Replicative fitness SARS-CoV-2 20I/501Y.V1 variant in a human reconstituted bronchial epithelium

  1. Franck Touret
  2. Léa Luciani
  3. Cécile Baronti
  4. Maxime Cochin
  5. Jean-Sélim Driouich
  6. Magali Gilles
  7. Laurence Thirion
  8. Antoine Nougairède
  9. Xavier de Lamballerie

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

Since its emergence in 2019, circulating populations of the new coronavirus continuously acquired genetic diversity. At the end of 2020, a variant named 20I/501Y.V1 (lineage B.1.1.7) emerged and replaced other circulating strains in several regions. This phenomenon has been poorly associated to biological evidence that this variant and original strain exhibit different phenotypic characteristics. Here, we analyse the replication ability of this new variant in different cellular models using for comparison an ancestral D614G European strain (lineage B1). Results from comparative replication kinetics experiments in vitro and in a human reconstituted bronchial epithelium showed no difference. However, when both viruses were put in competition in a human reconstituted bronchial epithelium, the 20I/501Y.V1 variant outcompeted the ancestral strain. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that this new variant replicates more efficiently and could contribute to better understand the progressive replacement of circulating strains by the SARS-CoV-2 20I/501Y.V1 variant.

Importance

The emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants raised numerous questions concerning the future course of the pandemic. We are currently observing a replacement of the circulating viruses by the variant from the United Kingdom known as 20I/501Y.V1 from B.1.1.7 lineage but there is little biological evidence that this new variant exhibit a different phenotype. In the present study, we used different cellular models to assess the replication ability of the 20I/501Y.V1 variant. Our results showed that this variant replicate more efficiently in a human reconstituted bronchial epithelium, which may explain why it spreads so rapidly in human populations.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.22.436427: (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 10.1101/2021.03.22.436427 on bioRxiv