A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
(I just don't know enough about sequencing bioinformatics and genome assembly to look at this).
-
I might take a look at the sequence data - overall, I have no concerns though given that this is how sequencing oflow-coverage genomes often occurs. Patchwork....
-
I guess the question is has there been any 'imputation'? From the above it would seem they can't even get the consensus when they map to the actual consensus?
-
It would also matter which bits are low coverage. I would prefer to move on but it would be good to be armed with the knowledge - who knows where this will go next.
-
2020-09-17 07:10
Kristian G. Andersen
I suspect the data is scattered across repos
-
I agree with Andrew that the main point is that our analysis would not have changed much at all without RaTG13. The pangolin CoVs (that Alina seems focused on) and other BtCoVs were sufficient for the Proximal Origins analysis. I do recall a PR that talked of a 99% CoV that unfortunately never came.
-
> Update from Vegard: ```Quick update: We were in the end able to obtain a decent assembly of RaTG13. The description of their approachis lacking to say the least, but the genome seems legit enough, and seems extremely unlikely to involve any sort offraud.We'll post a little commenn on virological, as there might be others looking into the same question.```
-
Hah - I'm glad they're so thorough before bugging other scientists... I'm downloading the raw data now - lemme have a quick look
-
Yeah, no concerns really @Andrew Rambaut [shared file(s): RaTG13.jpg]