>>11483474The authors took it back and are revising it. I thought the idea behind the paper was interesting, but there are a couple issues I had with it:
1. they didn't discuss sequence similarity of non-insertions to HIV proteins; those insertions are really small and I don't know if it's unlikely or not to have lots of similarities that size with other regions of HIV
2. they didn't analyze the genomes of other coronaviruses and talk about mutations in those for comparison
I didn't really search through the supplemental figures but the paper itself wasn't a very thorough analysis of the nCOV19 genome. I'd wait until the authors re-write the article after revision and peer-review.
Also they used alignment software from fucking 1988.
