Re: A question about recombination (could contamination be an issue?)
that thread was from May 2007.
Meanwhile we have a paper from Worobey, claiming that the Sibirian-ice-flu
and the 1917-flu and probably many others were lab-contaminations.
Also the recent paper by Boni et.al with two possible
recombinants, but rejected because of assumed contamination.
Then some other examples of supposed recombination, where
the donor-sequence is many years old.
This is strange and rare and suggests some irregularity too.
If both, recombination and preservation of sequences
is rare, then occurrance of both in the same examples
should be _very_ rare.
The Wisconsin/66 sequence got my attention recently
with another issue:
compare e.g. Brevig/18,WI/66,TR/Minn/3/92(H5N2)
distances in PB2 are 242,243,98 which doesn't match.
18-->92 (242) could be a direct line (3.36 per year),
but then where to place 66 ?
that thread was from May 2007.
Meanwhile we have a paper from Worobey, claiming that the Sibirian-ice-flu
and the 1917-flu and probably many others were lab-contaminations.
Also the recent paper by Boni et.al with two possible
recombinants, but rejected because of assumed contamination.
Then some other examples of supposed recombination, where
the donor-sequence is many years old.
This is strange and rare and suggests some irregularity too.
If both, recombination and preservation of sequences
is rare, then occurrance of both in the same examples
should be _very_ rare.
The Wisconsin/66 sequence got my attention recently
with another issue:
compare e.g. Brevig/18,WI/66,TR/Minn/3/92(H5N2)
distances in PB2 are 242,243,98 which doesn't match.
18-->92 (242) could be a direct line (3.36 per year),
but then where to place 66 ?
Comment