Mutations, Recombination and Insertion in the Evolution of 2019-nCoV
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2) has spread more rapidly than any other betacoronavirus including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. However, the mechanisms responsible for infection and molecular evolution of this virus remained unclear.
Methods
We collected and analyzed 120 genomic sequences of 2019-nCoV including 11 novel genomes from patients in China. Through comprehensive analysis of the available genome sequences of 2019-nCoV strains, we have tracked multiple inheritable SNPs and determined the evolution of 2019-nCoV relative to other coronaviruses.
Results
Systematic analysis of 120 genomic sequences of 2019-nCoV revealed co-circulation of two genetic subgroups with distinct SNPs markers, which can be used to trace the 2019-nCoV spreading pathways to different regions and countries. Although 2019-nCoV, human and bat SARS-CoV share high homologous in overall genome structures, they evolved into two distinct groups with different receptor entry specificities through potential recombination in the receptor binding regions. In addition, 2019-nCoV has a unique four amino acid insertion between S1 and S2 domains of the spike protein, which created a potential furin or TMPRSS2 cleavage site.
Conclusions
Our studies provided comprehensive insights into the evolution and spread of the 2019-nCoV. Our results provided evidence suggesting that 2019-nCoV may increase its infectivity through the receptor binding domain recombination and a cleavage site insertion.
One Sentence Summary
Novel 2019-nCoV sequences revealed the evolution and specificity of betacoronavirus with possible mechanisms of enhanced infectivity.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.02.29.971101: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.02.29.971101: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:- No conflict of interest statement was detected. If there are no conflicts, we encourage authors to explicit state so.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
