Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.964 [SLACK_001178] · slack_pm:msg:10039

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

I'd reject it - if they then come back, it can go online. But the methods are incorrect.

In context

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

2021-06-25 15:10 Andrew Rambaut open

It also doesn't cite our original virological post https://virological.org/t/563 which gives a suggestion of how it arose (not stepwise)
2021-06-25 15:11 Andrew Rambaut open

It isn't a recombinant.
2021-06-25 15:11 Andrew Rambaut open

But I don't care really - it won't get anywhere
2021-06-25 15:12 Edward C. Holmes open

I'll ponder it...
2021-06-25 15:12 Kristian G. Andersen

I'd reject it - if they then come back, it can go online. But the methods are incorrect.
2021-06-25 15:12 Andrew Rambaut open

There are some intermediates but we believe they are sequences of mixtures (we can look at the BAM files - they are all one ENA unlike the Wuhan genomes)
2021-06-25 15:13 Andrew Rambaut open

I think they have found some dodgy sequence. Jotun Hein also sent us a preprint which claimed to have discovereda recombinant but when we looked, the negative control for that plate was hooching with reads.
2021-06-25 15:14 Andrew Rambaut open

They need to check the raw data (which is available)
2021-06-25 15:14 Andrew Rambaut open

However, I assume it isn't your job to review it