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
There are around 40 JN.1 that have S:R346T, but most of them are poor quality sequences with lots of XBB mixed in.
When filtering out those pretty clear artefacts, we're left with 11-12 BA.2.86 that may actually have 346T. These are shown in the screenshot, where mutations are shown with respect to BA.2.86 parent, that's why there are so few mutation markers:
Interestingly, most of the 346T are within JN.1 (9 out of 11), much more concentrated than we'd expect by chance (around 1/4 of total BA.2.86 are JN.1 in GISAID).
Within JN.1, 8 out of 9 are on the JN.1 branch with C1762A (ORF1a:F499L) and C11747T. Again more concentrated than one would expect by chance (around 40% of JN.1 are on that branch).
4 out of those 8 share another mutation that's seen only once elsewhere within JN.1: C20629T (ORF1b:H2388Y).
Thus, it looks like at least these 4 sequences form a proper monophyletic lineage that could get designated. Though the numbers are still a bit small and there's a contamination issue as evidenced by the 3/4 of BA.2.86 + 346T being likely artefacts:
It's also possible that the 8 sequences are a single event - better wait for sequence numbers to double before making a decision. Due to the way the other 4 are scattered around, they look like independent events for now, though.
On Usher, things are a bit messy:
Here's how Nextclade arranges things with just the 346T sequences on the JN.1 branch:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
corneliusroemer
changed the title
Putative JN.1 + S:R346T with C1762A, C11747T, C20629T (3 seqs, France/Sweden/Australia)
Putative JN.1 + S:R346T with C1762A, C11747T, C20629T (4 seqs, France/Sweden/Australia/Italy)
Nov 27, 2023
There are around 40 JN.1 that have S:R346T, but most of them are poor quality sequences with lots of XBB mixed in.
When filtering out those pretty clear artefacts, we're left with 11-12 BA.2.86 that may actually have 346T. These are shown in the screenshot, where mutations are shown with respect to BA.2.86 parent, that's why there are so few mutation markers:
Interestingly, most of the 346T are within JN.1 (9 out of 11), much more concentrated than we'd expect by chance (around 1/4 of total BA.2.86 are JN.1 in GISAID).
Within JN.1, 8 out of 9 are on the JN.1 branch with C1762A (ORF1a:F499L) and C11747T. Again more concentrated than one would expect by chance (around 40% of JN.1 are on that branch).
4 out of those 8 share another mutation that's seen only once elsewhere within JN.1: C20629T (ORF1b:H2388Y).
Thus, it looks like at least these 4 sequences form a proper monophyletic lineage that could get designated. Though the numbers are still a bit small and there's a contamination issue as evidenced by the 3/4 of BA.2.86 + 346T being likely artefacts:
GISAID query:
G22599C,C20629T,C11747T,C1762A
It's also possible that the 8 sequences are a single event - better wait for sequence numbers to double before making a decision. Due to the way the other 4 are scattered around, they look like independent events for now, though.
On Usher, things are a bit messy:
Here's how Nextclade arranges things with just the 346T sequences on the JN.1 branch:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: