A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
However, I'm checking with colleagues there now.
-
One explanation is that BGI created these four BioSamples for a different purpose and then backfilled with the SARS2 data when they generated it. But I don't think there's any ambiguity that these were created on 12/10 - onlywe don't know for what purpose (so could have been for a novel coronavirus, could have been for something else -the metadata describing the BioSample very likely weren't entered until the data were deposited).
-
I would love to see the full submission history for these entries - Andrew, dig a little :wink:
-
Eddie, it's your paper... :wink: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30251-8/fulltext I assume this is the same Weijun Chen who's the submitter of the data and is from BGI.
-
2020-10-30 15:52
Kristian G. Andersen
He'd know what's up with that early creation date.
-
If you had some suspected cases of novel coronavirus, Weijun would be the kind of guy you'd contact - he's been developing diagnostics for SARS too, so would make sense. I think there's probably an earlier timeline here that they may have been obscuring a little - which, honestly, wouldn't surprise me that much.
-
Yes, I looked at the Lancet paper straight away. I've already contacted Weifeng. If that fails I'll contact Weijun Chen.
-
The point is who is the 'you' in your question? Who did they work for? A doctor in Wuhan? What people would do isrun the standard panel of tests and if they failed perhaps contact a sequencing company like BGI. But if that were the case why did they not submit samples until 2 weeks later? My guess is that they were created for something else and then backfilled.
-
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what they say - also, this is from the paper about the metadata [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-10-30 at 4.08.13 PM.png]