SARS-CoV-2 UK, South African and Brazilian Variants in Karachi- Pakistan

  1. Adnan Khan
  2. Muhammad Hanif
  3. Akhtar Ahmed
  4. Sarosh Syed
  5. Saqib Ghazali
  6. Rafiq Khanani

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been evolving in Pakistan with the emergence of the United Kingdom, South African, and Brazilian variants. These variants of concern (VOC) are known for increased transmissibility and can also be responsible for avoiding immune responses. The gold standard to detect VOC is sequencing, however routine genomic surveillance in resource-limited countries like Pakistan is not always readily available. The inadvertent detection of the B.1.1.7 (United Kingdom) VOC by a target failure due to the key deletion in spike Δ69-70 by commercially available PCR assay helps to understand target failures as an alternative approach to detect variants. In pursuit of VOC it was further discovered that a deletion in the ORF1a gene (ORF1a Δ3675-3677) is common in B.1.1.7, B.1.351 (South African), and P.1 (Brazilian) VOC. The Real-Time Quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assay can distinguish target failures and can discriminate SARS-CoV-2 VOC. The study uses positive samples archived in respective labs. Samples were divided into two groups. Group I constitutes 261 positive samples out of total of 16,964 (1.53%) performed from August till September 2020, while group II consists of 3501 positive samples out of a total of 46,041 (7.60%) performed, from November 2020 till January 2021. The RT-qPCR analysis showed that no VOC was present in positive samples of group I. However, a staggering difference in results was noted in group II where the positivity ratio increased exponentially and the VOC started appearing in significant numbers (53.64%). This concludes that the third wave in Pakistan is due to the importation of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fmolb.2021.724208
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.09.21255179: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethical approval: The study was approved by Ethical Review Committee at Karachi Institute of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine (KIRAN), Karachi, Pakistan. Sampling of SARS-CoV-2: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens collected for testing of SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription (RT) polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR).
    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.09.21255179 on medRxiv