These are not issues. Two independent groups have found the same pangolin CoV (one buried in the SRA) and we are so undersampled that we can't possibly expect to capture every single evolutionary step. There are many unknowns when it comes to SARS2, but this one is solved.
-
No one is more impatient and patient than we are right now. We are striving to be respectful while firm in our opinion that our analysis of the GD pangolin CoV needs to be published as a proper scientific manuscript, not only as tweets or a preprint.
As I mentioned earlier, there are two separate groups - both with papers and all the data are available. I'm not sure what else is missing? Paper 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x … Paper 2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0 … The data are available on NCBI (PRJNA606875 and PRJNA607174) and GISAID
-
-
Lam builds their GD pangolin CoV seq (with the highly identical RBD to SARS2) using metagenomic data from Liu 2019 Viruses. Xiao also uses the same metagenomic data from Liu 2019 Viruses. The situation becomes very clear once you access the data in the 3 SRAs.
-
In our manuscript, we break down the reads per sample to show where the sequences are actually coming from. It's a bit frustrating that we've been under editorial consideration for 3 weeks... I promise it will become as clear as day as soon as it is published.
- Nog 4 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.