SARS-CoV-2 Genome Sequencing Methods Differ in Their Abilities To Detect Variants from Low-Viral-Load Samples.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomic surveillance has been vital in understanding the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the emergence of viral escape mutants, and variants of concern. However, low viral loads in clinical specimens affect variant calling for phylogenetic analyses and detection of low-frequency variants, important in uncovering infection transmission chains. We systematically evaluated three widely adopted SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing methods for their sensitivity, specificity, and ability to reliably detect low-frequency variants. Our analyses reveal that the ARTIC v3 protocol consistently displays high sensitivity for generating complete genomes at low viral loads compared with the probe-based Illumina Respiratory Viral Oligo panel and a pooled long-amplicon method. We show substantial variability in the number and location of low-frequency variants detected using the three methods, highlighting the importance of selecting appropriate methods to obtain high-quality sequence data from low-viral-load samples for public health and genomic surveillance purposes.

Revealing COVID-19 transmission in Australia by SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing and agent-based modeling

In January 2020, a novel betacoronavirus (family Coronaviridae), named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified as the etiological agent of a cluster of pneumonia cases occurring in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. The disease arising from SARS-CoV-2 infection, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), subsequently spread rapidly causing a worldwide pandemic. Here we examine the added value of near real-time genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in a subpopulation of infected patients during the first 10 weeks of COVID-19 containment in Australia and compare findings from genomic surveillance with predictions of a computational agent-based model (ABM). Using the Australian census data, the ABM generates over 24 million software agents representing the population of Australia, each with demographic attributes of an anonymous individual. It then simulates transmission of the disease over time, spreading from specific infection sources, using contact rates of individuals within different social contexts. We report that the prospective sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 clarified the probable source of infection in cases where epidemiological links could not be determined, significantly decreased the proportion of COVID-19 cases with contentious links, documented genomically similar cases associated with concurrent transmission in several institutions and identified previously unsuspected links. Only a quarter of sequenced cases appeared to be locally acquired and were concordant with predictions from the ABM. These high-resolution genomic data are crucial to track cases with locally acquired COVID-19 and for timely recognition of independent importations once border restrictions are lifted and trade and travel resume.

Interpret with caution: An evaluation of the commercial AusDiagnostics versus in-house developed assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited data on the analytical performance of commercial nucleic acid tests (NATs) for laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal, combined nose and throat swabs, nasopharyngeal aspirates and sputum was collected from persons with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, serial dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 viral cultures and synthetic positive controls (gBlocks, Integrated DNA Technologies) were tested using i) AusDiagnostics assay (AusDiagnostics Pty Ltd); ii) in-house developed assays targeting the E and RdRp genes; iii) multiplex PCR assay targeting endemic respiratory viruses. Discrepant SARS-CoV-2 results were resolved by testing the N, ORF1b, ORF1ab and M genes. RESULTS: Of 52 clinical samples collected from 50 persons tested, respiratory viruses were detected in 22 samples (42 %), including SARS CoV-2 (n = 5), rhinovirus (n = 7), enterovirus (n = 5), influenza B (n = 4), hMPV (n = 5), influenza A (n = 2), PIV-2 (n = 1), RSV (n = 2), CoV-NL63 (n = 1) and CoV-229E (n = 1). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in four additional samples by the AusDiagnostics assay. Using the in-house assays as the "gold standard", the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the AusDiagnostics assay was 100 %, 92.16 %, 55.56 % and 100 % respectively. The Ct values of the real-time in-house-developed PCR assay targeting the E gene was significantly lower than the corresponding RdRp gene assay when applied to clinical samples, viral culture and positive controls (mean 21.75 vs 28.1, p = 0.0031). CONCLUSIONS: The AusDiagnostics assay is not specific for the detection SARS-CoV-2. Any positive results should be confirmed using another NAT or sequencing. The case definition used to investigate persons with suspected COVID-19 infection is not specific.