|Close up of a virus brain?|
In a previous post I wrote that in a future post I would "do the math" related to the proton tunneling thingy (The Doll As Metaphor - 4).
Doing even more preparation during the drum roll, I posted:
"Before you form a conclusion to answer the question, take a look at today's appendices (SARS-CoV-2 RNA with DNA nucleotide nomenclature; SARS-CoV-2 RNA with RNA nucleotide nomenclature) to see that a significant change should take place in nucleotide print outs.
Those two appendices detail the differences that should exist if DNA "thymine (T) [C5H6N2O2]" nomenclature was replaced with RNA "uracil (U) [C4H4N2O2]" nomenclature in the GenBank RNA virus records of the database."
(It's In The GenBank - 3). This hints at one reason virologists do not place a 'T' at the location in genome base pair sequences where a 'U' morpheme is the only morphology thingy that tells the truth.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is said to be the cause Covid-19, is an RNA virus, so, it does not have an A-T ('T' = thymine) base pair location, instead it has an A-U base pair location ('U' = uracil).
So, as I mentioned in "It's In The GenBank - 3" I converted 'T' to 'U' in the Wuhan sequenced genome (I learned in kindergarten that a 'T' is not a 'U' and I learned in high school that C5H6N2O2 'T' thymine is not C4H4N2O2 'U' uracil).
You can take a look at what the original Wuhan, China SARS-CoV-2 virus
looks like in improper DNA format and in proper RNA format at "It's In The GenBank - 3".
That post's appendices show the difference in the December 30, 2019 Wuhan, China collected SARS-CoV-2 virus (GenBank version "NC_045512.2") under the contrasting A-T vs A-U formats.
III. Do The Math
The A-U locations count in the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome is 1,238, the G-C locations count is 1,237, which totals to 2,475 locations per virus.
Do we revert to the teleonomy of playing with dolls to say "sometimes the virus 'savors' a genomic change and sometimes it doesn't" (The Misappropriation of Teleonomy)?
Or do we revert to "just the cold hard facts" to conclude that the hard science of probability indicates that this is a case where proton tunneling is quite a probable reality?
The Cornell University paper indicated:
"Furthermore, we find a large tautomeric occupation probability of 1.73 × 10−4, suggesting that such proton transfer may well play a far more important role in DNA mutation than has hitherto been suggested. Our results could have far-reaching consequences for current models of genetic mutations."
(An Open Quantum Systems approach to proton tunneling in DNA, Cornell University, September 2021, emphasis added). That research was based on one DNA A-T example, not the double RNA C-G A-U example.
Using both the C-G location and the A-U location in an RNA virus analysis seems quite likely to cut that Cornell University calculation in half or less (1.73 × 10−2).
Further, as I wrote years ago concerning the seminal Löwdin paper:
That "small but finite probability" gets much more probable by happening millions of repetitions per short amount of time (like a second or a minute) in the trillions of cells inside us.
III. Closing Comments
It is way past time to stop wondering "Why are RNA virus mutation rates so damn high" so we can, instead, have a Newtonian mechanics to Quantum Mechanics experience.