A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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
-
I'll get the manuscript from her
-
Let me see what I can do on this. I'm working with both groups.
-
Still makes no sense because the Liu et al. paper come out before the pandemic.
-
2020-06-18 17:41
Kristian G. Andersen
"Liu et al. paper come out before the pandemic" > Yup.
-
Published online October 24th 2019 if I remember.
-
Yup - definitely well before the outbreak began (ohhhh, but what about all those parked cars, huh...?)
-
I can easily imagine that the Liu et al. data has influenced the assembly in the later papers but (i) why would this only impact nonsynonymous sites and (ii) how could it possibly have produced the human sequence when no one knew what that was? Liu et al. is clearly a 'blind' study. I've just emailed Tommy if he can assemble the same RBD without the Liu et al. data and/or if it has been Sanger sequenced. The other group have a second paper on the clinicalmanifestations that I am helping them with. They've sequenced the virus again. I've also asked if they can assemble the same RBD without the Liu et al. data and/or if it has been Sanger sequenced.
-
The similarity between the RBD and the Guangdong pangolins from the Liu et al. study alone was noted on Virological in late January. How can Liu et al. have possibly known what the human RBD would have looked like? https://virological.org/t/ncov-2019-spike-protein-receptor-binding-domain-shares-high-amino-acid-identity-with-a-coronavirus-recovered-from-a-pangolin-viral-metagenomic-dataset/362