COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.555 [SLACK_000769] · slack_pm:msg:05787

Page text: p.555 · original PDF

Date
2021-02-28 12:55
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.

Wait, she specifically said 69/70 came from B.1.1.7 and hence it must be a recombinant? That's, well, dumb. Very.

In context

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

  1. 2021-02-28 12:52 Andrew Rambaut open
    Of course not.
  2. 2021-02-28 12:53 Andrew Rambaut open
    Her group has some hokey triplet method which is totally useless as you don't have an outgroup
  3. 2021-02-28 12:54 Andrew Rambaut open
    Basically she found a 'californian' virus with 69/70 deletion in it and was claiming it was recombinant with a B.1.1.7.But 69/70 comes up all the time.
  4. 2021-02-28 12:54 Andrew Rambaut open
    I spent way too long on it.
  5. 2021-02-28 12:55 Kristian G. Andersen
    Wait, she specifically said 69/70 came from B.1.1.7 and hence it must be a recombinant? That's, well, dumb. Very.
  6. 2021-02-28 12:56 Edward C. Holmes open
    What an idiot. I look forward to reviewing that for Cell.
  7. 2021-02-28 12:58 Andrew Rambaut open
    That was the only homoplasy but she had a convincing looking plot of the two 'parents' and the 'recombinant' and itshowed a tract in spike that looked like B.1.1.7 compared to the other parent. But it was actually also the same asthe reference and the other parent had had some mutations. Just so dumb
  8. 2021-02-28 12:59 Andrew Rambaut open
    The worse thing is we started the meeting with an explanation from Bette about how you detect recombination in viruses.
  9. 2021-02-28 13:00 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Hahahaha, must have been so painful to go through that.

Full conversation →