Identification of a common deletion in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Two notable features have been identified in the SARS-CoV-2 genome: (1) the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2; (2) a unique insertion of twelve nucleotide or four amino acids (PRRA) at the S1 and S2 boundary. For the first feature, the similar RBD identified in SARs-like virus from pangolin suggests the RBD in SARS-CoV-2 may already exist in animal host(s) before it transmitted into human. The left puzzle is the history and function of the insertion at S1/S2 boundary, which is uniquely identified in SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we identified two variants from the first Guangdong SARS-CoV-2 cell strain, with deletion mutations on polybasic cleavage site (PRRAR) and its flank sites. More extensive screening indicates the deletion at the flank sites of PRRAR could be detected in 3 of 68 clinical samples and half of 22 in vitro isolated viral strains. These data indicate (1) the deletion of QTQTN, at the flank of polybasic cleavage site, is likely benefit the SARS-CoV-2 replication or infection in vitro but under strong purification selection in vivo since it is rarely identified in clinical samples; (2) there could be a very efficient mechanism for deleting this region from viral genome as the variants losing 23585-23599 is commonly detected after two rounds of cell passage. The mechanistic explanation for this in vitro adaptation and in vivo purification processes (or reverse) that led to such genomic changes in SARS-CoV-2 requires further work. Nonetheless, this study has provided valuable clues to aid further investigation of spike protein function and virus evolution. The deletion mutation identified in vitro isolation should be also noted for current vaccine development.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.015941: (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: Thank you for sharing your data.
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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.015941: (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: Thank you for sharing your data.
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.
-
