-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Probable over-identification of BA.3 #584
Comments
I downloaded the GISAID complete BA.3 sequences and run the latest Pangolin on it.
So @aineniamh my feeling is that the rule for Probable BA.3 maybe a bit too relaxed thus overcalled. |
We had a sequencing run with some major wetlab issues last week that I think shows this really starkly, these were all called Probable BA.3 by the latest StaPH-B Pangolin Docker image (4.0.6-pdata-1.6) using accurate analysis mode. I did some manual checking of sites that differ between BA.2 and BA.3 and these all seemed to match better (where there was sequence) with BA.2.
We have yet to see any BA.3 in MN, so seeing this many on one run (that aren't geographically clustered at the county level or epi-linked) threw up some red flags. |
Thanks for flagging- I've updated the constellation definition to remove the probable call now in version 0.1.9 (https://github.com/cov-lineages/constellations/releases/tag/v0.1.9). This should resolve your issue! |
A joint work with @talyash and @Boltyansky
At GISAID today we found 4,796 sequences identified as BA.3.
We extracted VCF from the sequences and examined for each of them the number of mutations corresponding to it in the consensus of each of the five variants in the Omicron lineage (BA.1-BA.5). The test was performed without deletion mutations.
<style> </style>For each of the sequences we examined which of the five variants had the maximal match :
So it seems that most of those might not be BA.3.
The analysis :
BA.3 from GISAID.xlsx
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: