See if you can spot difference in how same samples are described in PubMed Central version (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108196/pdf/ciaa203.pdf …), which would have been built from original peer-reviewed manuscript: "Eight COVID-19 were collected from hospitals in Wuhan from December 18 to 29, 2019." (2/3)
-
-
Show this thread
-
Journal early access version of manuscript, which would have been the peer-reviewed version, also says samples from December 18-29, 2019 (https://web.archive.org/web/20200308003758/https:/watermark.silverchair.com/ciaa203.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAmswggJnBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJYMIICVAIBADCCAk0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMUvB1YKwP2bcB5dTjAgEQgIICHhCVB_L3-QgfUyzQ5G-v68bJ1kHhDf8lLShRGqC9bK7DlebkU5yUv6DPXGfkYCHNhvUVkawokppu_0H1qyLMACdOSYBspS7NvV5gembGXwlwt9_Aci4waeoxJX96d777yav5KH7giT_Tx8xzQR26RlMHyFDq4oUhCej7jiTdl0H3JFPULiDU1FGeW9SA3EiSy4iKiLv4n2lyTBkTYF2LpQ59SKThu1vic0sPDTpTihihfPedjRnk3XoIHIWWRzO_SmC7gBYZs6i5kY-XfDUBRauvezNPPOcrwC7bcUCjJ4OEKa8ym9ssdhVlKHgB-UPbQLRaTZ285BTc5f1wWAjRRJX7Hkb7ik4A5qWkKnFePKsu_rRuJ_8cKRv9rfYJODY2VNeHGf3QyHrIC_xCSMjPRlTGpTD5aTdw2vIQuPzf9hLT44YBGKD0beExJUhqCMeq2i5yUn582z8MMW4LYKq-0qS49z0mjAGVjvpftdPVY-6MhhjL7KWz48RB69vFaMTqybNKmqKOg0NKxXLi4iq8C3orPY_sBKagy1GKGuvfz39pUkh6MyAwM1XPzKmzevfDKd8xHNyYGdRTK8F3ThZI4PTdvkMXSq0Tp8v3d3x6mpsUzQ0bd2ypmQ7KyUauEnH_AxfZ8nYIYq9KebygrgFHVqkHzUb2l53vE0rbYqQdy1twbFJCkIfGtRpIkQfl5izggBvLKWOw5yA7sLDrJJba …). There is no correction in journal, so presumably dates changed at post-peer review manuscript proofing stage. (3/3)
Show this thread -
@acritschristoph, here is GitHub repo where I re-aligned the raw data from both the *.bam and *.sra files on Sequence Read archive: https://github.com/jbloom/SARS-CoV-2_Shen_et_al … I think I got pretty much the same mutations reported in the paper. I found these mutations puzzling, as I expected...Show this thread -
... if they were early sequences, some of the mutations might be polarized towards bat coronavirus (RaTG13, RmYN02, etc). But although sequences have quite a few mutations relative to Wuhan-Hu-1, none are polarized towards bat coronaviruses.
Show this thread -
They were also all lineage B, which would be surprising if you think (as I do) that lineage A is ancestral. But even if A not ancestral to B, still surprised that early lineage B seqs would not have some mutations polarized to bat coronaviruses as that must be where it came from.
Show this thread -
I have *not* tried to connect these with early patients, but I think that's a good idea. Let me know if you succeed! Maybe
@franciscodeasis tried this too?Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are you referring to the following sequences: The family cluster - end of Dec. WIV02 - MN996527 WIV04 - MN996528 WIV05 - MN996529 WIV06 - MN996530 WIV07 - MN996531 HKU-SZ-002a - MN938384 HKU-SZ-005b - MN975262 The 3 versions of Wuhan-Hu-1: MN908947.1, MN908947.2, & MN908947.3
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It can be earlier, if the project determined in 2018 is correctly estimatedIt can be earlier, if the project determined in 2018 is correctly estimated
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Hello, you can read it here:
@zeynep, here are some more interesting early#SARSCov2 dates for… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1432903935312818178.html … See you soon.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
