Closed HynnSpylor closed 3 months ago
44 branches now. query for branch 3 updated
There is a new JN.1+T58C,C59A+S:R346T branch though
There is a new JN.1+T58C,C59A+S:R346T branch though
Thank you, i think i saw that too but i was unsure if the 58/59 comboi nuc mutation is real, @AngieHinrichs @ryhisner @corneliusroemer what do you think
Anyway thank you very much for the help in tracking this and any new branch u will find
Thank you, i think i saw that too but i was unsure if the 58/59 comboi nuc mutation is real, @AngieHinrichs @ryhisner
Yeah you're right. I checked and these seqs seem to have no coverage on the 5' part instead of real 58/59.
Thank you, i think i saw that too but i was unsure if the 58/59 comboi nuc mutation is real, @AngieHinrichs @ryhisner
Yeah you're right. I checked and these seqs seem to have no coverage on the 5' part instead of real 58/59.
Thank you vm ! i highlighted to @AngieHinrichs so she could fix it!
There is also this branch with C9142T as branch 2 but branching off from a reversion of a defining nucleotide mutation defining of all BA.2.86 T13339C reverted to T13339T . i am not sure if real or not cause that C9142T mutation in the tree, https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome-test.gi.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice5_genome_test_31b94_5cb940.json?label=id:node_6955284 Also it is possible to gain a query for this just starting it from the next node that , notably , is Orf6:L61P . Query for it: A27383C,G22599C,C9142T,C897A, Samples 2.
Branch 9 flied to 27 with 5 samples from Nigeria one from Australia and one from Scotland
Thank you, i think i saw that too but i was unsure if the 58/59 comboi nuc mutation is real, @AngieHinrichs @ryhisner
Yeah you're right. I checked and these seqs seem to have no coverage on the 5' part instead of real 58/59.
Thanks! Will mask, should take effect in today's build (2024-02-21).
There is also this branch with C9142T as branch 2 but branching off from a reversion of a defining nucleotide mutation defining of all BA.2.86 T13339C reverted to T13339T . i am not sure if real or not cause that C9142T mutation in the tree
There is a regain of T13339C on that branch so the reversion looks like an artefact to me.
There is also this branch with C9142T as branch 2 but branching off from a reversion of a defining nucleotide mutation defining of all BA.2.86 T13339C reverted to T13339T . i am not sure if real or not cause that C9142T mutation in the tree
There is a regain of T13339C on that branch so the reversion looks like an artefact to me.
Thank you!
Thanks! Will mask, should take effect in today's build (2024-02-21).
That's not a masking problem but more of an algorithmic problem that mutated branches attracting seqs without coverage on that site.
I suggest a way to solve this,
Backup the original seqs and count the percentage of seqs with mutation/without coverage under every branch, if that percentage is below like 20% this means the branch is mainly made up of seqs without coverage, Under such scenario the branch mutations for seqs without coverage shall be removed and they shall be place elsewhere.
That's a good idea @aviczhl2. However, without masking, the branch could continue to attract sequences with Ns.
That's a good idea @aviczhl2. However, without masking, the branch could continue to attract sequences with Ns.
Yeah. This bug was also the bug in https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/861
This is a general bug that can happen on any positions and not caused by wrongly sequenced samples. All those samples truthfully report "no coverage" on the mutation site, so there's no artefact in sequencing. Masking will solve a certain branch but without an algorithmic fix such branches will continue to pump up on other different mutations.
That's a good idea @aviczhl2. However, without masking, the branch could continue to attract sequences with Ns.
Yeah. This bug was also the bug in #861
This is a general bug that can happen on any positions and not caused by wrongly sequenced samples. All those samples truthfully report "no coverage" on the mutation site, so there's no artefact in sequencing. Masking will solve a certain branch but without an algorithmic fix such branches will continue to pump up on other different mutations.
the bug in 861 was linked to a further nuc mutation in comparison to the defining , still not clear what happened there but i tend to think that is not a general bug and in stead a specific one for that part of the tree.
the bug in 861 was linked to a further nuc mutation in comparison to the defining , still not clear what happened there but i tend to think that is not a general bug and in stead a specific one for that part of the tree.
For every single seq it is not a bug. As all samples under the "bugged" branch have no coverage of the branch-specfic mutations, so possible to be actually belonging to the branch.
The problem here is that when looking at all seqs under that branch, we can see that instead of most having mutation while a few having "no coverage", most of the seqs have "no coverage" instead of really having the mutation. This is unrealistic for all those no coverage seqs to belong to the mutated branch.
the bug in 861 was linked to a further nuc mutation in comparison to the defining , still not clear what happened there but i tend to think that is not a general bug and in stead a specific one for that part of the tree.
For every single seq it is not a bug. As all samples under the "bugged" branch have no coverage of the branch-specfic mutations, so possible to be actually belonging to the branch.
The problem here is that when looking at all seqs under that branch, we can see that instead of most having mutation while a few having "no coverage", most of the seqs have "no coverage" instead of really having the mutation. This is unrealistic for all those no coverage seqs to belong to the mutated branch.
Thank you i didnt get it until now.
There is a new KP.1+S:R346T branch emerging.
There is a new KP.1+S:R346T branch emerging.
Will you propose it ? I will track here! Later adding new branches and updating the multiple lin issues and tracking the new branches you added (456)
There is a new KP.1+S:R346T branch emerging.
Now added as Branch 46
Branch 14 reaches 206 and seems fast in US. It deserves a further tracking.
Branch 14 reaches 206 and seems fast in US. It deserves a further tracking.
It is JN.1.13 isnt it?
@FedeGueli Yeah it is a branch of JN.1.13 but the pango lineages.txt shows JN.1.13 is only defined as S:A1087S. The S:R346T+S:F59S branch has not been designated.
@FedeGueli Yeah it is a branch of JN.1.13 but the pango lineages.txt shows JN.1.13 is only defined as S:A1087S. The S:R346T+S:F59S branch has not been desingated.
@corneliusroemer @AngieHinrichs is it also in usher?
@FedeGueli Yeah it is a branch of JN.1.13 but the pango lineages.txt shows JN.1.13 is only defined as S:A1087S. The S:R346T+S:F59S branch has not been designated.
Yeah but the vast mayority of it has 346T for sure let me check only 27 out of 218 have not S:R346T
@FedeGueli Yeah it is a branch of JN.1.13 but the pango lineages.txt shows JN.1.13 is only defined as S:A1087S. The S:R346T+S:F59S branch has not been desingated.
@corneliusroemer @AngieHinrichs is it also in usher?
JN.1.13 has been annotated in the UCSC usher tree since 2024-02-01. lineage_notes.txt mentions only S:A1087S, but the designated sequences in lineages.csv are on a branch with a couple mutations before S:A1087S: JN.1 > C26894T > C25680T > S:A1087S (G24821T) and yes, most of JN.1.13 has S:R346T (G22599C) and the majority of that subset also have S:F59S (T21738C).
Branch 50 2 samples 1 patient from Brazil (GBW)
Added branch 51 JN.1.4 from 4 continents 7 samples
Added two branches of JN.1.11.1 with S.R346T one of them has also S:K187R.
Added another JN.1.11.1 branch (54) with 346T consisting of 4 sequences from 4 countries , 2 of them are GBW samples from Middle East ( 2 countries)
Branch 15 query edited now it is 7 (JN.1.7+346T)
Branch 32 query modified thx to @aviczhl2 noticing the tree have changed since, notably it has also 456L.
Thanks to @AngieHinrichs hardwork Branch 49 could be confidently assigned to JN.1.18 when the tree will further be fixed i will propose separately :
Branch 2 designated JN.1.1.5 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/d262c30317b0d73763fc23b108b5732c2a9a7103
branch 54 JN.1.11.1 (456L+346T) doubled to 8 with new samples coming from Nepal, Middleast, Singapore and South Korea, def one to watch
Branch 46 too jumped to 9 it is KP.1 plus 346T . @corneliusroemer i would evaluate an early designation for these combos
it got also S:K182N (XBB.2.3.3 defining) in most of samples. i ve proposed it in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2510
Branch 46 designated KP.1.1 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/a29effeda0cc9cfe0d1f858975988972387d54d7 and Branch 54 designated KP.2 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/5e932aa5e13a88d48efc6c1efb8904c7f5c5013f
branch 52 (combo 346 456) went to 4 a traveller to NY from Lebanon
Which one is this JN.1.4->S:R346T direct branch ? 54 seqs now.
No idea , i see the tree has changed i will recheck everything
Which one is this JN.1.4->S:R346T direct branch ? 54 seqs now.
anyway this one is with 18453C but there. is another unproosed without it and directly bumping out of JN.4
@aviczhl2 added as branch 57 thank you very much for re checking the tree. the query is not perfect i will imporve then. Added also JN.1.4 > S:R346T as Branch 58. queries are not perfect i m trying to tune them
Branch 52 China
Branch 40 singlet with 456L query: , C10138T, G4656T,T22928C
combo Branch 56 doubled to 4, traveller from India
combo Branch 53 went to 5
Branch 62 and 63 both combo branches with 346T 456L. @aviczhl2 note that the sample you highlighted this morning with S:S221L now has company in thetree but without S:S221L, and it has now become branch 63.
Branch 34 designated JN.1.26 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/2fba814a213d781acab8f0d2913af127077f292e
Branch 58 designated JN.1.4.4 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/46718c54fa201f64cee8c19daaa0aea593968a79
Branch 9 designated JN.1.8.2 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/ce0782ace48769d2d5c5d502482ccd306cc5907f
BRANCH 28 got S:F456L 4 seqs uploaded today from UK, i noticed a wierd thing about the defining of this subbranch that is T7789C that is hsown by Usher but it is absent from Gisaid ( @AngieHinrichs any idea why? ) from many samples of this branch : https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome-test.gi.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice1_genome_test_b36d_f0f8b0.json?branchLabel=nuc%20mutations&c=gt-nuc_7789&gmax=8789&gmin=6789&label=id:node_6907700
Edited : I ve already solved that nuc is shown as missing on nextclade sequences:
I m going proposing it
BRANCH 28 got S:F456L 4 seqs uploaded today from UK, i noticed a wierd thing about the defining of this subbranch that is T7789C that is hsown by Usher but it is absent from Gisaid ( @AngieHinrichs any idea why? ) from many samples of this branch : https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome-test.gi.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice1_genome_test_b36d_f0f8b0.json?branchLabel=nuc%20mutations&c=gt-nuc_7789&gmax=8789&gmin=6789&label=id:node_6907700
Maybe because (as you said in cov-lineages/pango-designation#2514) many of those sequences have N at 7789, so GISAID would not report a mutation there, but UShER is imputing when it places them on that branch? It's not a good sign that two sequences (USA/CA-GBW-H20-360-1496/2024 and USA/CA-GBW-H10-020-5775/2024) seem to have a reversion on 7789 though, that implies that some of the imputations are not correct.
Branch 51: JN.1.4 > G2782T > T111C > S:R346T (G22599C) Query: G2782T , T111C ,G22599C Samples: 8 Countries: US, Scotland, NZL, Nigeria, Sweden, France
None of seqs in this branch have C774T or T18453C, why is it JN.1.4? Likely sibling branch of https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/1395, or recombinant of it and JN.1.18.
Intro
**i think the original proposal should be updated in this way** (_Edited and Updated_ BY MOD): I would like to recapitulate current situation looking at the downsampled tree: https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome-test.gi.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/singleSubtreeAuspice_genome_test_19c8e_3c4600.json?label=id:node_6806774 I can determine as separate branches:Branch 1: Now designated JN.1.1.3
Branch 2 : Now designated JN.1.1.5 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2492
Branch 3: Broadened to JN.1.1.3 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/0c19ec354cacce2f1703927bc9d863947e9afba3
Branch 4 : canceled it is not monophyletic
Branch 5: now designated JN.1.6.1
Branch 6: now designated JN.1.18
Branch 7: Designated JN.1.44.1
Branch 8: dead
Branch 9: Designated JN.1.8.2 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2495
Branch 10: dead
Branch 11: Dead
Branch 12 : Dead
Branch 13 : Dead
Branch 14 : Designated JN.1.13.1
Branch 15: Designated JN.1.7.3
Branch 16: now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2601
Branch 17: Slow
Branch 18: Dead
Branch 19: Dead
Branch 20: designated JN.1.7.1 from #1371
Branch 21 : Designated KQ.1
Branch 22 : Dead
Branch 23: Designated LE.1 and LE.1.1
Branch 24: Now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2602
Branch 25: Dead
Branch 26 : Dead
Branch 27: Dead
FLiRT Branch 28:Designated JN.1.30.1 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2514
With further FLIRT S:F456L branch Designated KU.2
Branch 29 :Dead
Branch 30 Dead
Branch 31 Dead
Branch 32 FLIRT now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2557
Branch 33 Dead
Branch 34 :Now Designated JN.1.26
Branch 35 : Designated JN.1.42.2
Branch 36: Designated JN.1.48.2
Branch 37 designated JN.1.24.1 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2520
Branch 38 Dead
Branch 39: REMOVED
Branch 40: designated LC.1
FLIRT Branch 41: Designated JN.1.16.1
Branch 42: Dead
Branch 43 : Dead
Branch 44 : Dead
Branch 45 : REMOVED:
FLIRT Branch 46 : Designated KP.1.1 spotted by @aviczhl2 from in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2510
Branch 47: dead
Branch 48: Dead
Branch 49 : Excluded
Branch 50: Dead
Branch 51: Designated JN.1.39.1
FLIRT Branch 52: designated KP.4.2 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2523
FLIRT Branch 53: desingated KP.4.1 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2521
FLIRT Branch 54: Designated KP.2
Branch 55 found by @corneliusroemer designated JN.1.25.1
Branch 56 spotted by @krosa1910 FLIRT designated KZ.1.1 from #2548
Designated KZ.1.1.1
Branch 57 thx to @DailyCovidCases i noticed that this is not monophyletic at all, among the lineages caught by query the most interesting is this one JN.1.4 >> T18453C > C7732T>> Orf1a:D4117N (G12614A) > G22111A > C27944T >S:T22N (C21627A ) > S:R346T (G22599C) > A17256G, S:F58L (T21734C ) Query: A17256G, T21734C Samples: 12 (US) Tree: https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome-test.gi.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice1_genome_test_601bd_fe5200.json?label=id:node_7136106 Original:
Branch 58 now designated JN.1.4.4 thx to @aviczhl2 that highlighted me the new JN.1.4 tree.
Branch 59 Dead
Branch 60: Dead
Branch 61 Designated JN.1.11.2
FLIRT Branch 62 Designated JN.1.9.2 & LB.1 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2546
Branch 63 FLiRT first spotted by @aviczhl2 now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2562
Branch 64: Duplicate it was KZ.1.1.1
Branch 65: FLiRT spotted and proposed by @aviczhl2 in #1445 (https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2530)
Branch 66 Dead
FLiRT branch 67 Dead
FLiRT Branch 68 dead
Branch 69 Dead
Branch 70 : Dead
Branch 71 : Tracked now in #1462
Branch 72 dead
Branch 73 FLiRI> dead
Branch 74 : Undersampled area needed to check if dead
Branch 75 : Dead
Branch 76 FLiRI Designated LA.2 from https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2555
Branch 77 dead
Branch 78 FLiRT: dead
Branch 79 Dead
Branch 80 Dead
Branch 81 Dead
Branch 82 Dead
Branch 83 Dead
Branch 84 Designated LQ.1 and LQ.1.1
Branch 85 FLiRT now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2606
Branch 86 DEAD
Branch 87 JN.1.18.4
Branch 88 dead
Branch 89 Designated JN.1.56.1
Branch 90 spotted and proposed by @aviczhl2 in #1503 #2679
Branch 91 : Designated KW.1.1.1 and LG.1
Branch 92 : Dead
Branch 93 DEAD
Branch 94 FLiRT Now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2565
Branch 95 Dead
Branch 114 Now designated KP.2.9 TRIO former Singlet 22 = Branch 96
Branch 97 proposed in #1682
Branch 98
Branch 99 FLiRT now proposed in https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/1648
Branch 100 FliRT now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2583
Branch 101 JN.1.18.5
Branch 102 Dead
Branch 103 Dead
Branch 104 Dead
Branch 105 Dead
Branch 106 Dead
Branch 107 MP.1 and MP.1.1
Branch 108 now proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2605
Branch 109 Spotted and proposed by @aviczhl2 As branch 62 of #1253
Branch 110 Dead
Branch 111 now designated Kp.2.27
Branch 112: Proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2645
Branch 113 KR.3 see branch 87 of # 1253
Branch 114 Duplicate now KP.2.9
Branch 115 Dead
Branch 116 Dead
Branch 117 Dead
Branch 118 Dead
Branch 119 Dead
Branch 120 Designated KR.2
Branch 121 Dead
Branch 122 : Dead
Branch 123 dead
Branch 124 Designated LF.3
Branch 125: Designated LV.2 it is a MOV lineage- intercontinental
Branch 126: It has now split in two: one proposed in https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/1623 with A22108C, C23277T, T23599C and the other tracked as Branch 149
Branch 127: Dead
Branch 128 Dead
Branch 129 TRIO duplicate of Branch 126
Branch 130 Dead R346T
Branch 131 Dead
Branch 132 dead
Branch 133 designated LF.6
Branch 134 Proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2659
Branch 135 FLIRT NOW DESIGNATED JQ.2.1.1 VIA https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/1ff69c9ea3d7baf3bdb7db3563e1f425aa109b61
Branch 136 designated MH.1
Branch 137 designated MF.1 proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2461
Branch 138 now designated LU.1
Branch 139 Designated LM.1
Branch 140 dead
Branch 141 ex singlet 50 dead
Branch 142: dead
Branch 143 Dead
Branch 144 dead
Branch 145 dead
Branch 146 proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2677
Branch 147 Designated LZ.2 via https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/commit/2c6deafbe1cc1a52cd7c282d9bd5719189962d0c
Branch 148: dead
Branch 149 (ex branch 126) now proposed in https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/1755
Branch 150 ex singlet 25 Fvirt designated MB.1
Branch 151 Dead
Branch 152 dead
Branch 153 Now proposed in https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/1773
Branch 154 Designated MJ.1 JN.1.29.1 > S:R346T > Orf1a:E2070K (G6473A), T17364C, S:S31P ( T21653C) Query: G6473A, T21653C,A9935G Samples: 19 (Likely from Latin America)
BRANCH 155 now designated MQ.1
FLIRT Singlets (also FVIRT or FLIRI or FLIRS):
1) transferred to Branch 63
2) Dead
3) Now Branch 110
4) Now it became Branch 102
5) Now Branch 94
6) Dead
7) Dead
8) Now Branch 100
9) Now Branch 92
10) Dead
11) Proposed in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2596
12) now Branch 97
13) As expected it conflated then in Branch 63
14) Now Branch 93
15) Now Branch 94
16)Dead
17) Dead
18) Now Branch 51
19) Dead
20) Now Branch 95
21) Now proposed by @Sinickle in #1504
22) Now Branch 96 Now designated KP.2.9
23) Now Branch 98
24) Dead
25) now Branch 150
26) Now Branch 97 with Singlet 12
27) Dead
28) TRIO now JN.1.48.1+ 572I spotted and proposed by @aviczhl2 in https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/2547 Query: C23277T,C25378T, T3913
29) Dead
30) Now Branch 115
31) Dead
32)Dead
33) Now Branch 112 ( = Branch 73 of #1253 found by @aviczhl2 )
34) Dead
35) Now Branch 133
36) Dead
37) Proposed in #2493
38) Now Branch 143
39) Now Branch 116
40) Dead
41) Dead
42) Dead
43) Now Branch 125
44) Dead
45) XDK/JN.1.11.1 recombinant spotted by @JosetteSchoenma Query: T2950A, C18115T, G24872T
46) Now Branch 144
47) Dead
48) Dead
49) Dead
50) Dead
51) Dead
52) Dead
53) Dead JN.1.11.1 > Orf1a:T4087I (C12525T) > ORF1a:S2030L (C6354T), A13237T, Orf1b:K2557R (A21137G), A21694G, S:R346T(G22599C), S:Q675H (G23587C), S:D1146E (T25000G) Query: C6354T, A13237T,T3565C (Scotland)
54) Dead
55) Dead
56) now Branch 127
57) Dead
58) Dead
59) Dead
60) Dead FViRT JN.1 > Orf1a:G519S (G1820A) > S:A288S (G22424T) > S:R346T (G22599C) > A13992G, G17562T, C19524T S:F456V (T22928G) Query: A13992G, G17562T, C19524T (UAE)
61) Proposed in https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/issues/1678
62) Now Branch 136
63) Dead
64) Now Branch 131
65) Dead
66) Dead
67) Dead
68) Dead
69) Now Branch 141
70) Dead
71) Now Branch 136 DelTRIO (First ever) LB.1+S:S31Del > S:T572I (C23277T)
Query:C23277T,G22111T , G22599C , T22928C,del21653 (Israel)
72) Now Branch 138
73)Dead
74) Dead
75) Dead
76) Dead
77) Dead
78) Designated JN.1.50
79) Now Branch 135
80) Dead
81) Branch 134 now
82) Dead
83) Now Branch 145
84) JN.1.11.1 > C29095T > G18816T, S:R346T (G22599C), S:N641S (A23484G), T24073C Query: G18816T, A23484G, T24073C (Spain)
85) JN.1 > A871G, T3172G,C1170T, T17859C, S:R346T (G22599C), S:F456L (T22928C) Query:A871G, T3172G,C1170T (Spain)
86) now proposed in #1571
87) FLiRI JN.1.29 > S:F456L(T22928C) > T8053C > Orf1b:1588C (A18230G), S:R346I (G22599T), Orf3a:D155H (G25855C) Query: A18230G, G25855C (Finland)
88) JN.1.4> C5284T >S:F456L (T22928C) > S:R346T(G22599C), Query: C6433A, T22928C, T18453C,G22599C S.Korea likelyy misplaced under br.89 of #1253
89) Now Branch 147
Singlets will be no more tracked since May 21.
Interesting Singlets:
1) Dead >sibling of branch 79 JN.1.4 > T18453C > T4342C, C5869T, T17154C, Orf1b:A1662V (C18452T) > S:R346T (G22599C) Query: T4342C, C5869T, T17154C,G22599C NY Now **2** 2)Dead >JN.1 > C23896G > C186T > A19782G > C829T, Orf1a:T2093I (C6543T), S:L293I (C22439A), S:R346K (G22599A), S:S884F (C24213T) Query: C829T, C6543T, G22599A NY 3)Dead >JN.1.4 > C25710T > C28312T +346T +456L UK Query: C27791T ,C20178T, G22599C, T22928C 4)Dead >JN.1.33 > Orf1a:Y1846C (A5802G)> C3092T, S:R346K (G22599A) Query: C3092T ,G22599A,T3565C 5) Proposed in # 2560 PANGO >JN.1> Orf1a:N2147S (A6705G) > T24892C > Orf1a:S135R>K (G669A), Orf1a:I368T (T1368C), C4189T, Orf1a:Y1619H (T5120C), S:R346T (G22599C), A24241G, N:N192D(A28847G) Query:G669A, T1368C, C4189T:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Original proposal
Branch 1 Defining mutations: JN.1>T3565C>T27810C(ORF7b:F19L)>C1762A (ORF1a:F499L)>C11747T>G22599T (S:R346I), then further >C20629T> (ORF1b:H2388Y)>T22599C (S:I346T) for R346I GISAID query: A6183G, G22599T for R346T GISAID query: C20629T, G22599C, T22926C _Alternative query by Cornelius for 346T_: G22599C,C20629T,C11747T,C1762A (**edited**) Earliest seq: 2023-10-02 (France- EPI_ISL_18412591) Most recent seq: 2023-11-06 (Italy- EPI_ISL_18510429) Countries detected: R346I seqs: France (1), Sweden (1) R346T seqs: Italy (1), Australia (1) Usher Tree: ![QQ截图20231117202709](https://github.com/sars-cov-2-variants/lineage-proposals/assets/121703496/a7f2e9de-db57-4440-8045-a38752a3eab9) https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice1_genome_293e4_7364f0.json?c=gt-S_346 S:R346 is a key site and S:R346T was successful in BF.7*, BQ.1.1*, CH.1* and recently XBB* lineages. Nowadays JN.1* is the fastest growing lineage, while this JN.1* branch has a two-step evolution as S:R346I>T. We can see how the R346I/R346T work on the JN.1 seqs. Genomes: R346I: EPI_ISL_18412591, EPI_ISL_18489980 R346T: EPI_ISL_18510429, EPI_ISL_18513742 ****************************+ Branch 2 Defining : JN.1.1 > C11747T > C9142T > S:R346T (G22599C) then A18600G , S:Q173H (G22081T) Query: C11747T, C9142T ,G22599C,C1762A Samples: 5 IDs: EPI_ISL_18552979, EPI_ISL_18553493, EPI_ISL_18577478, EPI_ISL_18577484, EPI_ISL_18577493 [Tree](https://nextstrain.org/fetch/genome-test.gi.ucsc.edu/trash/ct/subtreeAuspice1_genome_test_65447_db1820.json?c=gt-S_346&gmax=25384&gmin=21563&label=id:node_4493811)