Something’s happening here: BA.2.86 and the furin cleavage site (FCS)
The FCS has been highly conserved in all SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Why is it disappearing so much more frequently in BA.2.86/JN.1? 1/16
The FCS, located around S:681-685, is one of the most distinctive features of SARS-CoV-2. Its presence causes the spike to be cleaved within the cell by furin, priming it for membrane fusion & cell entry (which requires a 2nd spike cut by TMPRSS2). 2/16
Early studies showed the FCS to be essential for SARS-CoV-2 infection of lung cells, and a study by @PeacockFlu showed that the FCS was required for transmission (in ferrets) & evaded host immune defenses. 3/16
The FCS is not only highly conserved but has been enhanced by P681H/P681R—which have been universal for nearly 3 years. Omicron added the FCS-adjacent S:N679K, but apart from that, even mutations in the surrounding region have been uncommon. 4/16
But in BA.2.86—mainly JN.1 (BA.2.86 + S:L455S = JN.1) as it’s the dominant form of BA.2.86—FCS-destroying mutations have arisen with remarkable frequency. To be clear, this is a tiny minority of all BA.2.86, but it’s a clear departure from previous trends. 5/16
The most common FCS-destroying mutation has been S:R683W, which has been in ~36 BA.2.86* sequences. These are very scattered, so they represent 20 or more independent acquisitions. The largest R683W cluster seems to be five sequences. 6/16
FCS-destroyer S:R683Q is less common, with 14 sequences, but 11 of those sequences belong to the same branch, which has spread across 5 countries and 3 continents. 7/16
Intriguingly, this branch is part of a larger (400-sequence) JN.1 branch with a 2-nucleotide mutation: ORF1b:V1271T (NSP13_V348T). Two-nucleotide mutations acquired in one leap are extremely rare, yet this one occurred in three different (small) XBB lineages in 2023. 8/16
Prior to 2023, ORF1b:V1271T was in just 25 sequences—one Delta, the rest BA.1/2/5. All acquired both nuc mutations in one jump. Only 278 sequences ever have had 1 of these 2 nuc mutations but not the other, a strong sign each individually is deleterious. 9/16
Curiously, there appears to be a 4-sequence branch just below the S:R683Q one (within the ORF1b:V1271T lineage) that has lost S:H681R through an S:R681P reversion. The furthest sequence on this branch seems to have acquired the extraordinarily rare S:P681S. 10/16
It’s not entirely clear of the four S:R681P sequences on the branch above are real or some sort of artifact, but the sequences look clean, come from 3 different originating labs and 2 different submitting labs, and fit the pattern of unusual FCS mutations in BA.2.86. 11/16
While the FCS-destroying R683W & R683Q are the most extreme examples, several other FCS or FCS-adjacent mutations have sprung up w/BA.2.86. S:K679M, for example, is in 22 BA.2.86, compared to 29 previous sequences ever (of which zero had S:681R). 12/16
More common have been mutations at the FCS-adjacent S:S680 in BA.2.86. S680F is the most frequent, but S680P and S680Y have also appeared numerous times. I do not know what effect this is expected to have on the FCS. 13/16
S:R681H reversions (which brings 681 back to the residue in almost all other Omicron lineages) have also been quite common. But there are so many contaminated sequences recently that deciphering exactly how common this reversion has been would require a lot of work. 14/16
There also seem to be an increase in mutations in various other FCS-region residues, but I don’t have the energy to do an analysis of that right now. I’m guessing lineage arch-guru @siamosolocani can speak to this though. 15/16
What is the meaning of it all? People probably get tired of me saying this, but I don’t know. S:681R is thought by most to increase FCS efficiency. Does this somehow reduce transmissibility in BA.2.86? Are FCS-loss mutations a kind of overcompensation? Thoughts welcome. 16/16
I like the idea of @PriscillaFalzi1—premature shedding of S1 (which makes cell attachment impossible) could explain this. This would also help explain the numerous apparent K679N & R681P reversions. As with NTD deletions, there's a stability tradeoff.
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
@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…