Open j23414 opened 4 months ago
Thanks @ckikawa for pointing to the paper:
Cuypers, L., Libin, P.J., Simmonds, P., Nowé, A., Muñoz-Jordán, J., Alcantara, L.C.J., Vandamme, A.M., Santiago, G.A. and Theys, K., 2018. Time to harmonize dengue Nomenclature and classification. Viruses, 10(10), p.569.
Hi @j23414
I've only just started working on Dengue viruses very recently. Looking for a genotyping tool I came across the unreleased nextclade dataset and also another tool (Genome Detective).
So we're all on the same page, these:
DENV2/AA --> DENV2/III
DENV2/AI --> DENV2/V
DENV2/AM --> DENV2/I
DENV2/C --> DENV2/II
Are referred to as genotypes.
The reason for the correction is because there are 'major' lineages ('subgenotypes') referenced in the literature: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/12/8/829
If this is within scope of this project, I could assist with generating lineages.
Thanks,
Ammar
Hi, there are two recent publications that I read recently that are proposing to extend the dengue classification further from serotype and genotype by splitting genotypes into major and minor lineages. Please take out time to read these two and if we can adopt this nomenclature to avoid confusion in future.
Context
In response to comment: https://github.com/nextstrain/dengue/issues/28#issuecomment-1956937534
One modification is to keep the S groups, since S=Sylvatic.
Description
Transition to using numeric lineage labels, and less geography-tied naming conventions.
Before implementing this, check if this is standard in the literature or will cause any confusion.
Examples
Possible solution
(Optional)