Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.85 [SLACK_000299] · slack_pm:msg:00864

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

But the pangolin sequence is only 'highly identical' at the amino acid level. Not synonymous sites...falls in the expected place at those sites.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
But the pangolin sequence is only 'highly identical' at the amino acid level.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

But the pangolin sequence is only 'highly identical' at the amino acid level.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-06-18 16:42 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, I'm not sure what she's suggesting... Either from human or somebody invented the sequence. Hasn't that sequence been seen from multiple animals by multiple labs?
2020-06-18 16:48 Edward C. Holmes open

Yes, it has. The two pangolin papers in Nature (different groups) both show the same RBD in the animals from Guangdong.
2020-06-18 16:58 Kristian G. Andersen open

Thought so...
2020-06-18 17:27 Kristian G. Andersen open

This is pretty interesting... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-06-18 at 5.27.34 PM.png]
2020-06-18 17:32 Edward C. Holmes

But the pangolin sequence is only 'highly identical' at the amino acid level. Not synonymous sites...falls in the expected place at those sites.
2020-06-18 17:34 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, agreed - but if what she's saying is actually true, then that's definitely strange - that is *not* how the authors describe their data and samples
2020-06-18 17:34 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'll get the manuscript from her
2020-06-18 17:37 Edward C. Holmes open

Let me see what I can do on this. I'm working with both groups.
2020-06-18 17:41 Edward C. Holmes open

Still makes no sense because the Liu et al. paper come out before the pandemic.