Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does it start with a C?[edit]

How different is C.37 against B.xxx.x variants?--2A02:810A:11BF:E564:CCEF:8F4A:AE6B:20EB (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These names are from the Pango nomenclature.
"The suffix can contain a maximum of 3 hierarchical levels, referred to as the primary, secondary and tertiary suffixes.
In order to avoid four or more suffix levels, a new lineage suffix is introduced, which acts as an alias. For example, C is an alias of B.1.1.1 hence the descendent of B.1.1.1 is called C.1 (rather than B.1.1.1.1). Consequently the name C, by itself, is never directly applied to a sequence."
From https://virological.org/t/pango-lineage-nomenclature-provisional-rules-for-naming-recombinant-lineages/657
2.101.182.121 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A thousand thanks.--2A02:810A:11BF:E564:2897:381F:3C19:C11E (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021[edit]

The Corona virus Lambda variant was discovered in Peru in August 2020, per the WHO.

Reference: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---15-june-2021 72.174.9.198 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Have amended the lead section, second sentence to: "It was first detected in Peru in August 2020". I've used the PDF[1] (WHO: Edition 44) as a source and added a quotation for additional clarity. The previous source[2] (former Ref. 1 "WHOlambda") was also a WHO source, so it appears that they may be in conflict or that the former needs to be updated. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When was it first detected?[edit]

"It was first detected in Peru in August 2020." "First samples of the Lambda variant were detected in Peru in December 2020..."

Can't be both. Mwanner | Talk 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correct. See the above discussion. I have fixed it now. Nauseous Man (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda variant detected in Mexico - August 19th[edit]

Ref: https://www.proceso.com.mx/nacional/estados/2021/8/19/detectan-en-colima-el-primer-contagio-con-la-variante-lambda-del-coronavirus-270223.html?fbclid=IwAR2nzayezPXHrG44odX-M-pAVU0zTEccUvhFtPO32I8eZemii1im8Eh9lW0

One case was detected in Colima, Mexico.

Scaremongering by a patently unreliable source.[edit]

"It is also suggested that the Lambda variant could be more infectious and resistant to vaccines than the Alpha and/or Gamma variant" in the introduction should not be there in my opinion. The source is an article that starts: "Scientists are concerned that a highly contagious new COVID-19 strain devastating Peru might be immune to vaccinations." It is stated as a fact that it is devastating Peru, but there have been only 1480 confirmed cases in Peru according to the table in the Wikipedia article. I have deleted it. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit, but provided better sources for the claims. I'm happy, if there's consensus, to remove it but ultimately it's not scaremongering it is an important fact that the reader should know and distinguishes it from other of the variants. Nauseous Man (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your "better sources" are two preprints. They might be better, but they are not good enough. They have not been published by a publication, and have not been peer-reviewed. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on the first pre-print "The study provides sufficient strength of evidence on its own that its main claims should be considered actionable, with some room for future revision." by the reviewer. I think it's fine to leave the entry as it is, as it clearly says that the evidence suggests the link. I would be happy to delete it and re-add it when the preprints move into the published category. Nauseous Man (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
scratch that, there is already published peer-reviewed evidence. Will add that and we can call it a day? Nauseous Man (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022[edit]

The image SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant.svg is incorrect. At the very end of it should be "N:G214C" not "N:R214C". The former is what it currently shows on the Stanford source page and that matches the amino acid sequence shown on uniprot (https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P0DTC9#sequences). I'd guess that there was originally a typo on the Stanford site and this was copied before the typo was fixed? 2600:1700:DFE0:7210:29E6:FC9F:1A70:DF77 (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. The current graphic (genome map) for the SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant bears the error you describe (N:G214C not N:R214C). I've checked the Stanford site and yes, it's correct on there now. I've also just checked Wikicommons, but there's no replacement file for this map, so to correct this error, the updated genome map would need to be uploaded to Wikicommons by the Stanford HIVDB Team, then we can link to that replacement file at Wikicommons to call the image to this page. I'm going to ping @PhiLiP: to see if they can help. Thanks for drawing this to the attention of other editors. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PhiLiP: I have a feeling the "ping" did not work, so I am having another go using "reply to". SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do. --PhiLiP (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PhiLiP: Thanks for uploading the replacement genome map, it's all looking good. I'll go ahead and close this semi-protected edit request now. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Lambda_variant&oldid=1215037500"