mstdn.science is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
http://mstdn.science is a place for scientists and science enthusiasts to discuss research and topics surrounding our work.

Server stats:

511
active users

Richard Neher

Our preprint on the evolution and antigenic properties of the lineage BA.2.86 is now out on medRxiv. The lab of Alex Sigal has isolated the variant and characterized its properties. @corneliusroemer and myself have contributed a phylogenetic analysis of the variant.

The preprint is here:
medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/20

An interactive version of the phylogeny can be found here:

nextstrain.org/groups/neherlab

In the thread below, I want to summary some more thoughts on the variant.

[1/10]

medRxiv · Evolution and neutralization escape of the SARS-CoV-2 BA.2.86 subvariantOmicron BA.2.86 subvariant differs from Omicron BA.2 as well as recently circulating variants by over 30 mutations in the spike protein alone. Here we report on the first isolation of the live BA.2.86 subvariant from a diagnostic swab collected in South Africa which we tested for escape from neutralizing antibodies and viral replication properties in cell culture. BA.2.86 did not have significantly more escape than Omicron XBB.1.5 from neutralizing immunity elicited by infection of Omicron subvariants ranging from BA.1 to XBB, either by infection alone or as breakthrough infection in vaccinated individuals. Neutralization escape was present relative to earlier strains: BA.2.86 showed extensive escape both relative to ancestral virus in sera from pre-Omicron vaccinated individuals and relative to Omicron BA.1 in sera from Omicron BA.1 infected individuals. We did not observe substantial differences in viral properties in cell culture relative to XBB.1.5. Both BA.2.86 and XBB.1.5 produced infection foci of similar size, had similar cytopathic effect (both lower than ancestral SARS-CoV-2), and had similar replication dynamics. We also investigated the relationship of BA.2.86 to BA.2 sequences and found that the closest were BA.2 samples from Southern Africa circulating in early 2022. These observations suggest that BA.2.86 is more closely related to sequences from Southern Africa than other regions and so may have evolved there, and that evolution led to escape from neutralizing antibodies similar in scale to recently circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates award INV-018944, Wellcome Trust Award 226137/Z/22/Z, University of Washington Arboviral Research Network (UWARN) Subaward #UWSC14272 and the South African Medical Research Council to AS. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Blood samples and nasopharyngeal swab for ancestral D614G SARS-CoV-2 isolation were obtained after written informed consent from adults with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study at the Africa Health Research Institute approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (reference BREC/00001275/2020). The Omicron/BA.1 and BA.2.86 was isolated from a residual swab sample with SARS-CoV-2 isolation from the sample approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (ref. M210752). The sample to isolate XBB.1.5 was collected after written informed consent as part of the COVID-19 transmission and natural history in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Epidemiological Investigation to Guide Prevention and Clinical Care in the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) study and approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (reference BREC/00001195/2020, BREC/00003106/2021). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

@corneliusroemer
This phylogeny shows a global sample of BA.2 sequences from early 2022 and samples of BA.2.86 (earliest collection in late July 2023). BA.2.86 connects to the to BA.2 via a very long branch without sampled intermediates. Along this branch, the spike protein has changed in about 30 position through substitutions, deletions, and one insertion.

[2/10]

@corneliusroemer

This divergence is comparable to the distance between viruses from 2020 and the initial Omicron variants, which raised concern that this variant might be very immune evasive and could spread rapidly. The fact that it had spread globally at time of detection added to that concern.

While data by the Sigal lab and others, as well as the dynamics since the initial discovery have dampened this concern, the impact of BA.2.86 on future circulation is still uncertain.

[3/10]

@corneliusroemer
As expected, BA.2.86 is poorly recognized by sera from vaccinees (pre-Omicron, panel E). It is also poorly recognized by sera from individuals with BA.1 infection. But sera from break-through infections generally neutralized BA.2.86 and XBB at similar (rather low) levels (C&D).

This shows is that BA.2.86 and XBB.1.5 are 'similarly far away' from the neutralization profile of these sera, but the antigenic properties of BA.2.86 and XBB might still differ substantially.

[4/10]

@corneliusroemer

We also investigated possible origin and emergence scenarios. The branch leading the BA.2.86 shares two mutations with BA.2 samples from early 2022, which were more common at the time in Southern Africa than elsewhere.

Furthermore, BA.2.86 lacks a mutation that the majority of BA.2 samples in the rest of the world had (see screen shot below).
The long branches dominated by changes in Spike are suggestive of a chronic infection in a immuno-compromised individual.

[5/10]

@corneliusroemer
BA.2.86 itself is geographically very broadly distributed and has been observed in North America, Australia, Asia, Europe, and Southern Africa. But out of the 10 branches of the basal polytomy of BA.2.86, 8 are dominated by samples from South Africa, while most samples in the Northern Hemisphere descend from a second polytomy two mutations away from the base.

Both observations are suggestive of emergence in Southern Africa, though not direct evidence.

[6/10]

Throughout the pandemic, the rate of evolution of SARS-CoV-2 showed a dichotomous pattern where long branches on the backbone of the tree accumulate mutations rapidly at a rate of ~30/year, while typical acute transmission chains are about two-fold slower. I investigated this rate difference in a paper last year. This same pattern of rapid evolution along the long branch and slow accumulation otherwise seems to hold for BA.2.86.

academic.oup.com/ve/article/8/

nextstrain.org/groups/neherlab

[7/10]

Currently available BA.2.86 sequences where mostly sampled in mid-August and most differ from the basal polytomy by 3-5 mutations.

With that slower rate of 15 mutations per year, 3-5 mutations translate into 2-4 months which suggests an emergence in early May (+/- 6 weeks). A molecular clock analysis using TreeTime that allows for this rate dichotomy is consistent with this rule-of-thumb estimate.

[8/10]

BA.2.86 is clearly transmitting well and has likely caused 100s of thousands infections since its emergence earlier this year. Otherwise it would not have been picked up by the much scaled down surveillance. But it is spreading more slowly than the initial Omicron variants spread at the time.

[9/10]

How competition between XBB-like variants and BA.2.86 will play out is unclear. BA.2.86 could disappear, it could adapt further and take over, or it could co-circulate with other variants and form a separate lineage that is antigenically distinct enough to co-exist with XBB.

[10/10]