Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.209 [SLACK_000423] · slack_pm:msg:02175

Date: 2020-10-02 15:45
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

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

I might have referenced back to some of your earlier studies to say how low impact this one is.... ```In the revised version of the manuscript the authors provide evidence to show that yellow-necked field mouse could be the/a reservoir for rustrela virus. They have also toned down their language about relevance to human disease. However, beyond these points, my main comments from the first submission still stand - the study is well performed and the methods appropriate, but the scope is too limiting and not of sufficient interest to the broad audience of Nature. The authors discuss the relevance of their findings to e.g., the ability to develop an animal model for Rubella, but that is much too early to tell - the authors don't isolate the virus, let alone show that the viruses are capable of infecting animals - and, importantly, whether that leads to comparable disease to Rubella.So while I find the study of interest and I think these are cool findings, I just don't see how the study would rise to the interest of the readership of Nature. Boiled down, the study is a metagenomic survey of a few different species ofanimals where a couple of novel viruses have been identified (albeit relatives of Matonaviridae - which have not previously been described). Compare the current study to previous virus discovery studies in Nature by e.g., Shi etal (PMID 29618816 and 27880757) where they discover hundreds of viruses - including close relatives of human pathogens - from very large-scale surveys.```

In context

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

2020-10-02 15:21 Edward C. Holmes open

Totally. But, as you say, that's no surprise.
2020-10-02 15:31 Edward C. Holmes open

In other news, I was *confidentially* (so keep to yourself) asked to comment on this. I've not read it, but looking that the tree these viruses are really not that close to Rubella. Bit surprised they got this into Nature. [shared file(s): Relatives of rubella virus in diverse mammals.pdf]
2020-10-02 15:43 Kristian G. Andersen open

Aahaha. I pushed back really hard on that paper - I reviewed it and was unenthused to say the least.
2020-10-02 15:43 Kristian G. Andersen open

I was shocked when they accepted it
2020-10-02 15:45 Kristian G. Andersen

I might have referenced back to some of your earlier studies to say how low impact this one is.... ```In the revised version of the manuscript the authors provide evidence to show that yellow-necked field mouse could be the/a reservoir for rustrela virus. They have also toned down their language about relevance to human disease. However, beyond these points, my main comments from the first submission still stand - the study is well performed and the methods appropriate, but the scope is too limiting and not of sufficient interest to the broad audience of Nature. The authors discuss the relevance of their findings to e.g., the ability to develop an animal model for Rubella, but that is much too early to tell - the authors don't isolate the virus, let alone show that the viruses are capable of infecting animals - and, importantly, whether that leads to comparable disease to Rubella.So while I find the study of interest and I think these are cool findings, I just don't see how the study would rise to the interest of the readership of Nature. Boiled down, the study is a metagenomic survey of a few different species ofanimals where a couple of novel viruses have been identified (albeit relatives of Matonaviridae - which have not previously been described). Compare the current study to previous virus discovery studies in Nature by e.g., Shi etal (PMID 29618816 and 27880757) where they discover hundreds of viruses - including close relatives of human pathogens - from very large-scale surveys.```
2020-10-02 16:07 Edward C. Holmes open

Spot on. I've no idea why they took this. A similar story can be told for a multitude of viruses. We previously found arelative to Rubella virus in fish.
2020-10-02 16:24 Robert F. Garry open

I think you should use the opportunity to point out yes Eddie's fish virus [if you seek you find] but that surveillance ofemerging pathogens in humans is a MUCH MORE direct and cost-effective strategy to respond to pandemic threats. What are we supposed to do - spend a couple of billion and make vaccines to these viruses? Just my 2 cents.
2020-10-02 17:03 Edward C. Holmes open

Great point! A Science journalist wants talk about the paper so I will stress that.

Full conversation →