Reading Room Production — page 58

wh.iov.cn> 20 6:30 AM EDT From: #A#¢ Sent: Sunday, Apri To: Alice Latinne ecohealthalliance.org> CC: Hongying Li ecohealthalliance.org>; 41EAS low iov.cn>; Peter Daszak <E @ ccohealthalliance.org> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: China Maps used in the manuscript Oh I see. It is named 4991 when submitted earlier as a partial sequence. We renamed it as RaTG13 when we publish as a full-length sequence. So it would be OK. Only the deletion of "we" in the sentence will be enough. Best AE X::"Alice Latinne" ecohealthalliance.org> ACEI [A):2020-04-05 18:01:25 (2HIA) WEA: "AAR" wh.iov.cn> 1%: "Hongying Li" ecohealthalliance.org>, "4Q1EAN" Blows iov.cn>, "Peter Daszak" ecohealthalliance.org> =F gil: Re: Re: Re: China Maps used in the manuscript Hi Ben, 1) RaTG13 is not included in the Figure 3. The closest sequence is a sequence from GenBank (KP876546) and published in 2016 in a paper from your lab: Ge X-Y, Wang N, Zhang W, Hu B, Li B, Zhang Y-Z, Zhou J-H, Luo C-M, Yang X-L, Wu L-J, et al. (Ge2016 co-authors). 2016. Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft. Virologica Sinica 31:3140. This sequence is 100% identical to RaTG13, is it the same sample? I'll delete the word "we" in the sentence. 2) I'll check and correct this as needed. Cheers, Alice On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 4:24 PM #Age own iov.cn> wrote: Hi Alice, Thanks for the supplementary material. Now I have two more concerns regarding the manuscript: 1) In lines 48-49 in the PDF, you mentioned that "this emerging human virus is closely related to SARS-CoV, and also appears to have originated in horseshoe bats -- with its full genome 96% similar to a virus we discovered in Rhinolophus affinis". Here this virus refers to RaTG13. Could you please delete the word "we" in this sentence? Otherwise, some readers may think that RaTG13 was detected in our joint study (e.x.PREDICT) and we shared the sequence with EHA earlier. This may be used by some conspiracy theorists to make rumors. Actually, the sequence of RaTG13 was not included in the dataset I provided to you. It was not deposited into Genbank until this January. So I think it was not included in your dataset, and you used this sequence during the revision phase after COVID-19 outbreak.