The RaTG13 genome was just quietly updated on Oct 13, 2020.
Why is this happening!?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN9965…
Why is this happening!?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN9965…
I thought the sample disintegrated in 2018 after full sample sequencing was done (even though the Nature paper said it was sequenced post-COVID). What is there to update?!
Do scientists need to be assigned to just sit and watch these data depositions for RaTG13, pangolin CoVs, RmYN02 to see what new data accessibility or updates occur over the years?
Between the 2 versions, there are at least 4 single base changes, and 1 double base change that several scientists have already noticed.
It is October. Shouldn't a genome fully sequenced in 2018, published in January be accurate?
It is October. Shouldn't a genome fully sequenced in 2018, published in January be accurate?
The only notice on the Nature paper that RaTG13 was first named in: "28 September 2020 This article was amended to correct the Peer review information."
nature.com/articles/s4158…
nature.com/articles/s4158…
To be fair to the journals, I 100% don't believe that @Nature was notified about this change made by the authors to the data published in the journal. This is why changes to datasets and papers cannot keep going on unannounced. This means both the journal and readers are blinded.
Similar thing happened with the @Nature pangolin CoV paper. New sample pangolin_10 was just quietly added to the bioproject on June 22 (Xiao et al. paper published on May 7, 2020). This new sample doesn't match samples described in the paper. @shingheizhan ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/SRX8582289
I don't know what to say about this in a way that is meaningful to a layperson. There are a lot of things wrong with research & the publishing process that are amplified by COVID. Maybe the best thing is to engage trusted journalists @sciencecohen to clear things up with the WIV.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
