In the previous post of this series I wrote:
"In future posts I am going to do a date sequence comparison from an SQL database that has close to 50,000 FASTA files in it."
The reason for doing so is because of some mismatches that arose when the Count Table was used to compare the "original" Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus to SARS-CoV-2 viruses detected after the Wuhan version had been discovered:
"I have also added a "Count Table" which provides the number of codons in the Wuhan version compared to number of codons in each non-Wuhan version (from around the globe).
In this Count Table there are 51 viruses listed, only 3 of which are 'malformed':
Wuhan count: 71 (Malaysia/MYS/MT372480.1) count: 45
Wuhan count: 71 (East Timor/TLS/MT641766.1) count: 45
Wuhan count: 71 (Argentina/ARG/MW553295.1) count: 69
(3÷51 = 0.058823529, or ~5.9%). There are several reasons malformation or a new formation may take place (e.g.):
1) technicians improperly collected otherwise good samples,
2) technicians were given bad samples,
3) chemicals damaged the host cell causing chimeric hosts and/or viruses,
4) proton tunneling caused a mutation,
5) natural change took place.
(ibid). The Wuhan Codon count was "71" in all cases, and most of the other SARS-CoV-2 viruses had the same count.
But some of those viruses collected around the globe had a different number of codons (e.g. "45", "69", etc.).
I did an analysis of the genes of not only those SARS-CoV-2 viruses which had a different count than the Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus had.
These comparisons shown today come from many thousands more viruses.
They have been placed into the results in today's appendix (Appendix Gene Analysis).
I was surprised to find that even though they did not match the Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus in terms of codon count, and start/stop nucleotide base pair locations, their general gene structure (gene length, overlap position, etc.) does match the Wuhan version.
The mismatch percent was ~5.9 in the previous post, today's percent is closer to ~2% (in way, way more virus comparisons).
The previous post in this series is here.