ABSTRACT
Genome sequencing is pivotal to SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, elucidating the emergence and global dissemination of acquired genetic mutations. Amplicon sequencing has proven very effective for sequencing SARS-CoV-2, but prevalent mutations disrupting primer binding sites have necessitated the revision of sequencing protocols in order to maintain performance for emerging virus lineages. We compared the performance of Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) Midnight and ARTIC tiling amplicon protocols using 196 Delta lineage SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens, and 71 mostly Omicron lineage samples with S gene target failure (SGTF), reflecting circulating lineages in the United Kingdom during December 2021. 96-plexed nanopore sequencing was used. For Delta lineage samples, ARTIC v4 recovered the greatest proportion of ≥90% complete genomes (81.1%; 159/193), followed by Midnight (71.5%; 138/193) and ARTIC v3 (34.1%; 14/41). Midnight protocol however yielded higher average genome recovery (mean 98.8%) than ARTIC v4 (98.1%) and ARTIC v3 (75.4%), resulting in less ambiguous final consensus assemblies overall. Explaining these observations were ARTIC v4’s superior genome recovery in low viral titre/high cycle threshold (Ct) samples and inferior performance in high titre/low Ct samples, where Midnight excelled. We evaluated Omicron sequencing performance using a revised Midnight primer mix alongside prototype ARTIC v4.1 primers, head-to-head with the existing commercially available Midnight and ARTIC v4 protocols. The revised protocols both improved considerably the recovery of Omicron genomes and exhibited similar overall performance to one another. Revised Midnight protocol recovered ≥90% complete genomes for 85.9% (61/71) of Omicron samples vs. 88.7% (63/71) for ARTIC v4.1. Approximate cost per sample for Midnight (£12) is lower than ARTIC (£16) while hands-on time is considerably lower for Midnight (∼7 hours) than ARTIC protocols (∼9.5 hours).