A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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
-
2020-06-18 18:26
Kristian G. Andersen
Here's the manuscript from her - please keep confidential. I haven't read it yet. [shared file(s): Matters Arising ChanZhan 2020.pdf]
-
I think the main problem here is not really how that pangolin sequence ended up having that RBD, but rather whether there's anything sketchy here from a scientific standpoint. These studies are presented each as independent evidence of the pangolin virus RBD, but if all those papers are relying on a third data set - and don't actually have _any_ data from this very critical CoV RBD, then that's an issue.
-
I don't really see how this changes anything from the evolutionary perspective - because seeing it even once is very strong evidence. But there's no denying that if these studies have to be modified (or possibly even retracted), then that is going to send a nuke into the whole evolution conversation - whether justified or not.
-
Can we do a quick Zoom now.
-
Tommy's paper very clearly stated the provenance. Can't speak for the others.