Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum

To neuromedia and gsgs: You are both pretty amazing. Do not understand it, a lay person, but looks very interesting.
When you can put it out there for us in laymans term, that would be great.

Or if we need a heads up to hide

[quote="MtnLife4u"]:hello:
gsgs and neuromedia...
The Two-of-You are absolutely amazing !!!

GoodnessGracious neuromedia?

I stand by the few well chosen words I utilized in my admiration of the work you and gsgs have been consistently and cooperatively providing. You are amazing... flat out amazing... I enjoy reading what you write (altho' I can't follow along with the half of it). The remainder of the text is innocuous enough and, certainly, not intended to point out anything other than the fact that several others (in said specific instance, "29") must have also found the interaction, equally so. I'll have to look back over my past comments in order to see if I've inadvertently held any other opinion or intention, with regards to your highly commendable endeavors. Otherwise, G'day, Sir !!!

Hofentlich, nimmt gsgs die kurze Kommentar selbst nicht alles so ernst und/oder sieht es nicht als irgendeine Beleidigung. Weiter macheni, bitte, und vielen vielen Dank!

Hello neuromedia... there is absolutely no irony intended. I repeat, I admire the work of your combined efforts. G'day, Sir !!!

I added PA and NP:

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

ahh, attached pictures are not so good, sorry.
Maybe someone can delete it ?

we usually have one top cloud.
These should again be pairs (EA,NA), but they are not as distant
(wrt.nucleotides) as in segment 1.


So segment 1 separated earlier and did not mix,
when the other segments were introduced to both
continental blocks later.
This is conform with the recent estimates that
PB2 entered mammals earlier than PB1,PA
before 1918.


flugenome.org gives these counts for the avian groups
in the segments:
first line :total , second line: North America

...  A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L 
---------------------------------------------------------------
1.:0000,0007,1544,0000,0004,0000,0359,0006,0011,0023,1222,0000
...0000,0007,1540,0000,0001,0000,0006,0001,0000,0018,0001,0000

2.:0008,0008,0003,0046,0007,1579,1530,0002,0000,0000,0000,0000
...0008,0008,0001,0025,0000,1569,0011,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000

3.:0000,0000,0008,1308,1391,0010,0000,0473,0009,0005,0025,0000
...0000,0000,0008,0008,1089,0010,0000,0466,0000,0001,0025,0000

5.:0024,0001,0004,0030,0026,1771,0009,1100,0000,0000,0000,0000
...0022,0001,0001,0023,0000,0013,0000,1096,0000,0000,0000,0000

7.:0025,0002,0026,0000,1403,2617,0012,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000
...0025,0001,0026,0000,1383,0038,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000

81:0025,0000,0029,0800,2453,0007,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000
...0024,0000,0024,0739,0006,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000

82:0198,0569,0010,0004,0001,0000,0000,0000,0000
...0003,0568,0000,0000,0001,0000,0000,0000,0000

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

Distances normaziled in this case, OK? My impression is that they are not (Nuc numbers on top).
If so, I thing it's not a bad choice, but interpretations should take on account this.
The "slope" calculation is immune to this. Offset b should be scaled for percentage comparisons.


I still see the upper cloud [NA-EA] on segement 2 picture and the "gap"
between [NA,EA] and [EA-EA] clouds. It is sot as sharp as in segment 1, but still there.
The same is true to segments 3 and 5.

On segments 2 and 3, the "messy" structure of lower clouds
could resolve into separete clouds by proper sampling data filters.

I am not that sure about biological interpretation so far.


PS You can delete/replace pictures by editing the post. Bellow the text edit area ther is an attachements edit area.

yes, not normalized (which I agree would be better).
The originaly scale had #mutations

I could delete one picture now.
But it's not so bad as I thought,
sidescroll only for that one post.


We have evolution on different continent
with index-nucleotide-distant genes crossing
over the index in all segments.

Are these the same viruses for all segments ?
Usally they reassort a lot, i.e. in HA,NA.
But maybe not in all species, all locations.

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

Previous tentative explanation for the index-like genetic preservation:
This narrow margin to amino acid changes could be linked to the compatibility with a wide variety of avian hosts.
Index whould be a sort of “inter-species password”.
Since avian flu reassorts very frequently (as you mentioned before) each gene must have
the constraint of “broad host range portability”. This could generate the index-like stability.

If they reassort frequently in birds, each gene should maintain its full functionality.
This goes for gene entering a new gene "team" on a particular host and
ALSO functionality should be retained for different [avian] hosts.

"Are these the same viruses for all segments ?" Only additional (and cubersome) biomath processiong can tell.
Sometimes it appears to be [almostly] irrelevant on birds influenza. As each segment has an independent individual identity.

Reassortments are (in my view) the great biological eureka of Ortomixoviruses.
Avian flu is their kigndom. Easy and frequent gene permutation on avian.
The price to pay: solid and stable amino acid expression. The index.

Err I don't think Mountain is being ironic. He truly is amazed (in a good way) by this thread. Don't get put off by the strange posting style.