A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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
-
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.
-
2020-06-18 18:30
Kristian G. Andersen
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.
-
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9673242666
-
Hi Eddie, Although the pangolins used in Liu's study overlap with ous, we did not used Liu's data in this new paper,and assemble four new virus genomes. In addition, we amplied and sequenced (Sanger sequencing) the complete S genes from lung tissues and virus isolate independently, and comfirm the high-throughput sequencing. As showed inFigure S2, the new genomes almost the same as our previous genome and Lam's. Therefore, i am sure that the previous data is correct.I have discussed with Liu several days ago, he also used Sanger sequencing to attain a nearly complete genome, and confirm his high-throughput result. The latest data in this new article will reassure everyone.Sincerely,Yongyi Shen [shared file(s): image.png]