If we use the analogy of a virus as a living entity, then the replicative organelle is the part of the body where its metabolic and reproductive activities are concentrated. Recent studies have illuminated the intricately complex replicative organelles of coronaviruses, a group that includes the largest known RNA virus genomes. This review takes a virus-centric look at the coronavirus replication transcription complex organelle in the context of the wider world of positive sense RNA viruses, examining how the mechanisms of protein expression and function act to produce the factories that power the viral replication cycle.

Intact, enveloped coronavirus particles vary widely in size and contour, and are thus refractory to study by traditional structural means such as X-ray crystallography. Electron microscopy (EM) overcomes some problems associated with particle variability and has been an important tool for investigating coronavirus ultrastructure. However, EM sample preparation requires that the specimen be dried onto a carbon support film before imaging, collapsing internal particle structure in the case of coronaviruses. Moreover, conventional EM achieves image contrast by immersing the specimen briefly in heavy-metal-containing stain, which reveals some features while obscuring others. Electron cryomicroscopy (cryo-EM) instead employs a porous support film, to which the specimen is adsorbed and flash-frozen. Specimens preserved in vitreous ice over holes in the support film can then be imaged without additional staining. Cryo-EM, coupled with single-particle image analysis techniques, makes it possible to examine the size, structure and arrangement of coronavirus structural components in fully hydrated, native virions. Two virus purification procedures are described.

The crystal structure of a conserved domain of nonstructural protein 3 (nsP3) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) has been solved by single-wavelength anomalous dispersion to 1.4 A resolution. The structure of this "X" domain, seen in many single-stranded RNA viruses, reveals a three-layered alpha/beta/alpha core with a macro-H2A-like fold. The putative active site is a solvent-exposed cleft that is conserved in its three structural homologs, yeast Ymx7, Archeoglobus fulgidus AF1521, and Er58 from E. coli. Its sequence is similar to yeast YBR022W (also known as Poa1P), a known phosphatase that acts on ADP-ribose-1''-phosphate (Appr-1''-p). The SARS nsP3 domain readily removes the 1'' phosphate group from Appr-1''-p in in vitro assays, confirming its phosphatase activity. Sequence and structure comparison of all known macro-H2A domains combined with available functional data suggests that proteins of this superfamily form an emerging group of nucleotide phosphatases that dephosphorylate Appr-1''-p.

The M protein of coronavirus plays a central role in virus assembly, turning cellular membranes into workshops where virus and host factors come together to make new virus particles. We investigated how M structure and organization is related to virus shape and size using cryo-electron microscopy, tomography and statistical analysis. We present evidence that suggests M can adopt two conformations and that membrane curvature is regulated by one M conformer. Elongated M protein is associated with rigidity, clusters of spikes and a relatively narrow range of membrane curvature. In contrast, compact M protein is associated with flexibility and low spike density. Analysis of several types of virus-like particles and virions revealed that S protein, N protein and genomic RNA each help to regulate virion size and variation, presumably through interactions with M. These findings provide insight into how M protein functions to promote virus assembly.

Science is humanity's best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected. The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2. Yet, the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in and escaped from a lab dominates media attention, even in the absence of strong evidence. We discuss how the resulting anti-science movement puts the research community, scientific research, and pandemic preparedness at risk.