Subtyping of major SARS-CoV-2 variants reveals different transmission dynamics based on 10 million genomes

  1. Hsin-Chou Yang
  2. Jen-Hung Wang
  3. Chih-Ting Yang
  4. Yin-Chun Lin
  5. Han-Ni Hsieh
  6. Po-Wen Chen
  7. Hsiao-Chi Liao
  8. Chun-houh Chen
  9. James C Liao

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, causing waves of the pandemic. Up to May 2022, 10 million genome sequences have accumulated, which are classified into five major variants of concern. With the growing number of sequenced genomes, analysis of the big dataset has become increasingly challenging. Here we developed systematic approaches based on sets of correlated single nucleotide variations (SNVs) for comprehensive subtyping and pattern recognition of transmission dynamics. The approach outperformed single-SNV and spike-centric scans. Moreover, the derived subtypes elucidate the relationship of signature SNVs and transmission dynamics. We found that different subtypes of the same variant, including Delta and Omicron exhibited distinct temporal trajectories. For example, some Delta and Omicron subtypes did not spread rapidly, while others did. We identified sets of characteristic SNVs that appeared to enhance transmission or decrease efficacy of antibodies for some subtypes. We also identified a set of SNVs that appeared to suppress transmission or increase viral sensitivity to antibodies. For the Omicron variant, the dominant type in the world, we identified the subtypes with enhanced and suppressed transmission in an analysis of eight million genomes as of March 2022 and further confirmed the findings in a later analysis of ten million genomes as of May 2022. While the “enhancer” SNVs exhibited an enriched presence on the spike protein, the “suppressor” SNVs are mainly elsewhere. Disruption of the SNV correlation largely destroyed the enhancer-suppressor phenomena. These results suggest the importance of fine subtyping of variants, and point to potential complex interactions among SNVs.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac181
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.10.486823: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    Nucleotides different from the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain were assigned as a SNV.
    Wuhan-Hu-1
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Multiple sequence alignment was performed by using MAFFT v.
    MAFFT
    suggested: (MAFFT, RRID:SCR_011811)
    S8) based on maximum parsimony (MP) was conducted by using MEGA X [27].
    MEGA
    suggested: (Mega BLAST, RRID:SCR_011920)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.10.486823v1 on bioRxiv