1/9 Something seemed familiar about the Q498R mutation. Then I remembered: @_b_meyer, examining in-vitro evolution of RBD mutations, predicted this mutation could emerge & lead to a variant with higher infectivity & immune evasion than any existing ones. nature.com/articles/s4156…
2/9 Q498R was not just one of many mutations they predicted: it was far & away their top candidate to become a major RBD mutation. It's the only novel mutation they mention in the abstract, noting that it requires the N501Y mutation to confer increased ACE2 binding affinity.
3/9 They used yeast to display human ACE2 receptors, then let various versions of SARS-CoV-2 S RBD compete against one another, with the highest binding-affinity RBDs advancing to the next round.
4/9 Random mutations were introduced in ways I'm not competent to explain, so I've included the relevant description in the screenshot below.
5/9 Mutations common in known VOCs quickly emerged, especially E484K and N501Y, which quickly became dominant. To me, this seems a good indication that their methods are valid & useful.
6/9 For library B5, they used ACE2 that required extremely high binding affinity, & this "resulted in the fixation of mutations E484K, Q498R and N501Y in all sequenced clones." Q498R was present in all the RBD variants with the highest binding affinity.
7/9 Figure 2f shows binding affinity on the x-axis and makes clear the ability of Q498R to increase ACE 2 binding affinity, hence their prediction that this mutation could emerge & spread.
8/9 Perhaps even more worrying, computer modeling by this team indicates that Q498R could confer a significant amount of immune evasion on any variant possessing it. No wonder this new SA variant is the first to worry @GuptaR_lab since the emergence of Delta.
9/9 I'm not an expert, so if I've made any errors or mischaracterized anything above, I welcome corrections from real experts. Besides @_b_meyer, the only other authors on the study on Twitter I could find were @Matthew_Gagne_ and @Nadav_Elad.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Quick BA.3.2 update. Another BA.3.2.2 (S:K356T+S:A575S branch) from South Africa via pneumonia surveillance.
This means that 40% of SARS-CoV-2 sequences from SA collected since April 1 (2/5) and 50% collected after May 1 (1/2) are BA.3.2. Its foothold seems strong there. 1/3
2 interesting aspects of the new BA.3.2: 1. ORF1b:R1315C (NSP13_R392C)—This mut is in all Omicron *except* BA.3. So this may well be adaptive.
2. S:Q183H—First known antigenic spike mut seen in BA.3.2, not a major one, but one we've seen before—eg, LB.1/JN.1.9.2.1 2/3
I think the unusually long branches in the BA.3.2 tree indicate 2 things: 1. Slow growth globally—fast growth results in many identical sequences, if surveillance is sufficient
2. Undersampling—BA.3.2 most common in poorer world regions with little sequencing of late. 3/3
@yaem98684142 @TBM4_JP This analysis is extremely flawed.
There is nothing abnormal about BA.2.86 appearing in multiple countries shortly after discovery. This has been the norm lately w/reduced surveillance. 1/
@yaem98684142 @TBM4_JP The mutational spectrum analysis is poorly done. It cites a single study looking at the mutational spectrum in *three* immunocompromised individuals. Needless to say, this sample size is WAY too small. 3/
@yaem98684142 @TBM4_JP Furthermore, the IC people examined did not give rise to highly divergent variants with a large number of spike mutations. They appear to have accumulated a very modest number of mutations, with few substitutions in spike. The sequences themselves are apparently not published. 4/
Interesting recombinant showed up today from Texas. It's a mixture of B.1.595, BA.1, and some flavor of JN.1. Most of the genome is from B.1.595. The ancestry of this one is clear: it directly descends from a B.1.595 sequence collected in January 2023, also in Texas. 1/11
When the B.1.595 was collected this infection was >1 yr old, w/no sign of Omicron. BA.1 ceased circulating ~1 year prior.
Now a BA.1 spike appears w/just 5 changes from baseline BA.1, none in the RBD—S12F, T76I, Q271K, R765H, S939F.
This is a zombie BA.1 spike. 2/
There are only a few signs of JN.1, & they're scattered. In ORF1a, we see JN.1's V3593F, P3395H, & R3821K, but the NSP6 deletion btwn these—universal in Omicron—is absent. In
M has JN.1's D3H + T30A & E19Q (in JN.1 & BA.1), yet A63T—also in both BA.1 & JN.1 is absent. 3/11
An awesome preprint on the novel, unsung SARS-CoV-2 N* protein came out recently, authored by @corcoran_lab & Rory Mulloy. I’ve previously written on N*’s demise in XEC, the top variant in late 2024/early 2025. But…
1/34
…this preprint, along with another great study by the @DavidLVBauer, @theosanderson, @PeacockFlu & others prompted me to take a closer look...
2/34biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
...and for reasons I’ll describe below, I now believe rumors of N*’s death are exaggerated.
First, XEC is in terminal decline, replaced by variants with full N* expression, so N* is back in fashion.
3/34 journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar…
@DameSunshine @SharonBurnabyBC B.1.1.529 wasn't/isn't a real variant; it's a placeholder that represents a putative ancestor of BA.1/BA.2/BA.3.
Bad sequences and/or coinfections tend to get categorized as B.1.1.529:—they have enough Omicron muts to be ID'd as Omicron but so much dropout/mixed signals...
1/
@DameSunshine @SharonBurnabyBC ...that a specific designation isn't possible. Travel sequencing in the US is done by Ginkgo Bioworks. Their sequences are generally poor quality & they upload *pooled* sequences—against database guidelines. The B.1.1.529 here are likely low-quality/pooled sequences from GBW.
2/
@DameSunshine @SharonBurnabyBC I think it's entirely possible that a new, divergent variant will emerge this summer. There are hints with BA.3.2 & a 50-spike-mutation BQ.1.1 that has transmitted at least once. Other similar chronic infection-derived variants are undoubtedly lurking all over, unsequenced.... 3/