25 January 2021

Accidental discovery of a second immuno-compromised patient with accelerated viral evolution

 

 

 Corona Update 25 January 2021





I discovered a second immuno-compromised patient with accelerated evolution by accident. I wanted to know whether the spontaneous mutations occurring in the first immuno-compromised patient could also be found in the general human population. 

I searched for a specific 4AA deletion in the Spike protein in the NCBI SARS-CoV-2 database. I selected all sequences of 1269 AA (4 amino acids shorter than the standard 1273 Spike protein). I added the standard Spike protein length of 1273 AA until I hit the maximum number of 500 sequences that are allowed in one search. The result: 27 sequences of length 1269 of which 16 showed the deletion 141-144 (see previous blog). Unexpectedly, two of them showed me the way to a second immuno-compromised patient (Fig. 1).

Fig 1. Two new sequences with the 141-144 deletion:
QNQ32127; QNQ32151
 

Fig 2. The publication that describes the virus sequence (source).

Usually the sequences in the database are a 'Direct Submission'. They are not published. But the source of these new sequences (Fig.1) revealed that they were part of a

'Case Study: Prolonged infectious SARS-CoV-2 shedding from an asymptomatic immunocompromised cancer patient' [1]. 

That's how I discovered my second immuno-compromised patient.

Fig. 3. Long-term SARS-CoV-2 shedding [1] with within-patient variation

It is an immuno-compromised individual persistently testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Remarkably: it is an asymptomatic individual! The virus mutated and created genetic diversity. This cannot be explained by contamination or secondary infection because the viral genomes of this patient cluster as a mono-phyletic clade*).

 

This strongly suggests evolution

The authors state: "Throughout the course of infection, there was marked within-host genomic evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Deep sequencing revealed a continuously changing virus population structure with turnover in the relative frequency of the observed genotypes over the course of infection. (...) Potential factors contributing to the observed within-host evolution is prolonged infection and the compromised immune status of the host, possibly resulting in a different set of selective pressures compared with an immune-competent host. These differential selective pressures may have allowed a larger genetic diversity with continuous turnover of dominant viral species throughout the course of infection." [1],[2].

The convalescent plasma therapy was not successful. But it is expected to be a selective pressure on the virus.

Apart from demonstrating evolution, there is an important public health lesson: "an estimated 3 million people in the United States have some form of immuno-compromising condition, including individuals with HIV infection".


 

The mutations

Fig. 4. Two deletions. red arrow: 21 nt. yellow: 12 nt. (click to enlarge)
first row (black) shows nt, second row shows AA (colored)

Table 2 Consensus Sequence Variants in Clinical Samples from the Individual and SARS-CoV-2 Isolates Compared with Reference USA/WA1/2020 (MN985325.1) [1].

 

Two in-frame*) deletions were observed in the Spike glycoprotein coding region:

1) A 21 nt in-frame deletion (residues 21,975–21,995) was found in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of S1, leading to a 7-amino-acid deletion (amino acids [AA] 139–145) 

2) A 12 nt deletion (residues 21,982–21,993) was detected in the day 70 isolate, leading to a 4-AA deletion (AA 141–144) in the NTD.

As can be seen from Fig. 4 the two deletion strains of the virus disappear on day 85 and 105.



*) Abbr

Abbr = abbreviations.

nt = nucleotides or bases. Three bases code for 1 AA.

AA = amino acids. 

mono-phyletic clade = an evolutionary group of organisms with one common ancestor.

in-frame deletions = deletions in DNA/RNA that leave the codons (triplets) intact: for example a 3 or 6 base deletion which removes only intact  codons. A 1 or 2 base deletion is out-of-frame and causes troubles.

viral shedding =  the release of virus particles (in the air) (wikipedia)

The authors did not state explicitly, but these results could -just as the patient in my previous blog- be compared with anti-biotic resistance after an unsuccessful anti-biotic treatment.


Update 26 January. 

Small text update: "I searched for a specific 4AA deletion in the Spike protein in the NCBI SARS-CoV-2 database."

Update 27 January: 

added Table 2 with overview of all mutations.

 

Notes

  1. Case Study: Prolonged infectious SARS-CoV-2 shedding from an asymptomatic immunocompromised cancer patient. 23 Dec 2020
  2. There was no selection effect detected in in vitro experiments of mutated virus strains.


7 comments:

  1. Gert,

    Thank you for sharing your findings.

    Since these are cases of sick people even if they are asymptomatic for Covid19, it is difficult to state that this is all very interesting.

    I have to ask however how you demonstrate evolution in these cases. One may rightly say that there is mutation and diversification, but if there were evolution, there should be presence of selection. You say that there is selection and the authors claim that this is demonstrated by ‘a turnover of the relative frequency’. One could ask himself if this ‘turnover’ is enough evidence in order to speak of evolution. Evolution implies also a starting point and an ending point, a kind of progress that is not meant to be a qualitative progress however. I think of evolution more as a population with certain well defined characteristics towards a population with another set of characteristics as a consequence of selection which makes it more apt to reproduce in their (new) niche.

    The patient is immunocompromised, so the virus has more time to reproduce and it will diversify in the host. But if it wants to continue reproducing in other hosts it still needs to possess the same or more strong capacity to infect new hosts. And that is where selection comes in. The virus cannot freely diversify in all directions but has the constraint to remain infective towards other hosts. Only these strains will survive at the end.

    Very alarming the amount of people that are immunocompromised. This situation dates from several decades if not more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Marleen,
    you ask fundamental questions about evolution. You define evolution as "a population with certain well defined characteristics towards a population with another set of characteristics as a consequence of selection which makes it more apt to reproduce in their (new) niche."

    Evolution, as defined by Strickberger's Evolution textbook third and fourth edition, is:
    "Genetic changes in populations of organisms through time that lead to differences among them."
    (very general def without natural selection)

    Freeman & Herron Evolutionary analysis (4th ed.) define evolution: "Originally defined as descent with modification, or change in the characteristics of populations over time. Currently defined as changes in allele frequencies over time."
    (Freeman & Herron is the textbook advised by Gerdien de Jong for biology students)

    According to these definitions evolution has taken place in this patient: within-host evolution.

    But, I agree, ideally it would be great to establish natural selection has happened.

    The authors give an intriguing fact "The initial administration of convalescent plasma was followed by a decreased viral load in nasal swabs, but viral loads subsequently increased, despite administration of a second dose of convalescent plasma comprising higher antibody titers. ".
    So, I interpret the convalescent plasma as a new and strong selection pressure for the virus, and it had difficulties to reproduce in that environment. But after a time it bounced back due to the origin of favourable mutations. So, that is a case of evolution by natural selection.

    Then you say "But if it wants to continue reproducing in other hosts it still needs to possess the same or more strong capacity to infect new hosts. And that is where selection comes in."
    I agree that for long term evolution, the virus has to be infectious and get into new hosts, and that is also a selection pressure. Certainly. But that does not contradict within-host evolution. We have here both within-host and between-host natural selection. The environments are different but that does not make it impossible that the virus is shedding. In Fig. 3 there you see from day 49 - 70 infectious virus isolation.

    Finally you say "The virus cannot freely diversify in all directions but has the constraint to remain infective towards other hosts. Only these strains will survive at the end." Yes, in the long term, but that does not deny that selection takes place in the patients body. Darwin would say: if any heritable change in the virus will have the slightest reproductive advantage it will increase in frequency, until another variant takes over.

    There are many more aspects of this case to comment about, but let's see what you think about this...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this something specific to covid, or has this been observed with other virus types too?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Johan, Human Immunodeficiency Viruses (HIV), as the name already suggests, cause a immono-compromised state in patients because HIV attacks the very cells that have the task of destroying invading viruses: the immune cells themselves. HIV's are single-stranded, positive-sense, enveloped RNA viruses just as SARS-CoV-1 and -2. (but there are differences). HIV and SARS also demonstrate within-host evolution by natural selection. The first chapter of Freeman & Herron Evolutionary Analysis textbook is called: 'A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV. So, biology students learn evolutionary thinking by analysing HIV! In future textbooks SARS will undoubtedly be the first chapter because so many data have been collected. Never have so many genomes of an epidemic or pandemic been collected as this one.
    I will try to make a summary of the first chapter... I think that is a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sebastian Lequime ontvangt dit jaar de Beijerinck Premie voor zijn onderzoek naar virusevolutie. In het erfelijk materiaal van virussen zoekt hij naar aanwijzingen die vertellen waar ze vandaan komen en hoe ze zich verspreiden. ...

    https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/nieuws/beijerinck-virologie-prijs-voor-onderzoek-naar-hepatitis-c-en-beijerinck-premie-voor-onderzoek-naar-virusevolutie

    VirEvo youtube channel van o.a. Sebastian Lequime:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCboz1VavkvjXK6yWt_CcGEg

    (Persbericht van KNAW)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gert,

    We, but mostly virologists, biomedics and medics, are on top of this subject and this virus SARS-CoV-2 in particular. Every mutation and variant that appears is of great concern, while 50 years ago, this was less so, because it was not possible to follow every single change in the virus.

    Thank you for the citations, very clear!
    I agree with what you cite and write here. I just wanted to stress the fact that in-host replication in this immunocompromised patient can generate a lot of variation, and that there is only selection between the genotypes of the different variants as long as the virus reproduces in the host.

    SARS-CoV-2 has a low mutation rate due to proofreading. Nevertheless the authors of the article you cite revealed a continuously changing virus population structure with turnover in the relative frequency of the observed genotypes over the course of infection. This is unexpected since SARS-CoV-2 should have a mutation rate of about 2 mutations a month per genome (with a genome of 30.000 bases) more or less (1.12 × 10−3 mutations per site-year) as reported in https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/98/7/20-253591/en/

    Therefore it is difficult to imagine a continuously changing virus population if there should be only two mutations a month.

    It seems to me that as long as the virus finds itself (comfortably) inside the immunocompromised host, it freely mutates and the only selection is the selection between viral genotypes (between themselves). But if the virus ‘wants’ to be transmitted to a new host it has to adapt to the right genotype/phenotype (the exactly right spike protein) in order to attach itself to the cells of a new host.

    The immunocompromised population is big, and it sounds very alarming, but the observed mutation rate is not changing since December 2019 if I understand well.

    I actually am trying to write a blog about mutation rates. I surely will cite what we discussed here, so there will be some overlap.

    Ik ga zeker naar het materiaal van KNAW kijken

    ReplyDelete
  7. Marleen wrote "I actually am trying to write a blog about mutation rates." Very good. I did not pay attention to mutation rates, only to specific mutations. I added Table 2 to the blog with all 15 mutations in the patient.
    But there must have been more mutations because the authors wrote:
    "It is possible that other minor variants exist at low levels that were undetected by the depth of sequencing coverage or were not reflected in the sampling at that time point. "
    Thanks for your contribution.

    ReplyDelete

Comments to posts >30 days old are being moderated.
Safari causes problems, please use Firefox or Chrome for adding comments.