1 and 73.9 nt. Both strains are labelled "Bat SARSr-CoV" in the cited table and ZC45 is a reference sequence in Fig. 1c, so they fall inside the claim. No statement in the text restricts the claim to a subset. The authors must say whether the threshold (for example <80%) or the list of exceptions is to be corrected.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Text says "six BALF and five oral swab samples were positive for 2019-nCoV during the first sampling" and Fig. 2a plots no first-sampling oral-swab bar for WIV04, but Extended Data Table 2 lists six first-sampling oral swabs with Ct values, including ICU-06/WIV04 "Ct=27.7".
- p. 2 Results, right column (qPCR detection)
we found that six BALF and five oral swab samples were positive for 2019-nCoV during the first sampling
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 2, row ICU-06 / WIV04, column 'Oral Swab' (first sampling)
Ct=27.7
- p. 3 Fig. 2a, 'OS' group under 'First sampling 30-12-2019' (no bar drawn in the WIV04 slot)
a, Molecular detection of 2019-nCoV in seven patients.
- p. 2 Results, qPCR paragraph
six BALF and five oral swab samples
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 15 image, Oral Swab column (first sampling): WIV01 32.0, WIV02 26.6, WIV03 31.9, WIV04 27.7, WIV05 '-', WIV06 29.4, WIV07 24.0, which is six positives. BALF column has six Ct values and one '-', matching the text. Zoomed render of Fig. 2a: the first-sampling OS group has bars for WIV01, WIV02, WIV03, WIV06 and WIV07, a zero stub for WIV05 and an empty slot for WIV04 (the reviewer note claiming six non-zero bars is wrong). So the text and figure agree on five and the table shows six. No footnote or Methods statement explains a positivity criterion that would exclude the WIV04 swab. Either the table entry or the text and figure are wrong.
Second check: another model agreed · checked by hand
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Text says "all samples were able to neutralize 100 TCID50 (50% tissue-culture-infective dose) of 2019-nCoV", while the footnote of Extended Data Table 4, which reports the same assay, says "We used 120 TCID50 viruses per well."
- p. 3 Results, right column (neutralization)
all samples were able to neutralize 100 TCID50
- p. 17 Extended Data Table 4, footnote
We used 120 TCID50 viruses per well.
- p. 3 Results, end of left column / top of right column (serum neutralization)
all samples were able to neutralize 100 TCID
- p. 3 Results, neutralization paragraph
neutralize 100 TCID50
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 3 image shows "100 TCID50"; page 17 footnote image shows "120 TCID50 viruses per well". The Methods section on the neutralization test (text lines 588-599) says only that "an equal volume of virus stock was added" and gives no dose, so nothing reconciles the two (for example a nominal versus back-titrated dose). One assay, two stated doses.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Results: "this protein shared 92% amino acid identity to N protein of 2019-nCoV (Extended Data Fig. 5)"; Extended Data Table 3 gives the N identity of Bat SARSr-CoV Rp3 with 2019-nCoV WIV04 as "88.4/90.7" (nt/aa %), i.e. 90.7% amino acid identity.
- p. 3 Results, left column (serological detection)
this protein shared 92% amino acid identity to N protein of 2019-nCoV
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3, row 'Bat SARSr-CoV Rp3', column N
88.4/90.7
- p. 11 Extended Data Fig. 5 (cited for the 92% figure)
Amino acid sequence alignment of the nucleocapsid protein of 2019-nCoV to bat SARSr-CoV Rp3 and SARS-CoV BJ01
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed page 3 and the page 16 image (page 16 is OCR, so the value was read from the image): row 'Bat SARSr-CoV Rp3', column N, reads 88.4/90.7 under the header '(nt/aa %)'. The cited Extended Data Fig. 5 is an alignment with no identity value. The Methods (page 5) say only 'more than 90% amino acid identity to all SARSr-CoVs', which fits either number. No statement explains a different alignment method for the 92%. The gap of 1.3 points is beyond rounding. Which figure is right is for the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. 1 legend says "The scale bars represent 0.1 substitutions per nucleotide position", but the only scale bar in the figure (panel d) is labelled 0.4.
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend, last lines
The scale bars represent 0.1 substitutions per nucleotide position.
- p. 2 Fig. 1d, scale bar beneath the TGEV branch
0.4
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend
The scale bars represent 0.1 substitutions
- p. 2 Fig. 1 caption
The scale bars represent 0.1 substitutions per nucleotide position
Judge's note: Page 2 image and the legend crop show a single free-standing scale bar under the TGEV branch labelled "0.4". Panels a to c have no substitution scale. The legend value and the plural "bars" do not match the figure.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. 2 legend says "The right and left y axes indicate ELISA OD ratios for IgM and IgG, respectively", but in Fig. 2b the left axis is "ELISA OD ratio (IgM)" (0 to 0.4) and the right axis is "ELISA OD ratio (IgG)" (0 to 2.0).
- p. 3 Fig. 2 legend
The right and left y axes indicate ELISA OD ratios for IgM and IgG, respectively.
- p. 3 Fig. 2b, axis titles
ELISA OD ratio (IgM)
Judge's note: Page 3 image: left axis title IgM with scale 0-0.4, right axis title IgG with scale 0-2.0. The legend (read on the page and the legend crop) assigns them the other way round. Should read "left and right". The plotted data are unaffected.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "All patient samples—but not samples from healthy individuals—were strongly positive for viral IgG (Fig. 2b)." The patient-versus-healthy comparison is Fig. 2c; Fig. 2b is the single-patient ICU-06 time course.
- p. 3 Results, left column (serology)
All patient samples—but not samples from healthy individuals—were strongly positive for viral IgG (Fig. 2b).
- p. 3 Fig. 2 legend, panel c
c, Serological test of 2019-nCoV antibodies in five patients
- p. 3 Results, serology paragraph
strongly positive for viral IgG (Fig. 2b)
Judge's note: Viewed page 3 and a zoomed render of Fig. 2. Panel b plots only IgM and IgG curves for one patient over four dates, with no healthy group. Panel c shows Patient vs Healthy for IgM and IgG, and the legend defines c as the serological test in five patients. The preceding sentence already cites Fig. 2b correctly for the time course. The pointer should read Fig. 2c.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Extended Data Table 2 gives ICU-06 first-sampling (2019.12.30) Blood (Ab) as "+", but Fig. 2b shows that day's IgM (about 0.09) and IgG (about 0.03) OD ratios below the stated cut-offs of 0.2 and 0.3.
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 2, ICU-06 first sampling Blood (Ab)
+
- p. 3 Fig. 2b, 30-12-2019 point
30-12-2019
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Extended Data Table 2 (PDF page 15) and Fig. 2b (PDF page 3). ICU-06 is the only row with '+' rather than NA under first-sampling Blood (Ab). In Fig. 2b the 30-12-2019 IgM point is about 0.09 on the left axis and the IgG point about 0.03 on the right axis; the legend says 'b, c, The cut-off was to 0.2 for the IgM analysis and to 0.3 for the IgG analysis'. Searched the text and the table footnote: neither defines '+' as anything other than a positive result, and nothing explains the difference. The values are read off a plot, and '+' may have been meant as 'sample tested', so the authors need to say which is right. The reviewer's second point (five serum samples) is not a conflict: that sentence refers to five patients.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reporting Summary, Cell line source(s): "2. Human lung cell Huh7" describes Huh7 as a lung cell line.
- p. 19 Reporting Summary, 'Eukaryotic cell lines', Cell line source(s)
2. Human lung cell Huh7
- p. 19 Reporting Summary, Eukaryotic cell lines
Human lung cell Huh7
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: Huh7 is a human hepatoma (liver-derived) cell line, not a lung line. The page does read 'Human lung cell Huh7' (viewed PDF page 19 and a 6x clip). The article itself never states the tissue of origin (Methods say only 'Vero E6 and Huh7 cells'), so nothing in the files confirms or contradicts the tissue.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Extended Data Table 2 marks ICU-06 'Blood (Ab)' as "+" under "First sampling-2019.12.30", but Fig. 2b shows that patient on 30-12-2019 with IgM about 0.09 and IgG about 0.03, both below the legend's cut-offs ("0.2 for the IgM analysis and ... 0.3 for the IgG analysis").
- p. 3 Fig. 2 legend, panels b, c
b, c, The cut-off was to 0.2 for the IgM analysis and to 0.3 for the IgG analysis
- p. 15 Extended Data Table 2, row ICU-06 / WIV04, 'First sampling-2019.12.30' → 'Blood (Ab)' column (the only '+' in that column)
ICU-06
- p. 3 Fig. 2b, first time point
30-12-2019
- p. 3 Fig. 2 legend, panels b, c
The cut-off was to 0.2 for the IgM analysis and to 0.3 for the IgG analysis
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: This cluster mixes two defects. The missing word in 'The cut-off was to 0.2' is judged under C021; this verdict covers the table-versus-figure point. Viewed page 15: ICU-06/WIV04 has '+' in the first-sampling Blood (Ab) column, and all other patients have NA there. Viewed a zoomed Fig. 2b: at 30-12-2019 the IgM point is about 0.09 on the left axis and the IgG point about 0.03 on the right axis; IgM passes 0.2 on 31-12-2019 (about 0.22). The values are read off a graph, but both are well below the cut-offs. The table footnote says a serial test was done for ICU-06 on four dates, so the '+' may summarise the series rather than the 30 December sample; the paper does not say so.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Extended Data Fig. 4 legend says "a, Standard curve for qPCR primers." but panel a is titled "Amplification Plot" and shows ΔRn against cycle number, not a standard curve.
- p. 10 Extended Data Fig. 4 legend, panel a
a, Standard curve for qPCR primers.
- p. 10 Extended Data Fig. 4a, plot title and axes
Amplification Plot
Judge's note: Viewed panel a and the legend on PDF page 10. The panel is the instrument's amplification plot (ΔRn vs Cycle, threshold 0.323877) with eight curves, which fits the legend's 10^8 to 10^1 dilution series. No plot of Ct against template concentration appears. The legend's term is loose rather than wrong data, so this is a wording point.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Reporting Summary says "At least three independent experiments were performed, which was stated in the text", but the only statement of independent repetition in the article is "The experiment was conducted twice independently with similar results" (Extended Data Fig. 6 legend).
- p. 19 Reporting Summary, 'Life sciences study design', Replication
At least three independent experiments were performed, which was stated in the text.
- p. 12 Extended Data Fig. 6 legend, panels c, d
The experiment was conducted twice independently with similar results.
- p. 19 Reporting summary, Replication
At least three independent experiments were performed
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed PDF page 19 (Replication box) and the Extended Data Fig. 6 legend on PDF page 12. Searched the text for 'independent', 'triplicate', 'twice' and 'repeated': the only independent-repeat statement is 'twice' for Extended Data Fig. 6c, d. 'Each serum was assessed in triplicate' (Methods, Extended Data Table 4) describes replicate wells, not independent experiments. The checklist's blanket claim is therefore unsupported by the text and contradicted for one experiment.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
23 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label Fig. 1 legend for panel c says "Full-length genome sequences of SARS-CoV BJ01, bat SARSr-CoV WIV1, bat coronavirus RaTG13 and ZC45 were used as reference sequences", but the panel's key and plot have five reference traces, including "Bat SARSr-CoV HKU3-1".
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend, panel c
Full-length genome sequences of SARS-CoV BJ01, bat SARSr-CoV WIV1, bat coronavirus RaTG13 and ZC45 were used as reference sequences.
- p. 2 Fig. 1c, plot key (fifth entry)
Bat SARSr-CoV HKU3-1
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend, c
bat coronavirus RaTG13 and ZC45 were used as reference sequences
- p. 2 Fig. 1 caption, panel c
were used as reference sequences
Judge's note: Page 2 image: the Fig. 1c key lists SARS-CoV BJ01, Bat CoV RaTG13, Bat CoV ZC45, Bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 and Bat SARSr-CoV HKU3-1 (green trace). The legend names four and omits HKU3-1. An incomplete legend; the plotted data are not affected.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Methods: "using BGI MGISEQ2000 and Illumina MiSeq 3000 sequencers" — Illumina has no 'MiSeq 3000' model; the 3000 designation belongs to the HiSeq line.
- p. 5 Methods, 'High-throughput sequencing, pathogen screening and genome assembly'
using BGI MGISEQ2000 and Illumina MiSeq 3000 sequencers
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: Illumina's product range has a MiSeq and a HiSeq 3000 but no MiSeq 3000. Viewed page 5: the text is printed as quoted. The files cannot show which instrument was used (MiSeq or HiSeq 3000), so this is a query for the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Text says "the primers could differentiate 2019-nCoV from all other human coronaviruses including bat SARSr-CoV WIV1", but the specificity panel in Extended Data Fig. 4b tests HKU1-CoV, NL63-CoV, OC43-CoV, MERS-CoV, a "bat 229E-like CoV" and "SARSr (WIV1)-CoV"; SARS-CoV and human 229E are not in it, and WIV1 is a bat virus listed among human coronaviruses.
- p. 2 Results, right column (qPCR detection method)
the primers could differentiate 2019-nCoV from all other human coronaviruses including bat SARSr-CoV WIV1
- p. 10 Extended Data Fig. 4b, x-axis category labels
bat 229E-like CoV
- p. 10 Extended Data Fig. 4b, x-axis category labels
SARSr (WIV1)-CoV
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 10 image, x-axis of Extended Data Fig. 4b: four bacteria, bat 229E-like CoV, HKU1-CoV, NL63-CoV, OC43-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARSr (WIV1)-CoV and WIV04. The text itself signals that WIV1 stands in for SARS-CoV ("which shares 95% identity with SARS-CoV"), so the authors used bat proxies for SARS-CoV and 229E. "All other human coronaviruses" is therefore wider than what was tested, and the sentence classes a bat virus as a human coronavirus. A wording overstatement, not a data error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Abstract: "Pairwise protein sequence analysis of seven conserved non-structural proteins domains show that this virus belongs to the species of SARSr-CoV" has a plural noun adjunct ("proteins domains") and a verb that does not agree with the singular subject "analysis" ("show").
- p. 1 Abstract
Pairwise protein sequence analysis of seven conserved non-structural proteins domains show that this virus belongs to the species of SARSr-CoV.
- p. 1 Abstract
seven conserved non-structural proteins domains show
- p. 1 Abstract
seven conserved non-structural proteins domains
Judge's note: Read on the page 1 image; the abstract is typeset exactly as quoted. Should read "non-structural protein domains shows". Grammar only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Abstract expands ACE2 as "angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2)", with a Roman numeral and no hyphen, while the paper's own reference 14 gives the name as "Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2".
- p. 1 Abstract, final sentence
angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2)
Judge's note: Page 1 image shows "angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2)". The paper's reference list (ref. 14 title, text layer) uses "Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2", so the inconsistency is internal and needs no outside fact. "Enzyme II" is a variant spelling of the same protein, so this is a naming inconsistency, not a wrong entity.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The hospital is "Wuhan Jin Yin-Tan Hospital" in the introduction and affiliation 2 (page 1) but "Jinyintan hospital" in the Methods (page 5) and "Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital" in the reporting summary.
- p. 1 Introduction and affiliation 2
Wuhan Jin Yin-Tan Hospital
- p. 5 Methods
Jinyintan hospital
Judge's note: Both forms seen on the page images (page 1 text and affiliation; Methods 'Sample collection' crop). The reporting-summary form is from the text layer only. Transliteration variants of one name, with lower-case "hospital" in the Methods. Cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reporting summary writes "The cy3-conjugated anti-rabbit IgGs" and "cyanin 3-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG", while the Methods write "Cy3-conjugated"; the abstract's "2019-nCoV virus isolated from" is redundant.
- p. 1 Abstract
2019-nCoV virus isolated from
- p. 19 Validation
The cy3-conjugated
Judge's note: Page 19 image shows lower-case "cy3-conjugated" and "cyanin 3-conjugated"; the Methods text layer has "Cy3-conjugated". The capitalisation inconsistency is real but trivial and sits in the reporting summary form. The redundant "virus" after "nCoV" (page 1 image) is a style point only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 1 legend writes "BALF from patient ICU06" without the hyphen used elsewhere ("ICU-06" in the Results, the Fig. 2 legend and Extended Data Table 2).
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend, panel a
next-generation sequencing of BALF from patient ICU06
- p. 3 Results (correct form)
We next successfully isolated the virus (called 2019-nCoV BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019) from both Vero E6 and Huh7 cells using the BALF sample of patient ICU-06.
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend
patient ICU06
- p. 3 Results
patient (ICU-06)
Judge's note: Page 2 legend image shows "patient ICU06". Page 3 text and Fig. 2 legend and the page 15 table all show "ICU-06". Cosmetic inconsistency in one identifier.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 1 legend has no space after a full stop: "transmissible gastroenteritis virus.The scale bars represent 0.1 substitutions".
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend, panel d
transmissible gastroenteritis virus.The scale bars represent 0.1 substitutions
- p. 2 Fig. 1 legend, panel d abbreviations
transmissible gastroenteritis virus.The scale bars represent
Judge's note: Legend crop shows "virus.The" set solid, while the other sentence breaks in the same legend have normal spacing. Not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts." 'routine' should be 'route'.
- p. 3 Discussion, right column
We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.
Judge's note: Viewed page 3, right column, Discussion: the word is printed as 'routine'. The paper uses 'routes of transmission' on page 2. Wrong word with an evident fix.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 2 legend: "The cut-off was to 0.2 for the IgM analysis and to 0.3 for the IgG analysis" — a word (evidently 'set') is missing after 'was'.
- p. 3 Fig. 2 legend, panels b, c
The cut-off was to 0.2 for the IgM analysis and to 0.3 for the IgG analysis
Judge's note: Viewed page 3: the legend is printed exactly as quoted, so this is not an extraction artefact. The same typo was also raised inside C020; it is judged here, and C020 covers the separate table-versus-figure point.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 6g scale bar in the main electron micrograph is labelled "1 um" rather than 1 μm.
- p. 12 Extended Data Fig. 6g, scale bar in the main electron micrograph
1 um
- p. 4 Fig. 3 legend (correct form)
Scale bars, 10 μm.
- p. 13 Extended Data Fig. 7 legend (correct form elsewhere)
Scale bars, 10 μm.
Judge's note: Viewed a 4x re-render of PDF page 12. The burnt-in label at lower right of panel g reads '1 um' with a letter u; the inset bar reads '500 nm'. The legends of Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 7 use 'μm'. The label is part of the raster image, so it is not a text-layer artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Methods: "a filter hits parameter of 0.8 FMM ((match + mismatch)/read length ≥ fraction] value" — the brackets do not pair: two opening round brackets are closed by one round and one square bracket.
- p. 5 Methods, 'High-throughput sequencing, pathogen screening and genome assembly'
a filter hits parameter of 0.8 FMM ((match + mismatch)/read length ≥ fraction] value
- p. 5 Methods, High-throughput sequencing
((match + mismatch)/read length ≥ fraction] value
Judge's note: Viewed page 5, right column: the text is printed with '((' opening and ']' closing, exactly as extracted. Typographic only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reporting Summary lists "BWA (v0.712-r1039)" and "MGmapper (PE2.24 and SE2.24)"; the Methods give "BWA (v.0.7.12-r1039)" and "MGmapper (PE_2.24 and SE_2.24)".
- p. 18 Reporting Summary, 'Software and code', Data analysis
BWA (v0.712-r1039)
- p. 5 Methods, 'High-throughput sequencing, pathogen screening and genome assembly'
BWA (v.0.7.12-r1039)
- p. 18 Data analysis
MGmapper (PE2.24 and SE2.24)
Judge's note: Viewed 6x clips of PDF page 18 (Data analysis box) and PDF page 5 (Methods). The Reporting Summary drops a dot from the BWA version (0.712 for 0.7.12; same build suffix r1039) and the underscores from the MGmapper versions. Formatting slips in the checklist; the Methods versions are presumably the intended ones.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Acknowledgements: "Mega-Project for Infectious Disease from Minister of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China" — 'Minister' should be 'Ministry'.
- p. 6 Acknowledgements
Mega-Project for Infectious Disease from Minister of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the funding body is the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China. The wording was checked in the page 6 text layer only; a single word in running text carries no risk of a sign or alignment loss. A one-word slip with an evident fix, placed in author_query only because the organisation's name comes from outside the files.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 2a tip label reads "Bat_SARSr-CoV Rp3" with an underscore; every other tip, including the same taxon in panel b, is written with a space ("Bat SARSr-CoV Rp3").
- p. 8 Extended Data Fig. 2a, tip label
Bat_SARSr-CoV Rp3
- p. 11 Extended Data Fig. 2b, same taxon (correct form)
Bat SARSr-CoV Rp3
Judge's note: Viewed page 8 and an 8x render of panel a from source/main.pdf: the underscore is clearly present in 'Bat_SARSr-CoV Rp3' and absent from the neighbouring labels (GX2013, Rf1, SX2013). Panel b on the same page prints 'Bat SARSr-CoV Rp3' with a space. The cluster's second location (page 11) is the Extended Data Fig. 5 legend, not Fig. 2b, but the finding holds from page 8 alone. Cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 2 legend: "Bootstraps values of more than 50% are shown." — should be 'Bootstrap values'.
- p. 8 Extended Data Fig. 2 legend
Bootstraps values of more than 50% are shown.
Judge's note: Viewed page 8: the legend is printed as quoted. The preceding sentence of the same legend uses the correct 'bootstrap values'. Cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 4b x-axis label reads "Klebsiella. pneumoniae", with a stray full stop inside the species name.
- p. 10 Extended Data Fig. 4b, x-axis category label
Klebsiella. pneumoniae
- p. 10 Extended Data Fig. 4b x-axis
Klebsiella, pneumoniae
Judge's note: Viewed a 4x re-render of PDF page 10 from source/main.pdf. The mark after 'Klebsiella' is a round dot on the baseline (a full stop, not a comma). The other three bacterial labels on the same axis (Acinetobacter baumannii, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) have no punctuation.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 7 row labels read "Hela-hACE2", "Hela-hAPN", "Hela-hDPP4" and "Hela", while the legend and Methods write "HeLa".
- p. 13 Extended Data Fig. 7, row labels
Hela-hACE2
- p. 13 Extended Data Fig. 7 legend
Determination of virus infectivity in HeLa cells
Judge's note: Viewed a re-render of PDF page 13: all four row labels have a lower-case l. The legend on the same page ('virus infectivity in HeLa cells') and the Methods ('HeLa cells transiently expressing ACE2') use HeLa. Capitalisation inconsistency only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Table 1 footnote reads "Legionella pneumophilia"; the species name is spelt Legionella pneumophila.
- p. 14 Extended Data Table 1 footnote
Legionella pneumophilia
Judge's note: Viewed a 6x re-render of the footnote on PDF page 14: the italic text reads 'Legionella pneumophilia,' with an extra i. The finding depends only on the standard spelling of the species name.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Table 3 row labels read "Bat SARr-CoV RaTG13" and "Bat SARr-CoV WIV1"; every other bat row reads "Bat SARSr-CoV".
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3, row 6
Bat SARr-CoV RaTG13
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3, row 7
Bat SARr-CoV WIV1
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3 title
2019-nCoV WIVO4
- p. 16 Extended Data Table 3 title
WIVO4
Judge's note: Viewed a 4x re-render of PDF page 16. Rows 6 and 7 clearly read 'SARr-CoV', while the rows from WIV16 downward and the table's header and title read 'SARSr-CoV'. The 'WIVO4' part raised by some reviewers is not confirmed: the title has a digit zero (see C037).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Table 4 column header reads "VNT titre for nCoV-2019"; the paper names the virus 2019-nCoV everywhere else.
- p. 17 Extended Data Table 4, column header
VNT titre for nCoV-2019
Judge's note: Viewed a 3x re-render of PDF page 17: the header reads 'VNT titre for nCoV-2019'. A search of the extracted text finds no other use of 'nCoV-2019'; the abstract defines '2019-nCoV' and the rest of the paper uses that form.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reporting Summary typos: "FITC-labelled goat anti-mouse IgG H&L (Abcam, ab96879, dlilution 1:100)" and "All cell lines werefrom ATCC".
- p. 19 Reporting Summary, 'Antibodies', Antibodies used, item 4
FITC-labelled goat anti-mouse IgG H&L (Abcam, ab96879, dlilution 1:100)
- p. 19 Cell line source(s)
All cell lines werefrom
- p. 19 Antibodies used
dlilution: 1:100
Judge's note: Viewed PDF page 19 and 6x clips. 'dlilution' (for 'dilution', spelt correctly in items 2, 3 and 5) and 'werefrom' (missing space) are both in the page image. 'Co.,Ltd,Wuhan' in item 2 also lacks spaces. The printed text is 'dlilution 1:100' with no colon after the word, unlike one reviewer's quote.
Second check: none (judge only)