BA.2, driven to near-zero levels by BA.5, still haunt us, spawning monstrous viruses that, after vanishing for months, burst forth, gnarled & hideous, in novel antibody armor. The latest, which I found skulking around India, has 13 spike mutations. 1/28 github.com/cov-lineages/p…
There have been just 4 sequences so far, but they’ve been in Indian cities roughly 800-1300 km apart from each other. Spike mutations consist of three deletions + 10 amino acid substitutions, two of which (K478T & R493Q) are reversions. 2/28
Most of these mutations are familiar, & known for their antibody-evading properties. The most unique are the K478T reversion & R1091H, an uncommon S2 mutation. But in this thread, I want to discuss the three new deletions, all in the amino-terminal domain (NTD). 3/28
The NTD, at spike-protein amino acid (AA) sites 14-306, is possibly the most variable region in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, but the reasons for NTD mutations are usually less clear than for the receptor-binding domain (RBD, sites 331-528). 5/28
The RBD binds the ACE2 receptor on human cells & is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies, & most mutations there can be attributed to the effect they have on ACE2 affinity and/or antibody evasion. 6/28
The NTD is, to a lesser extent, also targeted by antibodies, primarily at the NTD antigenic supersite. The NTD contains five loops that extend outward, known as N1, N2, N3, N4, & N5. Loops N1, N3, & N5 largely form the NTD supersite. 7/28
At precisely what amino acid sites are these NTD loops located?
• N1 Loop—14-26
• N2 Loop—67-81
• N3 Loop—140-158
• N4 Loop—174-188
• N5 Loop—241-263 embopress.org/doi/full/10.15…
8/28
As described below, SARS-CoV-2’s NTD loops are long compared to those of other sarbecoviruses, especially N2, N3, & N5. It is precisely at these loops that we see the vast majority of NTD deletions in SARS-CoV-2. 9/28
NTD deletions, by shortening the length of these projecting loops, can help SARS-CoV-2 evade antibodies, a fact first proven by @mccarthy_kr. He showed this, impressively, before any VOC with deletions had yet emerged. 10/28 science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
But there is more to these NTD deletions than just immune evasion. The most common deletion has been ∆69-70—found in Alpha, BA.1, BA.4/5, & others—and it plays little to no role in immune evasion. 11/28
Variations in NTD-loop length through deletions & insertions turn out to be common in other sarbecoviruses, suggesting their broad utility at facilitating evolutionary change, possibly by compensating for changes caused by mutations elsewhere. 12/28
For example, @GuptaR_lab found that ∆69-70 usually accompanied RBD mutations (like N439K &Y453F) that strengthen ACE2 binding and/or evade immunity but which also reduce viral infectivity. 13/28
∆69-70, inserted into pseudoviruses, increased infectivity & when H69/V70 residues were re-inserted back into Alpha, cell entry, S1/S2 spike cleavage (an essential step in entry), & ability to fuse cells (form syncytia) were all greatly impaired. 14/28
More generally, deletions that shorten NTD loops appear to greatly increase the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to fuse with cell membranes, infect cells, and fuse cells together. 15/28
SARS1 has much shorter NTD loops than SARS2. @EnyaQing found that replacing the SARS2 NTD with the SARS1 NTD in virus-like particles (VLP) enormously increases its ability to fuse with cell membranes and infect cells. 16/28
Similar results were found by @GroveLab when replacing SARS-CoV-2’s NTD with that of Pangolin CoV, which has very short NTD loops. 17/28
By exposing VLP’s to dissolved ACE2 receptors, one can determine the degree to which RBDs are in the exposed “up” position, which is necessary for binding ACE2. The more a VLP is inhibited from fusing w/cell-like particles by dissolved ACE2, the greater the RBD exposure. 18/28
It turns out that by this measure, SARS-CoV-1 NTD—which, again, has much shorter NTD loops than SARS-CoV-2 & is therefore a good proxy for SARS-CoV-2 viruses bearing many deletions—enhances RBD exposure. 19/28
So if shorter NTD loops improves cell entry, fusion with cell membranes, the ability to fuse cells together (syncytia formation), and RBD exposure, why don’t all SARS-CoV-2 have large deletions, shortening their NTD loops? 20/28
NTD deletions must exact a cost, & that cost is spike-protein instability. Putting the SARS2+SARS1-NTD VLP’s through a mildly stressful procedure resulted in the loss of the S1 portion of spike, destroying cell entry & fusion capability. 21/28
So NTD deletions often confer antibody-evading powers and can powerfully increase a virus’s ability to infect cells and fuse cells together, but this comes at the cost of spike instability, leaving it vulnerable to permanent inactivation. 22/28
What determines whether a given NTD deletion will be deleterious or advantageous? The environment of course, most powerfully, the spike protein background. “The impact of NTD hypervariability depends on the S protein background.” 23/28
In fact, it was only after the D614G mutation stabilized spike that NTD deletions became possible. The authors of this study—which is impossible to do justice to here—issued an ominous & prescient warning (written in May 2021, before Delta’s properties were known). 24/28
“That a genetic drift around metastable set points can potentially generate hyper-fusogenic CoVs with enhanced cell entry potential is an important consideration in understanding CoV cell entry, transmission, & pathogenicity.” Indeed. 25/28
Will this particular BA.2 monstrosity, or any of the others, turn out to be hyper-fusogenic, with Delta-like disease severity? My guess is not simply because they retain the Omicron S2, which seems to annihilate all fusogenicity. 26/28
But a reversion to greater fusogenicity, LRT tropism, & Delta-like disease severity seems extremely likely at some point. We would do well to acknowledge this & recognize the necessity of instituting serious NPIs when it happens. 27/28
As usual, I want to emphasize that I’m not an expert in these matters and have no formal credentials. It’s entirely possible I’ve misinterpreted something in this thread, and I welcome corrections and comments from all. 28/28
Finally, thank you to all the hard-working scientists throughout the world sequencing & uploading virus sequences, without which surveillance would be impossible—@r_karyakarte, for example. And thanks to @GISAID for organizing & storing these sequences so they can be monitored.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Attenuation of the SARS-2 furin-cleavage site (FCS) continues apace. It's beginning to look as if some form of FCS-weakening mutation might well become fixed in the near future. Collectively, they are at ~12% globally—a totally unprecedented level—& rising quickly. 1/4
In South America, this may have already happened. Recent sequences are scarce, but they nearly all have some sort of FCS-weakening mutation, mostly S:S680P in XFG.3.4.1, but with several others (S680F, S680Y, R683Q, R683W) contributing as well. 2/4
The enigmatic anti-correlation between S:∆S31 & FCS ablaters—clear since summer 2024—is strong as ever. Here are the recent CovSpectrum stats for T22N & ∆S31 among all seqs & seqs w/FCS weakeners.
How exactly a 1-AA deletion in a distant region affects the FCS is unknown. 3/4
There's been some speculation about why, despite persistent immune activation, germinal center activity, & overall elevated Ab levels, LC patients here had very low anti-spike Ab titers. I want to highlight one interesting speculative hypothesis & offer another possibility. 1/10
The ever-fertile mind of @Nucleocapsoid proffers the possibility that exosomes could be responsible for viral spread in some tissue reservoirs. I don't know much about this topic and so don't have much to say at the moment, but I'm trying to l learn. 2/
I'll offer one other possibility: the deep lung environment (or some other tissue reservoir) favors either an extreme RBD-up or extreme RBD-down conformation.
Background: The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike trimer can be up or down. It has to be up to bind ACE2... 3/
A fascinating new preprint w/one very unexpected finding suggests, I believe, that a large proportion of Long Covid may be due to chronic infection in a particular bodily niche, which could be crucial for finding effective LC treatments. It requires some explaining. 🧵 1/33
First, a brief summary of the relevant parts of the preprint. They examined 30 people (from NIH RECOVER cohort) for 6 months after they had Covid, taking detailed blood immunological markers at 3 time points. 20 had Long Covid (PASC), 10 did not (CONV). 2/ biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
The PASC group showed signs of persistent, pro-inflammatory immune activation over the 6-month time period that suggested ongoing mucosal immune responses, including elevated levels of mucosa-associated invariant T cells (MAIT). 3/
Wow, BA.3.2 hits its 4th continent with a new sequence from Western Australia.
Reminder: BA.3.2 is a saltation variant resulting from a ~3-year chronic infection. It is very different from and more immune-evasive than all other current variants. 1/4
It was collected July 15, & is most closely related to the recent S African seqs from May & June.
It has an NSP5 mutation known to be beneficial (ORF1a:K3353R) & 2 new NSP12 mutations, which is unusual. Its 9 synonymous mutations indicate it has been circulating somewhere. 2/4
Seems clear now that BA.3.2 is not going away anytime soon. Its overall impact so far has been negligible, but at first BA.2.86's was as well. Once it got S:L455S (becoming JN.1) the dam burst & it set off a new wave in the global North. The question now is.... 3/4
BA.3.2 update: another sequence from the Netherlands, June 18 collection.
It belongs on the same branch as the GBW travel seq (tree gets confused by ORF7-8 deletion). Also, there are 3 artifactual muts in the GBW sequence (as usual), so the branch is shorter than it looks.
Bottom line, in my view: BA.3.2 has spread internationally & is likely growing, but very slowly. If nothing changes, its advantage vs circulating lineages, which seem stuck in an evolutionary rut, will likely gradually grow as immunity to dominant variants solidifies... 2/9
So far, this seems like a slow-motion version of what we saw with BA.2.86, which spread internationally & grew very slowly for months. But then it got S:L455S & exploded, wiping out all competitors. Will something similar happen with BA.3.2? I think there's a good chance... 3/9
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