Dating the Emergence of Human Endemic Coronaviruses.

Four endemic coronaviruses infect humans and cause mild symptoms. Because previous analyses were based on a limited number of sequences and did not control for effects that affect molecular dating, we re-assessed the timing of endemic coronavirus emergence. After controlling for recombination, selective pressure, and molecular clock model, we obtained similar tMRCA (time to the most recent common ancestor) estimates for the four coronaviruses, ranging from 72 (HCoV-229E) to 54 (HCoV-NL63) years ago. The split times of HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43 from camel alphacoronavirus and bovine coronavirus were dated ~268 and ~99 years ago. The split times of HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-NL63 could not be calculated, as their zoonoticic sources are unknown. To compare the timing of coronavirus emergence to that of another respiratory virus, we recorded the occurrence of influenza pandemics since 1500. Although there is no clear relationship between pandemic occurrence and human population size, the frequency of influenza pandemics seems to intensify starting around 1700, which corresponds with the initial phase of exponential increase of human population and to the emergence of HCoV-229E. The frequency of flu pandemics in the 19th century also suggests that the concurrence of HCoV-OC43 emergence and the Russian flu pandemic may be due to chance.

Dating the Emergence of Human Endemic Coronaviruses

Four endemic coronaviruses infect humans and cause mild symptoms. Because previous analyses were based on a limited number of sequences and did not control for effects that affect molecular dating, we re-assessed the timing of endemic coronavirus emergence. After controlling for recombination, selective pressure, and molecular clock model, we obtained similar tMRCA (time to the most recent common ancestor) estimates for the four coronaviruses, ranging from 72 (HCoV-229E) to 54 (HCoV-NL63) years ago. The split times of HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43 from camel alphacoronavirus and bovine coronavirus were dated ~268 and ~99 years ago. The split times of HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-NL63 could not be calculated, as their zoonoticic sources are unknown. To compare the timing of coronavirus emergence to that of another respiratory virus, we recorded the occurrence of influenza pandemics since 1500. Although there is no clear relationship between pandemic occurrence and human population size, the frequency of influenza pandemics seems to intensify starting around 1700, which corresponds with the initial phase of exponential increase of human population and to the emergence of HCoV-229E. The frequency of flu pandemics in the 19th century also suggests that the concurrence of HCoV-OC43 emergence and the Russian flu pandemic may be due to chance.

Adaptation of the endemic coronaviruses HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E to the human host.

Four coronaviruses (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-229E) are endemic in human populations. All these viruses are seasonal and generate short-term immunity. Like the highly pathogenic coronaviruses, the endemic coronaviruses have zoonotic origins. Thus, understanding the evolutionary dynamics of these human viruses might provide insight into the future trajectories of SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Because the zoonotic sources of HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E are known, we applied a population genetics-phylogenetic approach to investigate which selective events accompanied the divergence of these viruses from the animal ones. Results indicated that positive selection drove the evolution of some accessory proteins, as well as of the membrane proteins. However, the spike proteins of both viruses and the hemagglutinin-esterase (HE) of HCoV-OC43 represented the major selection targets. Specifically, for both viruses, most positively selected sites map to the receptor-binding domains (RBDs) and are polymorphic. Molecular dating for the HCoV-229E spike protein indicated that RBD Classes I, II, III, and IV emerged 3-9 years apart. However, since the appearance of Class V (with much higher binding affinity), around 25 years ago, limited genetic diversity accumulated in the RBD. These different time intervals are not fully consistent with the hypothesis that HCoV-229E spike evolution was driven by antigenic drift. An alternative, not mutually exclusive possibility is that strains with higher affinity for the cellular receptor have out-competed strains with lower affinity. The evolution of the HCoV-OC43 spike protein was also suggested to undergo antigenic drift. However, we also found abundant signals of positive selection in HE. Whereas such signals might result from antigenic drift, as well, previous data showing co-evolution of the spike protein with HE suggest that optimization for human cell infection also drove the evolution of this virus. These data provide insight into the possible trajectories of SARS-CoV-2 evolution, especially in case the virus should become endemic.

Antigenic variation of SARS-CoV-2 in response to immune pressure.

Analysis of the bat viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 indicated that the virus probably required limited adaptation to spread in humans. Nonetheless, since its introduction in human populations, SARS-CoV-2 must have been subject to the selective pressure imposed by the human immune system. We exploited the availability of a large number of high-quality SARS-CoV-2 genomes, as well as of validated epitope predictions, to show that B cell epitopes in the spike glycoprotein (S) and in the nucleocapsid protein (N) have higher diversity than nonepitope positions. Similar results were obtained for other human coronaviruses and for sarbecoviruses sampled in bats. Conversely, in the SARS-CoV-2 population, epitopes for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were not more variable than nonepitope positions. A significant reduction in epitope variability was instead observed for some of the most immunogenic proteins (S, N, ORF8 and ORF3a). Analysis over longer evolutionary time frames indicated that this effect is not due to differential constraints. These data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 evolves to elude the host humoral immune response, whereas recognition by T cells is not actively avoided by the virus. However, we also found a trend of lower diversity of T cell epitopes for common cold coronaviruses, indicating that epitope conservation per se is not directly linked to disease severity. We suggest that conservation serves to maintain epitopes that elicit tolerizing T cell responses or induce T cells with regulatory activity.