Je kan informatie over je locatie aan je Tweets toevoegen, bijvoorbeeld je stad of exacte locatie, via het web en applicaties van derden. Je kan altijd de locatiegeschiedenis van je Tweets verwijderen. Meer informatie
I agree with Trevor on this assessment, however, a couple of points: 1. Frequency differences could be entirely due to early seeding with D, followed by later (larger) seeding with G. 2. Differences in Ct values can be due to later testing being better [note trvrb's blog tho].https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1257825352660877313 …
As Trevor mentions - here and on his blog - there are many confounders (including unknowns) that are not accounted for in the analyses by Korber et al. that could explain the observed differences. Plausible, but far from proven - and I believe the Korber conclusions, premature.
One final note - the change from D>G is predicted to be quite disruptive to quaternary protein structure and we have some hints from flu that these mutations may be functional. E.g.,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24368278
I just want to point out that Bette Korber is a very accomplished and very careful researcher, with decades of RNA virus research experience. I know her from her HIV work. This can serve as an element in shaping your priors. @trvb
Right，Ct values can not be compared directly across different tests. This is why we always use a standard curve to calculate copy numbers in our lab.
if D641G makes the virus somehow better, then why did it only happen once only in Wuhan together with C241T and C3037T
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.
