@jashobanta-mcpl Here's an example for PHIG:348 (gene CEBiP of Triticum aestivum) where the metagenotype display name contains two strains:
Confusingly, the corresponding pathogen gene page for the LysM gene of Z. tritici (PHIG:344) only has this metagenotype for cv. Cadenza of T. aestivum.
Based on the latest JSON export, this metagenotype only exists for cv. Cadenza, so it looks like an error that cv. Riband is included here. Maybe this is a side effect of the strain aggregation being applied to the Host section.
I think what we would've expected to see is the annotation just for cv. Cadenza.
Which probably means that every metagenotype with two strain names on this page is wrong.
To clarify: the aggregation of strains that is being done for the Host section should not affect the display of the metagenotype names.
@jashobanta-mcpl Here's an example for PHIG:348 (gene CEBiP of Triticum aestivum) where the metagenotype display name contains two strains:
Confusingly, the corresponding pathogen gene page for the LysM gene of Z. tritici (PHIG:344) only has this metagenotype for cv. Cadenza of T. aestivum.
Based on the latest JSON export, this metagenotype only exists for cv. Cadenza, so it looks like an error that cv. Riband is included here. Maybe this is a side effect of the strain aggregation being applied to the Host section.
I think what we would've expected to see is the annotation just for cv. Cadenza.
Which probably means that every metagenotype with two strain names on this page is wrong.
To clarify: the aggregation of strains that is being done for the Host section should not affect the display of the metagenotype names.