Closed ktmeaton closed 1 year ago
There typically aren't any substitutions in this area, the last one before is T22200G
and the first one after is G22578A
This style of dropout (Ns 20677-22537) is being labeled as a false positive, when I would prefer it to be XBB-like. Why is this a false positive?
Note: This is sequenced with Midnight/Freed, not ARTIC
In the latest version (v0.6.2 in development), this same sample is classified correctly as XBB.1.5-like. I'll attribute this to improvements in the latest version of nextclade aligner or dataset.
OR! C20235T has now snuck into being a diagnostic mutation for XBB (`0.370) with the latest allele frequency update.
There appears to be sequencing dropout (Ns) in the region of
22248:22428
inXBB
. This leads to the breakpoints to be off by141
nucleotides (expected22332
, observed22191
). This regions is exactly the start/end coordinates of ARTIC v4.1 primers 73,75 and is only observed in samples prepped with ARTIC (as opposed to Midnight/Freed). The simplest explanation would be amplicon dropout.Some options I'm considering:
50
nucleotides to200
nucleotides.~resources/breakpoints.tsv
forXBB_ARTICv4.1
, and then remap this toXBB
inscripts/linelist.py
.I prefer the second one, because I don't have to re-optimize/test parameters for all previous recombinants which have very similar breakpoints.