ABSTRACT
After its emergence in Wuhan, China, in late November or early December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus rapidly spread globally. Genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 allows the reconstruction of its transmission history, although this is contingent on sampling. We analyzed 453 SARS-CoV-2 genomes collected between 20 February and 15 March 2020 from infected patients in Washington state in the United States. We find that most SARS-CoV-2 infections sampled during this time derive from a single introduction in late January or early February 2020, which subsequently spread locally before active community surveillance was implemented.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Genome, Viral , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19 , Humans , Likelihood Functions , Pandemics , Phylogeny , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: More than 2 months separated the initial description of SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of its widespread dissemination in the United States. Despite this lengthy interval, implementation of specific quantitative reverse transcription (qRT)-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests in the US has been slow, and testing is still not widely available. Metagenomic sequencing offers the promise of unbiased detection of emerging pathogens, without requiring prior knowledge of the identity of the responsible agent or its genomic sequence. METHODS: To evaluate metagenomic approaches in the context of the current SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, laboratory-confirmed positive and negative samples from Seattle, WA were evaluated by metagenomic sequencing, with comparison to a 2019 reference genomic database created before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Within 36 h our results showed clear identification of a novel human Betacoronavirus, closely related to known Betacoronaviruses of bats, in laboratory-proven cases of SARS-CoV-2. A subset of samples also showed superinfection or colonization with human parainfluenza virus 3 or Moraxella species, highlighting the need to test directly for SARS-CoV-2 as opposed to ruling out an infection using a viral respiratory panel. Samples negative for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR were also negative by metagenomic analysis, and positive for Rhinovirus A and C. Unlike targeted SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR testing, metagenomic analysis of these SARS-CoV-2 negative samples identified candidate etiological agents for the patients' respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these results demonstrate the value of metagenomic analysis in the monitoring and response to this and future viral pandemics.