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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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/
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…
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…
3/77 sequences from the latest Netherlands upload are BA.3.2 as well as 4/86 seqs from Queensland, Australia, consistent w/the steady, slow growth we've seen in Germany, the UK, Ireland, & much of Australia. 1/4
One interesting (and possibly coincidental) aspect of the BA.3.2 tree: Two large branches have NSP14 mutations at adjacent AA residues—ORF1b:T1896I and ORF1b:H1897Y. 2/4
I don't have any idea what functional effects either of these mutations would have. They are both C->T mutations, which is the most common type, but they've been relatively uncommon throughout the pandemic, with fewer than 8000 sequences combined. 3/4
The first instance involved a small cluster of sequences that hospitalized several people & resulted in the death of a young child in early 2022. More on this one later. 2/15
The most recent example requires some background. In late 2024, a spectacularly mutated Delta appeared in Spain with 40 new spike mutations and numerous Cryptic markers.
Normally, I would write a thread about such a remarkable sequence, but there were some issues... 3/15
@StuartTurville has pointed out that WA delayed Covid spread longer than elsewhere in Australia. China has a somewhat similar immune history (as do other SE Asian countries). Perhaps BA.3.2 will do well in China once it arrives there? 2/4