Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.946 [SLACK_001160] · slack_pm:msg:09849

Date: 2021-06-19 11:56
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Robert F. Garry

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

Yes - he's got WA1 in the mix, but yes definitely WA1 early Wuhan for sure. I'm thinking Jesse making much ado about nothing - it's lineage A going to lineage B with WA1 from Wuhan ancestral.

In context

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

2021-06-19 10:42 Robert F. Garry open

C18060T?
2021-06-19 11:33 Andrew Rambaut open

```But the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 sequences, whichare mostly derived from the Huanan Seafood Market, are no-tably more different from these bat coronaviruses than othersequences collected at later dates outside Wuhan.``` This is incorrect - WA1 is from Wuhan
2021-06-19 11:34 Robert F. Garry open

*Yes from your earlier post (Numbering off by 1) Andrew Rambaut* [12:11 PM] Wuhan-Hu-1: T:8781:C|T:18059:C|C:28143:T WH04: T:18059:C WA1: 0:
2021-06-19 11:34 Andrew Rambaut open

So it is they are notably (2 or 3 mutations) more distant from RATG13 than other viruses in Wuhan at the same time
2021-06-19 11:56 Robert F. Garry

Yes - he's got WA1 in the mix, but yes definitely WA1 early Wuhan for sure. I'm thinking Jesse making much ado about nothing - it's lineage A going to lineage B with WA1 from Wuhan ancestral.
2021-06-19 12:03 Robert F. Garry open

"Rambaut _et al._ (2020) suggest that viruses from the clade labeled "B" in Figure 4 may just "happen" to have been sequenced first, but that other SARS-CoV-2 sequences are really more ancestral as implied by phylogenetic rooting." Uhhh Rambaut is right about this...

Full conversation →