Sword of Damocles or choosing well. Population genetics sheds light into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 new mutant strains

  1. J. G. García de Alcañíz
  2. V. López-Rodas
  3. E. Costas

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

An immense scientific effort has been made worldwide due to Covid-19’s pandemic magnitude. It has made possible to identify almost 300,000 SARS-CoV-2 different genetic variants, connecting them with clinical and epidemiological findings. Among this immense data collection, that constitutes the biggest evolutionary experiment in history, is buried the answer to what will happen in the future. Will new strains, more contagious than the current ones or resistant to the vaccines, arise by mutation? Although theoretic population genetics is, by far, the most powerful tool we have to do an accurate prediction, it has been barely used for the study of SARS-CoV-2 due to its conceptual difficulty. Having in mind that the size of the SARS-CoV-2 population is astronomical we can apply a discrete treatment, based on the branching process method, Fokker-Plank equations and Kolmogoroff’s forward equations, to calculate the survival likelihood through time, to elucidate the likelihood to become dominant genotypes and how long will this take, for new SARS-CoV-2 mutants depending on their selective advantage. Results show that most of the new mutants that will arise in the SARS-CoV-2 meta-population will stay at very low frequencies. However, some few new mutants, significantly more infectious than current ones, will still emerge and become dominant in the population favoured by a great selective advantage. Far from showing a “mutational meltdown”, SARS-CoV-2 meta-population will increase its fitness becoming more infective. There is a probability, small but finite, that new mutants arise resistant to some vaccines. High infected numbers and slow vaccination programs will significantly increase this likelihood.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.16.21249924: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    • 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 10.1101/2021.01.16.21249924v1 on medRxiv