Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum

Please. The earlier sequence are published, as are full sequences from Texas/03/2010 and the virtually identical sequences from Pennsylvania/02/2011 and Maryland/04/2011. The 2011 US sequences are as close to the Chihuahua sequences are to each other. The very rare tandem polymorphisms, including K149N are only present in the 8 Chihuahua seqiences, as well as the five from the US. Anyone with any familiarity with phylogenetic analysis would know the that tandom polymorphisms in 13 sequences at Genbank and GISAID signals the same sub-clade.

There is virtirtually ZERO chance that the 8 Chihuahua seqiences have reassortment, which actually makes NO sense. The HA and NA sequences from all 13 isolates are published and there is no reassortment. The lack of ressortment with the two full sequences indicates none have reassortment.

As noted, there is NO scientific basis to claim reassortment AFTER full PA and MD sequences were released, and your claim that the odds remain the same is based on your BELIEF system that has NO scientific basis.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

apparantly you think that "virtually" is more than 80%, but won't admit ?!
We have reassortments where the parts are _exactly_ identical
to the segments from the components.
How likely is reassortment, (not "virtirtually ZERO") just two viruses entering
the same cell ,without double-infection - I assume you mean reassortment
of distant strains as I meant above.
HA and NA alone would only show reassortment in one out of 28 pair-combinations, 4%
I didn't "claim" reassortment, rather I did put my subjective probability estimate
thereof at 20%.

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

Your estimate of 20% is PURE fantasy.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

my estimate is REAL. It is posted and documented on several boards.
Your estimate of "virtually zero" is too unprecise and thus
left to our fantasy how to interpret it.

that is : how to assign a number to it,
a probability

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

Your "estimate" is neither real or an estmate. It is a "hope" or "belief" base on no data. Virually ZERO is MUCH close to the real possibility of reassortment in Chihuahua than 20%, which is UTTER nonsense.

The identity between the US sequences and Chihuahua sequences is in the range of 99.8% - 99.9% and the full sequences have NO reassortment.

You post percentages that are BOGUS (and you post the BOGUS numbers all over the internet pretending that they are real).

They are NOT based on any real data. The full sequences of PA/02/2011 and MD/04/2011 were PUBLISHED over a week ago at GISAID, and anyone who does REAL analysis in this area looked at them some time ago and concluded there was NO reassortment in the two full US sequences and no reassortment in the Chihuahua isolates.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

Your "more than 80%' quote above ranks with the prior suggestions that Tamiflu resistance in 2008 was due to traveling salesmen, and there was a 20% chance that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic wasn't a pandemic. You are analytically challenged in the area of influenza genetic and evolution.

An 80% identity would be pretty iffy to even make the same serotype. Sub-clade identity is in the 99% and above range. The Air Force HA sequences (1200 BP) were released at Genbank in February, and a comparison of those sequences to teh Chihuahus sequences shows about 6 markers that define the Air Force Chihuahua sub-clade, and 3 markers that define the Chihuahua subclade initailly seen in Mexico, so the identity between the Air Force sequences and Chihuahua is above 99%.

However, the 5 US sequences, including the two with full sequences, are virtually identical to the Chihuahua sequences (as seen in the tandom markers which were found in 13 sequences - 8 from the Chihuahua and 5 from the US), and are in the 99.8%-99.9% range, which is why your 20% probabilty nonsense is BOGUS, and anyone who correctly analyzed at the PUBLIC sequences represented by PA/02/2011 and MD/04/2011 would immediately see.

Thus, after your 20% nonsense has been shown to be demonstrably FALSE but you post the fake "estimate" all over the internet.

Please take your BOGUS numbers elsewhere (the babble boards where some of the readers believe the nonsense you put up). Your fake numbers are beyond annoying (and have been for YEARS).

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

these are just my subjective probability estimates.
I challenge you to bet on it.

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

remember Russia,2009 ?

Almost identical to Norway, the strain where they first wrote about
D225G(your enumeration)

And then we saw quite some surprising reassortments
in that strain in Russia. Saleghart,Tomsk
Though not more than 1 year apart, since Cancun-Mx
only emerged in Apr.2009

Now with all these reassortant swine in USA,Mex - who knows

_________________
no patents on genes, publish the GISAID sequences !

WRONG. They are BOGUS numbers based on NO data.

Here are real numbers for the number of changes between the 5 US HA sequences for the first 1200 positions relative to the Chihuahua sequences in Mexico (excluding one unique polymorphusm in Mexico/1947, and the one change in Mexcio/45 and 46, and D225N in Mexico/45):
A/Texas/07/2011 ZERO
A/Oregon/03/2011 ZERO
A/Maryland/04/2011 ZERO - FULL sequence PUBLISHED
A/Pennsylvania/02/2011 TWO - Full sequence PUBLISHED
A/Utah/08/2011 ONE

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman

Please. The sequences from the US are PUBLISHED (with no reassortment) and to date the number of human pandemic H1N1 sequences with a gene segment from another source remains at ZERO, which is known by anyone who has looked at the DATA.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman