Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Added lineages XBC.1.1 and XBC.1.1.1 (S:G476S) with 150/20 designations
- Loading branch information
1 parent
56310a4
commit 5c205c6
5c205c6There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @corneliusroemer the XBC.1.1.1 was proposed here: #1367 then gone stale and i ve closed it .
5c205c6There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @corneliusroemer the XBC.1.1.1 was proposed here: #1367 then gone stale and i ve closed it .
5c205c6There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So what is the defining mutation of XBC.1.1 (and XBC.1.2)?
5c205c6There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think G8353A then T4885C, T11121C, G28233C for XBC.1.1
and
T11269C for XBC.1.2
see: https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice1_genome_19b63_9b0580.json?label=id:node_8270741
5c205c6There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the epidemiological event corresponding to the designation of XBC.1.2 with defining mutation T11269C (synonymous)? I do not have any idea why XBC.1.2 is so designated.
5c205c6There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consider that XBC and XBC.1 likely emerged in Philippines, if you look at the tree it is quite remarkable how it started chain of transmission quite everywhere it was seeded, maybe just a sampling strategy effect but still i think.it is correct in this case not to designate too deep in the tree cause it could be that soon other branches will be seeded from undersampled areas. This kind of designation has been already done for some BA.5.2 branches.