As noted in the scripts, I used a Dutch study (Table 2) to estimate MC Virus prevalence but didn't use this same study for JC and BK Virus, as the immunoassay, described in a different paper by the same author, showed cross-reactivity for JC and BK Virus. (link). This could also explain why the measurement for BK Virus is suspiciously high (98.9%).
Instead of the Dutch study, I used the Swiss study to extrapolate JC and BK Virus to Denmark.
MCV prevalence typo
Fixed a typo that led to a 100x too large prevalence for MCV. ( 59.4 * 100_000 -> 0.594 * 100_000). I failed to spot this previously, but this explains why the expected relative abundance for MCV is so low!
This PR does two things:
As noted in the scripts, I used a Dutch study (Table 2) to estimate MC Virus prevalence but didn't use this same study for JC and BK Virus, as the immunoassay, described in a different paper by the same author, showed cross-reactivity for JC and BK Virus. (link). This could also explain why the measurement for BK Virus is suspiciously high (98.9%).
Instead of the Dutch study, I used the Swiss study to extrapolate JC and BK Virus to Denmark.
59.4 * 100_000->0.594 * 100_000). I failed to spot this previously, but this explains why the expected relative abundance for MCV is so low!