Mutational signatures and heterogeneous host response revealed via large-scale characterization of SARS-CoV-2 genomic diversity

  1. Alex Graudenzi
  2. Davide Maspero
  3. Fabrizio Angaroni
  4. Rocco Piazza
  5. Daniele Ramazzotti

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To dissect the mechanisms underlying the inflation of variants in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, we present one of the largest up-to-date analyses of intra-host genomic diversity, which reveals that most samples present heterogeneous genomic architectures, due to the interplay between host-related mutational processes and transmission dynamics.

The deconvolution of the set of intra-host minor variants unveils the existence of non overlapping mutational signatures related to specific nucleotide substitutions, which prove that distinct hosts respond differently to SARS-CoV-2 infections, and which are likely ruled by APOBEC, Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) and ADAR.

Thanks to a corrected-for-signatures dN/dS analysis we demonstrate that the mutational processes underlying such signatures are affected by purifying selection, with important exceptions. In fact, several mutations linked to low-rate mutational processes appear to transit to clonality in the population, eventually leading to the definition of new clonal genotypes and to a statistically significant increase of overall genomic diversity.

Importantly, the analysis of the phylogenetic model shows the presence of multiple homoplasies, due to mutational hotspots, phantom mutations or positive selection, and supports the hypothesis of transmission of minor variants during infections. Overall, the results of this study pave the way for the integrated characterization of intra-host genomic diversity and clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 hosts.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.06.189944: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    , BEAST 2 (Bouckaert et al., 2019) and MrBayes (Ronquist et al., 2012).
    MrBayes
    suggested: (MrBayes, RRID:SCR_012067)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations of the Study:

    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.
    • 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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.06.189944 on bioRxiv