in our recent Omicron samples (21K aka BA.1) we found a few with a weird number of spike mutations, in particular only one AA substitution, see sample16 here:
(Linage assignment and mutations by nextclade.)
So I was looking into the data and tracked it down to a 5 nt deletion (21766-21770) in the spike, which causes a frame shift (S:70-1274).
That's why substitutions after S:A67V are missing and we see deletions S:I68- and SH69- instead of S:H69-, S:V70-, which are normally found in 21K aka BA.1 (Omicron). On nucleotide level we see a 6 nt deletion (21765-21770) in 'normal' 21K Omicrons.
In the genome browser all looks fine, also the coverage on position 21765, which should be a deletion:
The ARTIC pipeline is called as follows (within poreCov):
Hi there,
in our recent Omicron samples (21K aka BA.1) we found a few with a weird number of spike mutations, in particular only one AA substitution, see sample16 here:
(Linage assignment and mutations by
nextclade
.)So I was looking into the data and tracked it down to a 5 nt deletion (21766-21770) in the spike, which causes a frame shift (S:70-1274).
That's why substitutions after S:A67V are missing and we see deletions S:I68- and SH69- instead of S:H69-, S:V70-, which are normally found in 21K aka BA.1 (Omicron). On nucleotide level we see a 6 nt deletion (21765-21770) in 'normal' 21K Omicrons.
In the genome browser all looks fine, also the coverage on position 21765, which should be a deletion:
The ARTIC pipeline is called as follows (within poreCov):
With
nanopolish
instead ofmedaka
we see the expected 6 nt deletion.Primer protocol is ARTIC V4.1.
Updates:
medaka 1.5.0
andmedaka 1.4.3
(inside ARTIC)medaka
modelmedaka
modelThe question is now: Can we fix that by adapting parameters for
medaka
?