Slack / Private Message Drop — page 1006

shared file(s): image.png [2021-09-23 16:35:55] [Andrew Rambaut] 10.13.6 [2021-09-23 16:38:29] [Andrew Rambaut] ```(Microsoft Word - BloomCV.docx) endobj 84 0 obj (Mac OS X 10.13.6 Quartz PDFContext) endobj 85 0 obj (Word) endobj 86 0 obj (D:20191101172036Z00'00') endobj``` There is a date stamp of 2019 here and he is already on 10.13.6 [2021-09-23 16:54:47] [Kristian Andersen] Nice ones! Also, I'm wondering about the times - it's likely Adobe is actually showing all of this in _my_ time zone and not the original one. [2021-09-23 16:57:35] [Kristian Andersen] Confirmed - Acrobat is showing times in _my_ time zone, not original :disappointed:. Alright, we don't know whether this could be West Coast or not - but probably somewhere US. [2021-09-24 13:27:52] [Eddie Holmes] @Kristian Andersen On that glycosylation stuff the key comparison is actually without the BANAL or any of the viruses collected post-pandemic and perhaps even RaTG13. The key question is whether SC2 has glycosylation patterns that match those proposed in that grant (e.g. clade 2 stuff) in comparisons involving the viruses named in that grant and known about in 2019. [2021-09-24 13:50:01] [Kristian Andersen] Hey Eddie. I agree, although I think the comparisons should be to both - where SC2 matches BANAL, we 100% know it's natural. The question is, where SC2 is _different_ than BANAL, is any of that described in the grant? The answer to that is a clear no. BANAL has 23 (predicted...) N-linked glycans, SC2 has 22 - 21 of them are shared with BANAL, so SC1 has one unique N-Glycs (in the NTD), whereas BANAL has two unique N-Glycs (one in RBD, one in NTD). None of these are specifically described in the grant. Table with the N-Glycs attached. [shared file(s): N-Glycs.xlsx] [2021-09-24 15:00:48] [Robert Garry] SC1 has a glycan at 109 that is in the other bat Covs except for RaTG13 and Laos bat 52. It also missing in SC2 spike. [2021-09-24 15:07:07] [Kristian Andersen]