Ryan Hisner Profile picture
Oct 22, 2025 12 tweets 5 min read Read on X
I beg to differ! If it is not a sequencing mistake—and it looks clean—one of these BA.3.2 has something completely novel in SARS-CoV-2 evolution: an FCS-adjacent deletion!

One of the two QT repeats appears to have been deleted. I've never seen anything like this before. Image
Work by @TheMenacheryLab looked at a similar, more extensive, deletion. They deleted both QT repeats plus the next AA (∆QTQTN). In Vero cells (monkey kidney cells), it produced extra-large plaques & outcompeted WT virus—similar to furin cleavage site (FCS)-deletion mutants. 2/12 Image
But in human lung cancer (Calu3) cells, the ∆QTQTN-mutant replication was dramatically reduced (2.5 orders of magnitude), and in infected hamsters disease was much milder. 3/12 Image
Oddly, despite reduced illness and demonstrably reduced cell entry in vitro, viral replication was apparently increased in hamsters in the nose and throat (as measured by viral RNA titers), while lung replication was unchanged.

Hard to make sense of. 4/12 Image
What's certain is that the ∆QTQTN deletion reduces (furin) S1/S2 cleavage. The smaller ∆QT in this BA.3.2 (assuming it is real, as it appears to be), likely has a similar effect.

Would love to hear @StuartTurville's take on this.

5/12 Image
Importantly, there's never been a variant with a deletion like this. Though there were a few early reports of FCS-adjacent deletions, I'm skeptical they were real. All were from the same lab, led by a fraudulent scientist (Didier Raoult) who's since had 48 papers retracted. 6/12 Image
Also, while the FCS lab experiments are immensely valuable, they took place on an ancestral spike background. BA.3.2 has (relative to WT) N679R & P681H. P681H has been shown many times over to increase spike cleavage, and N679R almost certainly also has that effect. 7/12 Image
Furthermore, BA.3.2 has huge deletions in the spike NTD (S:1-306). The resulting shorter NTD loops (also in SARS-1) have been shown by @EnyaQing to dramatically increase spike cleavage and infectivity (and instability). 8/12
Old 🧵 on this topic:
Regions around the FCS have been completely reconfigured in BA.3.2. On top of Omicron's H655Y (which increases time spent in intermediate fusion configurations), it has K529N, E554D, A575S, E583D, H625R, N641K, V642G, and E654K upstream & A688D + S704L downstream of the FCS. 9/12 Image
And further upstream, in S2, BA.3.2 has two extraordinarily rare & meaningful mutations—S:K795T & the 2-nuc S:A852K.

So the effect of this new FCS-adjacent deletion on infectivity & tropism may be completely different than on a WT spike background. 10/12
Finally, this deletion, which likely decreases S1/S2 cleavage, may be part of a larger trend in SARS-CoV-2 evolution. Recently there seems to be real selection pressure for mutations that temper S1/S2 cleavage. It's not clear why (incr stability?) 11/12
In any case, while the precise consequences of all this aren't known, one thing is clear: BA.3.2 is very different from past variants, none of which could tolerate a deletion like this. What it means going forward is anyone's guess. 12/12

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ryan Hisner

Ryan Hisner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LongDesertTrain

Mar 26
So it's clear that BA.3.2 preferentially infects children, something we have never seen before in a SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Why?

The question's baffled me, but after a suggestion from Darren Martin, I think I have an explanation that makes sense.
1/16
I've tried to make sense of BA.3.2's penchant for kids by considering its unique spike: more compact, more closed, & more antibody-evasive than any other variant.

But I think another feature of BA.3.2 is responsible: its wholesale deletion of ORF7a, ORF7b, & ORF8 (∆ORF78).
2/
∆ORF78 is rare but not unheard of; it was in several late XBB variants (GW.5.1.1, FW.1.1, GE.1.2, etc) & a few branches of other variants. I've long thought these late XBB had an advantage in some population subsector, but I didn't suspect kids.
3/
Read 18 tweets
Mar 24
You have to wonder for how long we will continue seeing infections from 2020 continue to show up (in absurdly high quantities) in wastewater.
1/16
I suspect that the number of people continuously infected since 2020 or 2021 is much larger than we realize. It's impossible to prove, but there are case studies where a chronically infected person gets infected by a new variant, which drives out the original virus...
2/16
...which consequently leaves no trace that the person was chronically infected before the super-infecting variant—took over.

Why then are some Cryptic WW variants resistant to being outcompeted by newer variants?
3/16
Read 16 tweets
Mar 22
While the final outcome for BA.3.2 is uncertain, its unique characteristics—extensively remodeled spike NTD & SD1/SD2, novel S2 muts, & total deletion of ORF7a/7b/8—make it the best candidate for co-dominance we've seen, which could mark a new era in SARS-2 evolution. 1/
Until now, the broad pattern of SARS-2 evolution has been:

1) Emergence of a saltation variant originating in a chronic infection

2) Rapid growth/global dominance & a variant-driven wave of infection—especially if it emerges in late fall/winter (BA.1, XBB.1.5, JN.1). 2/
3) Stepwise evolution over the next few months/years, usually without driving major waves (the JN.1-descended KP.3.1.1 being a notable exception).

4) Repeat

3/
Read 34 tweets
Dec 29, 2025
Very proud to be a co-author on this comprehensive preprint on the novel, growing saltation lineage BA.3.2, together with @Tuliodna, Darren Martin, Dikeledi Kekana, and lead author @graemedor. 1/9
I would normally write a summary 🧵 of the BA.3.2 mutational analysis here, but as much of my contribution parallels my previous BA.3.2 threads I'll just link to those here, w/brief descriptions of each.

This is my first, big-picture BA.3.2 🧵. 2/9
Short thread from June when the first travel BA.3.2 sequences showed up. I think my prediction from back then has pretty much been borne out. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
Dec 24, 2025
BA.3.2 emerged in Nov 2024 after ~3 years of intrahost evolution with >50 new spike AA muts, but since then, it's changed very little. Could the drug molnupiravir (MOV) galvanize BA.3.2 into pursuing new evolutionary paths? A new 89-mut MOV BA.3.2 seq suggests it could. 1/11 Image
Background on MOV: It's a mutagenic drug. Its purpose is to cause so many mutations that the virus becomes unviable & is cleared. But we've long known this often does not happen. Instead, the virus persists in highly mutated form & can be transmitted. 2/
I was an author on a paper published in @Nature that conclusively showed not only that MOV has created highly mutated, persistent viruses, but that these viruses have transmitted numerous times. See 🧵 below by lead author @theosanderson. 3/
Read 11 tweets
Dec 22, 2025
The most valuable viral research tools—@nextstrain & CovSpectrum—are being destroyed, not only blocked from new data but now forbidden from even sharing info from the PAST. Why?

Because GISAID is run dictatorially by a con man, paranoid egomaniac, & liar named Peter Bogner. 1/
I use CovSpectrum & Nextstrain every day—& I'm not the only one. Every Covid thread I've ever posted here has relied partly on CovSpectrum & Nextstrain for information & visuals. These vital tools have now been stolen from us by a world-class grifter. 2/ thinkglobalhealth.org/article/to-fin…Image
For years scientists knew something was very, very wrong with GISAID, but the breakout story (from which much of this 🧵is based) came 2 years ago in @ScienceMagazine from @sciencecohen & Martin Enserik. 3/
science.org/content/articl…
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(