Slack / Private Message Drop — page 964

[2021-06-25 15:10:55] [Andrew Rambaut] 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 15:11:04] [Andrew Rambaut] It isn't a recombinant. [2021-06-25 15:11:34] [Andrew Rambaut] But I don't care really - it won't get anywhere [2021-06-25 15:12:07] [Eddie Holmes] I'll ponder it... [2021-06-25 15:12:42] [Kristian Andersen] I'd reject it - if they then come back, it can go online. But the methods are incorrect. [2021-06-25 15:12:48] [Andrew Rambaut] 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 15:13:56] [Andrew Rambaut] I think they have found some dodgy sequence. Jotun Hein also sent us a preprint which claimed to have discovered a recombinant but when we looked, the negative control for that plate was hooching with reads. [2021-06-25 15:14:06] [Andrew Rambaut] They need to check the raw data (which is available) [2021-06-25 15:14:36] [Andrew Rambaut] However, I assume it isn't your job to review it [2021-06-25 15:15:04] [Andrew Rambaut] You could at least say they should contact CoG to collaborate [2021-06-25 15:15:15] [Andrew Rambaut] As that are the GISAID rules [2021-06-25 15:15:22] [Eddie Holmes] Our job is not to review. I only reject if it is dangerous/malicious/nutso. [2021-06-25 15:15:44] [Andrew Rambaut] Accept it then - won't hurt anyone