You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thanks @corneliusroemer I agree this is worth designating. The mutation was a bit jumpy in older UShER trees which is why I haven't added it before. But it now looks much cleaner. So we've added this as BA.2.10 in v1.2.140
Orf1b:S959P is still around in XDV.1 and it is still the one acquired with BA.2.10 here, going to be BJ.1 then , recombining w BA.2.75 to become XBB >> XBB.1.19.1 >> GW.5 and then recombining again with FL.13.4* to become XDE and then recombining with JN.1 to become XDV and then XDV.1 .
We usually thought that Orf1b:S959P could have been deleterious but with such of a story of recombinations being conserved and then successful i doubt it is .
I am not sure but could be the oldest, not belonging to defining BA.2 mutations, to be around?
I think it's worth designating BA.2 with ORF1b:S959P
It doesn't seem to be in a currently designated sublineage of BA.2
It makes up a large fraction of all BA.2 in India, about 3% of all global BA.2
https://cov-spectrum.org/explore/World/AllSamples/Past6M/variants?aaMutations=ORF1b%3AS959P&pangoLineage=BA.2*
It's also very common in Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: