Next Article in Journal
Undiagnosed HIV Infections May Drive HIV Transmission in the Era of “Treat All”: A Deep-Sampling Molecular Network Study in Northeast China during 2016 to 2019
Next Article in Special Issue
SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Study in Pediatric Patients and Health Care Workers Using Multiplex Antibody Immunoassays
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Transcriptional Responses to Genomovirus Infection of the White Mold Fungus, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
Previous Article in Special Issue
Systemic Autoimmune Diseases in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain: A Nation-Wide Registry Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Viruses
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/v14091893
viruses-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Lineages and Mutations on Patient Survival

by
Carlos Loucera
1,2,†,
Javier Perez-Florido
1,2,†,
Carlos S. Casimiro-Soriguer
1,2,
Francisco M. Ortuño
1,3,
Rosario Carmona
1,
Gerrit Bostelmann
1,
L. Javier Martínez-González
4,
Dolores Muñoyerro-Muñiz
5,
Román Villegas
5,
Jesus Rodriguez-Baño
2,6,7,8,
Manuel Romero-Gomez
2,7,9,
Nicola Lorusso
10,
Javier Garcia-León
11,
Jose M. Navarro-Marí
12,13,
Pedro Camacho-Martinez
14,
Laura Merino-Diaz
14,
Adolfo de Salazar
8,15,
Laura Viñuela
8,15,
The Andalusian COVID-19 Sequencing Initiative
,
Jose A. Lepe
2,8,15,*,
Federico Garcia
8,13,15,* and
Joaquin Dopazo
1,2,16,*add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Bioinformatics Area, Andalusian Public Foundation Progress and Health-FPS, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
2
Institute of Biomedicine of Seville, IBiS, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío/CSIC/University of Seville, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
3
Department of Computer Architecture and Computer Technology, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
4
GENYO, Centre for Genomics and Oncological Research, Pfizer/University of Granada/Andalusian Regional Government, PTS Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain
5
Subdirección Técnica Asesora de Gestión de la Información, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, 41001 Sevilla, Spain
6
Unidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Microbiología y Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, 41009 Sevilla, Spain
7
Departamento de Medicina, Universidad de Sevilla, C. San Fernando, 4, 41004 Sevilla, Spain
8
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Infecciosas (CIBERINFEC), ISCIII, 28029 Madrid, Spain
9
Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
10
Dirección General de Salud Pública, Consejería de Salud y Familias, Junta de Andalucía, 41020 Sevilla, Spain
11
Departamento de Metafísica y Corrientes Actuales de la Filosofía, Ética y Filosofía Política, Universidad de Sevilla, 41004 Sevilla, Spain
12
Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, 18014 Granada, Spain
13
Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, ibs.GRANADA, 18012 Granada, Spain
14
Servicio de Microbiología, Unidad Clínica Enfermedades Infecciosas, Microbiología y Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
15
Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, 18016 Granada, Spain
16
FPS/ELIXIR-ES, Andalusian Public Foundation Progress and Health-FPS, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Viruses 2022, 14(9), 1893; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091893
Submission received: 4 August 2022 / Revised: 20 August 2022 / Accepted: 24 August 2022 / Published: 27 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art SARS-CoV-2 Research in Spain)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 still remains a global public health problem. Successive waves of infection have produced new SARS-CoV-2 variants with new mutations for which the impact on COVID-19 severity and patient survival is uncertain. Methods: A total of 764 SARS-CoV-2 genomes, sequenced from COVID-19 patients, hospitalized from 19th February 2020 to 30 April 2021, along with their clinical data, were used for survival analysis. Results: A significant association of B.1.1.7, the alpha lineage, with patient mortality (log hazard ratio (LHR) = 0.51, C.I. = [0.14,0.88]) was found upon adjustment by all the covariates known to affect COVID-19 prognosis. Moreover, survival analysis of mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome revealed 27 of them were significantly associated with higher mortality of patients. Most of these mutations were located in the genes coding for the S, ORF8, and N proteins. Conclusions: This study illustrates how a combination of genomic and clinical data can provide solid evidence for the impact of viral lineage on patient survival.

1. Introduction

With more than 12 million sequences submitted to GISAID [1] and other databases, SARS-CoV-2 is probably one of the most widely sequenced pathogens. Successive waves of infection have resulted in the constant selection of SARS-CoV-2 variants with new mutations in their viral genomes [2,3,4]. Sometimes, these novel variants carry specific mutations that have been linked to higher transmissibility [5,6,7] and/or immune evasion [8,9], making them relevant from a public health perspective [10] and leading to their classification as variants of interest (VOI) or variants of concern (VOC) [11]. However, current studies have failed to provide solid evidence on the potential effects of viral variants or mutations on COVID-19 severity or patient survival. Paradoxically, the impact of host genetics over COVID-19 progression and patient survival [12], as recently revealed in case–control studies [13], genome-wide association studies [14,15,16,17], and whole-genome sequencing studies [18], is better known than the impact of the viral variants or the mutations present in the viral genome. For example, while some studies suggest that lineages as B.1.1.7 (alpha) are associated with increased mortality [19], others could not find such association [20,21]. Epidemiological studies suggest that certain mutations, such as the D614G mutation in the S protein, could be associated with higher mortality [22]. More recently, the delta variant was described as more transmissible and pathogenic than the alpha variant [23] and the omicron variant has been found to be more transmissible although less pathogenic than the delta variant [24,25]. Studies using undetailed patient outcomes (with no covariates considered) find some mutations potentially associated with severe COVID-19 [26]. Previously, a 382-nucleotide deletion in the open reading frame 8 was associated with milder infection [27]. Actually, the definition or variants of concern (VOC) or variants of interest (VOI) is proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) [11], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [28], and COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium (COG-UK) [29] are based on observed transmissibility, greater severity of disease, or in vitro evidence of reduced antibody neutralization [30]. The phenotypes of these VOCs and VOIs depend on the presence of specific mutations, known as mutations of concern [31], found to be associated with higher transmissibility [5,6] and/or immune evasion [8,32]. However, because of the lack of large datasets in which viral genomes and detailed patient clinical data are simultaneously available, studies providing solid evidence on the effects of viral variants or mutations on COVID-19 severity or patient survival are scarce. Thus, there is an urgent need for the use of large clinical data repositories in combination with systematic viral genome sequencing to determine these relationships of high clinical relevance.
Andalusia, located in the south of Spain, is the third largest region in Europe; it has a population of 8.4 million, similar to a medium-sized European country such as Austria or Switzerland. In the beginning of the pandemic, Andalusia implemented an early pilot project for first-wave SARS-CoV-2 sequencing [33], which was later transformed into the genomic surveillance circuit of Andalusia [34,35], a systematic genomic surveillance program in coordination with the Spanish Health Authority. In addition, the Andalusian Public Health System has systematically been storing the EHRs data of all Andalusian patients in the Population Health Base (BPS, acronym from its Spanish name “base poblacional de salud”) [36] since 2001, making of this database one of the largest repositories of highly detailed clinical data in the world (containing over 13 million comprehensive registries) [36]. Data generated in both sequencing initiatives along with clinical data stored in BPS were used to carry out this study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Patient Selection

Among the whole-genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences obtained from the pilot project of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing [33] (in which 1000 viral genomes corresponding to the first wave, randomly sampled, representative of all the COVID-19 diagnosis in Andalusia between 19 February and 30 June 2020, were sequenced), the Spanish Genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 (SeqCOVID) [37], and the Genomic surveillance circuit of Andalusia [34,35] (including 2438 SARS-CoV-2 genomes corresponding to the second wave, systematically sequenced among PCR-positive individuals, following the recommendations of the Spanish Ministry of Health [38]), a total of 764 sequences corresponded to individuals hospitalized between 19 February 2020 and 30 April 2021. In particular, 287 samples corresponded to the pilot project, 103 to the SeqCOVID project, and 374 to the sequencing circuit.

2.2. Sequencing SARS-CoV-2 Genome

SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive samples were subjected to whole-genome sequencing at the sequencing facilities of the Genyo (Granada, Spain), Hospital San Cecilio (Granada, Spain), Hospital Virgen del Rocío (Sevilla Spain), IBIS (Sevilla, Spain), and CABIMER (Sevilla, Spain).
RNA preparation and amplification were performed as described in the protocols published by the ARTIC network [39] using the V3 version of the ARTIC primer set from Integrated DNA Technologies (Coralville, IA, USA). In brief, correlative amplicons covering the SARS-CoV-2 genome were created after cDNA synthesis by using SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), 1 µL of random hexamer primers, and 11 µL of RNA. Libraries were prepared according to the COVID-19 ARTIC protocol v3 and Illumina DNA Prep Kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). Library quality was confirmed using the Bioanalyzer 2100 system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The libraries were then quantified by Qubit DNA BR (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), normalized, and pooled, and sequencing was performed using Illumina MiSeq v2 (300 cycles) and NextSeq 500/550 Mid Output v2.5 (300 Cycles) sequencing reagent kits.

2.3. Sequencing Data Processing

Sequencing data were analyzed using in-house scripts and the nf-core/viralrecon pipeline software [40]. Briefly, after read quality filtering, sequences for each sample were aligned to the SARS-CoV-2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1 (GenBank accession: MN908947.3) [41] using bowtie2 algorithm [42], followed by primer sequence removal and duplicate read marking using iVar [43] and Picard [44] tools, respectively. Genomic variants were identified through iVar software, using a minimum allele frequency threshold of 0.25 for calling variants and a filtering step to keep variants with a minimum allele frequency threshold of 0.75. Using the set of high confidence variants and the MN908947.3 genome, a consensus genome per sample was finally built using iVar.
With the aim of having all the genomic variants in our dataset, the whole set of consensus genomes, regardless of missing data, has been used as input to the Nextclade software [45]. Consensus genome was aligned against the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome and aligned nucleotide sequences were compared with the reference nucleotide sequence, one nucleotide at a time. Mismatches between the query and reference sequences are reported differently, depending on their nature: nucleotide substitutions, nucleotide deletions, or nucleotide insertions. Lineage assignment to each consensus genome was generated by the Pangolin tool [46].
The SARS-CoV-2 whole genomes are available in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) database under the project identifiers PRJEB44396, PRJEB47798, and PRJEB43166 (see also Supplementary Table S1).
The evolutionary rate of the virus was obtained using the Augur application [47]. Augur functionality relies on the IQ-Tree software [48], which estimates the phylogenetic tree by maximum likelihood using a general time-reversible model with unequal rates and unequal base frequencies [49], from which the evolutionary rate is inferred.

2.4. Clinical Data Preprocessing

Clinical data for 764 hospitalized patients was requested from the BPS. The data were transferred from BPS to the Infrastructure for secure real-world data analysis (iRWD) [50] from the Foundation Progress and Health, Andalusian Public Health System.
The main primary outcome was COVID-19 death (certified death events during hospitalization). Following previous similar studies, the first 30 days of hospital stay were considered for survival calculations [51]. The time variable in the models corresponds to the length (in days) of hospital stay. Stays that imply one or more changes of hospital units are combined in a single stay where the admission and discharge dates were set to the start of the first and the end of the last combined stay, respectively. Finally, in order to reduce possible confounding effects due to reinfection mechanisms we have opted to include only the first stay for each patient. The data used from BPS to properly account for covariates known to be related with COVID-19 survival are listed in Table 1.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis has been performed at two levels, at the level of lineages and at the level of mutations in the viral genome. In order to elucidate the association between each lineage/mutation and the survival outcome, the following steps have been used: (i) as a first step a covariate balance analysis to determine the viability for a causal analysis was applied [52]; (ii) for these lineages or mutations suitable for causal analysis hazard ratios were obtained using the closed form variance estimator for weighted propensity score estimators with survival outcome [53]; (iii) a causal bootstrapped hazard ratio is also obtained for the same lineages or mutations [54].
In detail, the first step involved the use of inverse probability weighting (IPW) for each mutation/lineage. IPW is based on propensity scores generated using the WeightIt R package (v 0.12) [55], where the exposed condition is, in the case of lineages, being infected by a virus of a specific lineage and, in the case of viral mutations, being infected by a virus harboring a specific mutation. To assess the viability of a causal analysis based on IPW, the proportion of covariates that could be effectively balanced using the standardized mean differences test as implemented in the Cobalt R package (v 4.3.1) [56] was checked using the 0.05 threshold [52]. As covariates, variables previously associated with COVID-19 mortality were used, such as: age, sex, pneumonia/flu vaccination status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, chronic pulmonary and digestive diseases, asthma, chronic heart diseases, and cancer [57] (see Table 1).
Covariate-adjusted log hazard ratios (LHR) were computed for each mutation/lineage of interest using the closed form estimator as implemented in the hrIPW R package (v 0.1.3) [53]. For each analysis an estimate of the LHR along with a 95% confidence interval and a p value of significance was provided. This methodology provides a robust estimation of the variability of the LHR under IPW-based tests [53].
A mutation or a lineage is considered eligible for a causal analysis if the closed form estimator converges and all the covariates can be properly balanced.
In addition, a bootstrapped estimation of the covariate-adjusted LHR has been computed, where the causal adjustment has been done using IPW as follows: (i) the weights are computed with a binomial linear model where the response is the presence/absence of a given variant and the regressors are the covariates using WeightIt; (ii) a Cox proportional hazards model as implemented in the R package Survival (v 3.2); (iii) a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval of the LHR coefficient was computed using adjusted bootstrap percentile (BCa) as implemented in the R Boot package (v 1.3).
The theoretical p-values [53] associated with the survival outcome have been adjusted using the FDR method [58].

2.6. Visualization of Lineage Prevalence over Time

A script based on the CoVariants application [59] was used to visualize the distribution of lineage relative prevalence over the time period studied. Data from neighboring European countries (France, UK and Portugal) and Spain were obtained from GISAID [60].

3. Results and Discussion

Here, we used viral genomes from the pilot project of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing [33], the Genomic surveillance circuit of Andalusia [35], and the Spanish SeqCOVID project [37]. Among the individuals for whom a SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequence was available, 764 had a hospitalization event during the studied period, which covered 19 February 2020 to 31 April 2021. According to PANGO lineage classification [61], a total of 18 SARS-CoV-2 lineages were identified among the 764 viral sequences used in this study (see Supplementary Table S1), 5 of them were eligible for causal analysis (see Methods): A, A.2, B.1, B.1.177, and B.1.1.7. Figure 1 shows the circulation of different lineages in Andalusia and Spain during the studied period, and Supplementary Figure S1 shows the circulation in neighboring European countries. Although the different lineages emerged and declined approximately at the same time, documenting a fast and effective inter-country transmission, there are quantitative differences in their proportions. For example, B.1.1.177 was far more prevalent in Spain and Andalusia than in the surrounding countries (Portugal, France, and the United Kingdom (UK), see Supplementary Figure S1). However, the fast substitution of the alpha lineage (B.1.1.7) was similar in all countries.
Figure 2 shows the log hazard ratios obtained for the different lineages. Only one of them, the alpha variant (B.1.1.7), has rendered a significant impact on patient survival (log Hazard Ratio, LHR, of 0.51, with a confidence interval (CI) = [0.14,0.88]). These results are in agreement with recent observations reporting that this variant suppresses the innate immune responses more effectively than first-wave isolates [62]. Interestingly, the A lineage, now virtually extinct, seems to cause a lower mortality than other lineages, although the result does not reach significance (LHR = −1.80, C.I. = [−3.84,0.19]). However, the retrospective survival analysis of lineages reveals relevant information on many lineages already extinct, or with very low representation, which limits its practical clinical application.
Contrarily, the survival analysis of mutations provides interesting information, given that a large proportion of the studied mutations are still present in current lineages. Moreover, it throws light on regions of the proteins in which mutations could be related to higher mortality. In total, 594 nucleotide mutations were found with respect to the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome [41], 49 of which were eligible for formal causal analysis (see Methods). Figure 3 represents the LHR of the different mutations, plotted along the structure of the protein (see also Supplementary Figure S2). Among them, a total of 27 mutations presented a significant (FDR-corrected) association with patient survival, two of which have not been confirmed by subsequent bootstrapping analysis. Eighteen of them affect known Pfam [63] motifs (Table 2), some of them are related to relevant viral features. For example, S:T716I affects the PF01601 motif (coronavirus spike glycoprotein S2), which drives membrane penetration and virus cell fusion and is involved in host specificity [64]; ORF8:Y73C, ORF8:R52I, and ORF8:Q27*, which affect the PF12093 (betacoronavirus NS8 protein) motif, allowing SARS-CoV-2 ORF8 to form unique large-scale assemblies that potentially mediate unique immune suppression and evasion activities [65,66]; or S:N501Y, which affects the PF09408 motif (betacoronavirus spike glycoprotein S1, receptor binding), which has been implicated in binding to host receptors [67]. However, some motifs disrupted by mutations are of unknown function, such as PF19211 or PF12379, corresponding to NSP2 and NSP3 proteins, respectively, which suggests that other relevant viral functionalities not yet characterized could be affected. Moreover, one of the significant mutations, ORF1ab:I2230T, does not affect any known motif, but it is significantly associated with patient higher mortality (see Figure 2 and Supplementary Table S2) by itself, given that it does not present correlations with other mutations (see Supplementary Figure S3). It is worth noting that some of these mutations associated with higher mortality in hospitalized unvaccinated patients are present in the current omicron variant, such as ORF1ab:del3674-3676, S:del69-70 and S:del144 in BA.1, and S:N501Y and S:P681H in BA.1 and BA.2. Although there are no direct comparisons between omicron and the variants present in the first wave, and the immunity status of the population was completely different, the delta variant approximately doubled the hospitalization ratio compared with alpha [23], while omicron only showed reduced severity compared to delta [24,25]. These mutations could contribute to this still higher pathogenicity, although it is difficult to interpret the effect of individual mutations in the context of new mutations without new clinical and genomic data.
Interestingly, some mutations in the viral genome seem to display a positive association with patient survival. The most remarkable case is the mutation ORF1ab:A3523V, which was significant with the bootstrap test (see Supplementary Table S2), although failed to be significant with the covariate-adjusted LHR test, because of the relatively small sample size. This mutation affects the 3C-like proteinase nsp5, a protein from the peptidase C30 family (Prosite domain PS51442), involved in the control of the activity of the coronavirus replication complex by processing ORF1ab and ORF1a into 16 non-structural proteins [70]. Because of this role, it has been suggested as a potential drug target for coronaviruses [70] and more recently for SARS-CoV-2 specifically [71]. Therefore, it could be speculated that less efficient replication might be behind the lower mortality associated with this mutation.
The interest on mutations has focused mainly on non-synonymous changes, which produce a modification of the protein sequence that may have a potential influence on SARS-CoV-2 phenotypic properties. In contrast, much less attention has been paid to synonymous changes, which has a less clear relationship with viral phenotypes; there are currently no reports of synonymous mutations of concern [30]. Here, for the first time, we describe nine synonymous mutations (G4300T, C2710T, C14676T, C15279T, C913T, C6968T, C5986T, C15240T, and T16176C) in the ORF1ab with a significant association to higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (Figure 3). However, some of them can simply be highly correlated with other coding mutations (e.g., C15279T is highly correlated with ORF1ab:T5303T, and C15240T is correlated with ORF1ab:T1567A), as depicted in Supplementary Figure S2. Lineages harbor specific mutational profiles that are inherited by the descendants, along with some new mutations, thus creating a pattern of correlation between the mutations characteristic of lineages.
The evolutionary rate displayed by SARS-CoV-2 since February 2020 in the Andalusia region, according to the SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing circuit [34,35], is of 0.00063 substitutions per nucleotide per year (s/n/y), in agreement with the evolutionary rate previously described, which ranged from 0.0004 and 0.002 s/n/y [2,4,30,72,73]. Interestingly, when mutations associated with high mortality (such as ORF1ab: A1708D) are depicted over the clock-adjusted phylogeny, these tend to appear in the variants that have shaped the evolution of the virus in the Andalusia region during the period under study, with many of them related to the alpha (B.1.1.7) lineage (See Supplementary Figure S4A,B). The mutation associated with the highest mortality (ORF1ab:T1567A) shows a similar evolutionary rate (see Supplementary Figure S4C) and it seems to define a specific clade within the alpha lineage (Supplementary Figure S4D). However, some specific mutations, such as those marginally associated with better survival (e.g., N:D377Y), appear in variants with apparently slower mutation rates (B.1.177, and sublineages), although it also appears in lineages B.1 and A,2, which are now extinct, and in a few variants that are ancestors of the delta lineage. Actually, all the sublineages of the delta lineage carry this mutation, according to the Genomic surveillance circuit of Andalusia [35] (see [74] and Supplementary Figure S5).

4. Conclusions

To summarize, the combined use of SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences and detailed clinical information of the patients allowed us to assess the impact of both the SARS-CoV-2 lineage and the mutations each virus harbors on the mortality rate among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. These studies provide a more realistic and unbiased approach to define VOIs and VOCs.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/v14091893/s1. Supplementary Figure S1. Circulation of the five SARS-CoV-2 variants eligible for the causal analysis in Andalusia (upper panel) and Spain (lower panel). Supplementary Figure S2. Log hazard ratios estimated for the 69 nucleotide mutations eligible for the causal analysis using the two approaches described in the text (the closed form estimator and the bootstrap). For each analysis an estimate of the LHR along with a 95% confidence interval and a p-value (FDR adjusted) of significance is provided. Supplementary Figure S3. Correlations among the mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome significantly associated with patient survival. Supplementary Figure S4. Mutations occurring during the period studied (from 19 February 2020 to 30 April 2021) represented over the variants in which they appear in two phylogenetic formats. First column contains the mutation. Second column accounts for the evolutionary rates. Third column contains the time at which every variant was sampled from a patient. Supplementary Figure S5. Presence of the mutation N:D377Y in the different SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes sampled in Andalusia according to the Genomic surveillance circuit of Andalusia. The upper branch corresponds to the delta variant and subtypes and the lower branch to the almost extinct alpha variant. See http://nextstrain.clinbioinfosspa.es/SARS-CoV-2-all?branchLabel=none&gt=N.377Y. Supplementary Table S1. ENA sample and project Ids of the SARS-CoV sequences used in this work. Supplementary Table S2. Nucleotide mutations eligible for causal analysis. The first column is the mutation name; the second is the position; the third column, labeled as CDS, is the protein affected; the fourth column is the amino acid mutation name; the fifth column is the number of variants bearing this mutation; and the following columns provide the values of the two approaches for hazard ratio estimation, the closed form, with the hazard ratio coefficient, SD, confidence intervals 5 and 95, the p-value and the FDR adjusted p-value, and the bootstrap approach with the HR coefficients (Boot. Statistic), bias, SD, confidence intervals 5 and 95 and the last column, labeled as Boot, indicates if significance is confirmed by bootstrap (T: true and F: false). The Andalusian COVID-19 sequencing initiative. List of members of the Andalusian COVID-19 sequencing initiative.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.D., J.A.L. and F.G.; methodology, C.L., J.P.-F., C.S.C.-S., F.M.O., P.C.-M., L.M.-D., A.d.S. and L.V.; software, C.L. and F.M.O.; formal analysis, C.L., J.P.-F., C.S.C.-S., F.M.O. and L.J.M.-G.; resources, J.D., J.A.L., F.G., D.M.-M., R.V., N.L. and The Andalusian COVID-19 Initiative; data curation, R.C. and G.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D.; writing—review and editing, J.D., J.A.L., F.G., C.L., J.P.-F., C.S.C.-S., J.R.-B., J.G.-L. and J.M.N.-M.; supervision, J.D.; funding acquisition, J.D., C.L. and M.R.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (grant PID2020-117979RB-I00), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), co-funded with European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) (grant IMP/00019), and has also been funded by Consejería de Salud y Familias, Junta de Andalucía (grants COVID-0012-2020 and PS-2020-342) and the postdoctoral contract of Carlos Loucera (PAIDI2020- DOC_00350), co-funded by the European Social Fund (FSE) 2014-2020. ELIXIR-CONVERGE—H2020 (871075).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board. The Ethics Committee for the Coordination of Biomedical Research in Andalusia approved the study “Retrospective analysis of all COVID-19 patients in the entire Andalusian community and generation of a prognostic predictor that can be applied preventively in possible future outbreaks“ (29 September 2020, Acta 09/20) and the CEI from the University Hospitals Virgen Macarena and Virgen del Rocío approved the study “Medicina de precision en COVID-19 (PreMed-Covid19)” (22 December 2020, acta CEI 21/2020), and waived informed consent for the secondary use of clinical data for research purposes in both cases.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 whole genomes presented here are available in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) database under the project identifiers PRJEB44396, PRJEB47798, and PRJEB43166. Supplementary Table S1 contains a detailed list of individual ENA IDs per sequence.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Shu, Y.; McCauley, J. GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data–from vision to reality. Eurosurveillance 2017, 22, 30494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Faria, N.R.; Mellan, T.A.; Whittaker, C.; Claro, I.M.; Candido, D.d.S.; Mishra, S.; Crispim, M.A.; Sales, F.C.; Hawryluk, I.; McCrone, J.T. Genomics and epidemiology of the P. 1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil. Science 2021, 372, 815–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tang, J.W.; Tambyah, P.A.; Hui, D.S. Emergence of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant in the UK. J. Infect. 2021, 82, e27–e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tegally, H.; Wilkinson, E.; Giovanetti, M.; Iranzadeh, A.; Fonseca, V.; Giandhari, J.; Doolabh, D.; Pillay, S.; San, E.J.; Msomi, N. Detection of a SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern in South Africa. Nature 2021, 592, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Volz, E.; Mishra, S.; Chand, M.; Barrett, J.C.; Johnson, R.; Geidelberg, L.; Hinsley, W.R.; Laydon, D.J.; Dabrera, G.; O’Toole, Á. Assessing transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B. 1.1. 7 in England. Nature 2021, 593, 266–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hodcroft, E.B.; Zuber, M.; Nadeau, S.; Vaughan, T.G.; Crawford, K.H.; Althaus, C.L.; Reichmuth, M.L.; Bowen, J.E.; Walls, A.C.; Corti, D. Spread of a SARS-CoV-2 variant through Europe in the summer of 2020. Nature 2021, 595, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Araf, Y.; Akter, F.; Tang, Y.d.; Fatemi, R.; Parvez, M.S.A.; Zheng, C.; Hossain, M.G. Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2: Genomics, transmissibility, and responses to current COVID--19 vaccines. J. Med. Virol. 2022, 94, 1825–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, R.E.; Zhang, X.; Case, J.B.; Winkler, E.S.; Liu, Y.; VanBlargan, L.A.; Liu, J.; Errico, J.M.; Xie, X.; Suryadevara, N. Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 variants to neutralization by monoclonal and serum-derived polyclonal antibodies. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Beyer, D.K.; Forero, A. Mechanisms of Antiviral Immune Evasion of SARS-CoV-2. J. Mol. Biol. 2022, 434, 167265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cyranoski, D. Alarming COVID variants show vital role of genomic surveillance. Nature 2021, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. WHO. SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern and Variants of Interest. World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  12. Kwok, A.J.; Mentzer, A.; Knight, J.C. Host genetics and infectious disease: New tools, insights and translational opportunities. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2021, 22, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fallerini, C.; Daga, S.; Mantovani, S.; Benetti, E.; Picchiotti, N.; Francisci, D.; Paciosi, F.; Schiaroli, E.; Baldassarri, M.; Fava, F. Association of Toll-like receptor 7 variants with life-threatening COVID-19 disease in males: Findings from a nested case-control study. eLife 2021, 10, e67569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Severe COVID-19 GWAS Group. Genomewide association study of severe COVID-19 with respiratory failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1522–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zhou, S.; Butler-Laporte, G.; Nakanishi, T.; Morrison, D.R.; Afilalo, J.; Afilalo, M.; Laurent, L.; Pietzner, M.; Kerrison, N.; Zhao, K. A Neanderthal OAS1 isoform protects individuals of European ancestry against COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. COVID-19_Host_Genetics_Initiative. Mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19 by worldwide meta-analysis. Nature 2021, 600, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Degenhardt, F.; Ellinghaus, D.; Juzenas, S.; Lerga-Jaso, J.; Wendorff, M.; Maya-Miles, D.; Uellendahl-Werth, F.; ElAbd, H.; Rühlemann, M.C.; Arora, J.; et al. Detailed stratified GWAS analysis for severe COVID-19 in four European populations. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kousathanas, A.; Pairo-Castineira, E.; Rawlik, K.; Stuckey, A.; Odhams, C.A.; Walker, S.; Russell, C.D.; Malinauskas, T.; Millar, J.; Elliott, K.S.; et al. Whole genome sequencing identifies multiple loci for critical illness caused by COVID-19. medRxiv 2021, 2021.2009.2002.21262965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davies, N.G.; Jarvis, C.I.; Edmunds, W.J.; Jewell, N.P.; Diaz-Ordaz, K.; Keogh, R.H. Increased mortality in community-tested cases of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B. 1.1. 7. Nature 2021, 593, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davies, N.G.; Abbott, S.; Barnard, R.C.; Jarvis, C.I.; Kucharski, A.J.; Munday, J.D.; Pearson, C.A.; Russell, T.W.; Tully, D.C.; Washburne, A.D. Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B. 1.1. 7 in England. Science 2021, 372, eabg3055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Frampton, D.; Rampling, T.; Cross, A.; Bailey, H.; Heaney, J.; Byott, M.; Scott, R.; Sconza, R.; Price, J.; Margaritis, M. Genomic characteristics and clinical effect of the emergent SARS-CoV-2 B. 1.1. 7 lineage in London, UK: A whole-genome sequencing and hospital-based cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 1246–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Toyoshima, Y.; Nemoto, K.; Matsumoto, S.; Nakamura, Y.; Kiyotani, K. SARS-CoV-2 genomic variations associated with mortality rate of COVID-19. J. Hum. Genet. 2020, 65, 1075–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Twohig, K.A.; Nyberg, T.; Zaidi, A.; Thelwall, S.; Sinnathamby, M.A.; Aliabadi, S.; Seaman, S.R.; Harris, R.J.; Hope, R.; Lopez-Bernal, J.; et al. Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: A cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sievers, C.; Zacher, B.; Ullrich, A.; Huska, M.; Fuchs, S.; Buda, S.; Haas, W.; Diercke, M.; an der Heiden, M.; Kröger, S. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 both show similarly reduced disease severity of COVID-19 compared to Delta, Germany, 2021 to 2022. Eurosurveillance 2022, 27, 2200396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Elliott, P.; Eales, O.; Steyn, N.; Tang, D.; Bodinier, B.; Wang, H.; Elliott, J.; Whitaker, M.; Atchison, C.; Diggle, P.J.; et al. Twin peaks: The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 and BA.2 epidemics in England. Science 2022, 376, eabq4411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nagy, Á.; Pongor, S.; Győrffy, B. Different mutations in SARS-CoV-2 associate with severe and mild outcome. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2021, 57, 106272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Young, B.E.; Fong, S.-W.; Chan, Y.-H.; Mak, T.-M.; Ang, L.W.; Anderson, D.E.; Lee, C.Y.-P.; Amrun, S.N.; Lee, B.; Goh, Y.S. Effects of a major deletion in the SARS-CoV-2 genome on the severity of infection and the inflammatory response: An observational cohort study. Lancet 2020, 396, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. CDC. SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  29. The_COVID-19_Genomics_UK_(COG-UK)_Consortium. An Integrated National Scale SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance Network. Lancet Microbe 2020, 1, e99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tao, K.; Tzou, P.L.; Nouhin, J.; Gupta, R.K.; de Oliveira, T.; Kosakovsky Pond, S.L.; Fera, D.; Shafer, R.W. The biological and clinical significance of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2021, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Outbreak.info. A Standardized, Open-Source Database of COVID-19 Resources and Epidemiology Data. Available online: https://outbreak.info/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  32. Zhou, D.; Dejnirattisai, W.; Supasa, P.; Liu, C.; Mentzer, A.J.; Ginn, H.M.; Zhao, Y.; Duyvesteyn, H.M.; Tuekprakhon, A.; Nutalai, R. Evidence of escape of SARS-CoV-2 variant B. 1.351 from natural and vaccine-induced sera. Cell 2021, 184, 2348–2361.e2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Genome for the Monitoring and Management of the COVID-19 Epidemic in Andalusia and the Rapid Generation of Prognostic and Response to Treatment Biomarkers. Available online: https://www.clinbioinfosspa.es/projects/covseq/indexEng.html (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  34. SARS-CoV-2 Whole Genome Sequencing Circuit in Andalusia. Available online: https://www.clinbioinfosspa.es/COVID_circuit/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  35. Dopazo, J.; Maya-Miles, D.; García, F.; Lorusso, N.; Calleja, M.Á.; Pareja, M.J.; López-Miranda, J.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Padillo, J.; Túnez, I. Implementing Personalized Medicine in COVID-19 in Andalusia: An Opportunity to Transform the Healthcare System. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Muñoyerro-Muñiz, D.; Goicoechea-Salazar, J.; García-León, F.; Laguna-Tellez, A.; Larrocha-Mata, D.; Cardero-Rivas, M. Health record linkage: Andalusian health population database. Gac. Sanit. 2019, 34, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. SeqCOVID, Genomic Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Available online: https://seqcovid.csic.es/ (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  38. ISCIII. Integration of Genome Sequencing in the SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance (in Spanish). Available online: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov/documentos/Integracion_de_la_secuenciacion_genomica-en_la_vigilancia_del_SARS-CoV-2.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  39. Artic_Network. SARS-CoV-2 Amplicon Set V3. Available online: https://artic.network/ncov-2019 (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  40. Patel, H.; Varona, S.; Monzón, S.; Espinosa-Carrasco, J.; Heuer, M.L.; Gabernet, G.; Julia, M.; Kelly, S.; Sameith, K.; Garcia, M. Nf-Core/Viral recon v2.4.1 - Plastered Magnesium Marmoset (2.4.1). Available online: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6320980 (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  41. Wu, F.; Zhao, S.; Yu, B.; Chen, Y.-M.; Wang, W.; Song, Z.-G.; Hu, Y.; Tao, Z.-W.; Tian, J.-H.; Pei, Y.-Y. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 2020, 579, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Langmead, B.; Salzberg, S.L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 357–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Grubaugh, N.D.; Gangavarapu, K.; Quick, J.; Matteson, N.L.; De Jesus, J.G.; Main, B.J.; Tan, A.L.; Paul, L.M.; Brackney, D.E.; Grewal, S. An amplicon-based sequencing framework for accurately measuring intrahost virus diversity using PrimalSeq and iVar. Genome Biol. 2019, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Picard_team Picard. A Set of Command Line Tools (in Java) for Manipulating High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS) Data and Formats Such as SAM/BAM/CRAM and VCF. Available online: http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  45. Aksamentov, I.; Neher, R.A. Nextclade. Viral Genome Clade Assignment, Mutation Calling, and Sequence Quality Checks. Available online: https://github.com/nextstrain/nextclade (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  46. O’Toole, Á.; Scher, E.; Underwood, A.; Jackson, B.; Hill, V.; McCrone, J.T.; Colquhoun, R.; Ruis, C.; Abu-Dahab, K.; Taylor, B. Assignment of epidemiological lineages in an emerging pandemic using the pangolin tool. Virus Evol. 2021, 7, veab064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Huddleston, J.; Hadfield, J.; Sibley, T.R.; Lee, J.; Fay, K.; Ilcisin, M.; Harkins, E.; Bedford, T.; Neher, R.A.; Hodcroft, E.B. Augur: A bioinformatics toolkit for phylogenetic analyses of human pathogens. J. Open Source Softw. 2021, 6, 2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Minh, B.Q.; Schmidt, H.A.; Chernomor, O.; Schrempf, D.; Woodhams, M.D.; Von Haeseler, A.; Lanfear, R. IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2020, 37, 1530–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tavaré, S. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lect. Math. Life Sci. 1986, 17, 57–86. [Google Scholar]
  50. Infrastructure for Secure Generation of Real World Evidence from Real World Data from the Andalusian Health Population Database. Available online: https://www.clinbioinfosspa.es/projects/iRWD/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  51. Sterne, J.A.; Murthy, S.; Diaz, J.V.; Slutsky, A.S.; Villar, J.; Angus, D.C.; Annane, D.; Azevedo, L.C.P.; Berwanger, O.; Cavalcanti, A.B. Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2020, 324, 1330–1341. [Google Scholar]
  52. Stuart, E.A.; Lee, B.K.; Leacy, F.P. Prognostic score–based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2013, 66, S84–S90.e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hajage, D.; Chauvet, G.; Belin, L.; Lafourcade, A.; Tubach, F.; De Rycke, Y. Closed-form variance estimator for weighted propensity score estimators with survival outcome. Biom. J. 2018, 60, 1151–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Austin, P.C. Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis. Stat. Med. 2016, 35, 5642–5655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Greifer, N. WeightIt: Weighting for Covariate Balance in Observational Studies. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=WeightIt (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  56. Greifer, N. Cobalt: Covariate Balance Tables and Plots. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=cobalt (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  57. Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; del Toro, M.D.; Borobia, A.M.; Carcas, A.; Jarrín, I.; Yllescas, M.; Ryan, P.; Pachón, J.; Carratalà, J.; Berenguer, J.; et al. Identification and validation of clinical phenotypes with prognostic implications in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: A multicentre cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Benjamini, Y.; Yekutieli, D. The control of false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Stat. 2001, 29, 1165–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. CoVariants. Available online: https://covariants.org/ (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  60. Elbe, S.; Buckland-Merrett, G. Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID’s innovative contribution to global health. Glob. Chall. 2017, 1, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Rambaut, A.; Holmes, E.C.; O’Toole, Á.; Hill, V.; McCrone, J.T.; Ruis, C.; du Plessis, L.; Pybus, O.G. A dynamic nomenclature proposal for SARS-CoV-2 lineages to assist genomic epidemiology. Nat. Microbiol. 2020, 5, 1403–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Thorne, L.G.; Bouhaddou, M.; Reuschl, A.-K.; Zuliani-Alvarez, L.; Polacco, B.; Pelin, A.; Batra, J.; Whelan, M.V.; Hosmillo, M.; Fossati, A. Evolution of enhanced innate immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2. Nature 2022, 602, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mistry, J.; Chuguransky, S.; Williams, L.; Qureshi, M.; Salazar, G.A.; Sonnhammer, E.L.L.; Tosatto, S.C.E.; Paladin, L.; Raj, S.; Richardson, L.J.; et al. Pfam: The protein families database in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, D412–D419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lu, G.; Wang, Q.; Gao, G.F. Bat-to-human: Spike features determining ‘host jump’ of coronaviruses SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and beyond. Trends Microbiol. 2015, 23, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Flower, T.G.; Buffalo, C.Z.; Hooy, R.M.; Allaire, M.; Ren, X.; Hurley, J.H. Structure of SARS-CoV-2 ORF8, a rapidly evolving immune evasion protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2021785118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tan, Y.; Schneider, T.; Leong, M.; Aravind, L.; Zhang, D. Novel Immunoglobulin Domain Proteins Provide Insights into Evolution and Pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2-Related Viruses. mBio 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Graham, R.L.; Baric, R.S. Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike: Mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J. Virol. 2010, 84, 3134–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Gangavarapu, K.; Latiff, A.A.; Mullen, J.L.; Alkuzweny, M.; Hufbauer, E.; Tsueng, G.; Haag, E.; Zeller, M.; Aceves, C.M.; Zaiets, K. Outbreak. info genomic reports: Scalable and dynamic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants and mutations. medRxiv 2022, 2022.01.27.22269965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, C.; Nadeau, S.; Yared, M.; Voinov, P.; Xie, N.; Roemer, C.; Stadler, T. CoV-Spectrum: Analysis of globally shared SARS-CoV-2 data to identify and characterize new variants. Bioinformatics 2022, 38, 1735–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Anand, K.; Ziebuhr, J.; Wadhwani, P.; Mesters, J.R.; Hilgenfeld, R. Coronavirus Main Proteinase (3CLpro) Structure: Basis for Design of Anti-SARS Drugs. Science 2003, 300, 1763–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Dai, W.; Zhang, B.; Jiang, X.-M.; Su, H.; Li, J.; Zhao, Y.; Xie, X.; Jin, Z.; Peng, J.; Liu, F.; et al. Structure-based design of antiviral drug candidates targeting the SARS-CoV-2 main protease. Science 2020, 368, 1331–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Candido, D.S.; Claro, I.M.; De Jesus, J.G.; Souza, W.M.; Moreira, F.R.; Dellicour, S.; Mellan, T.A.; Du Plessis, L.; Pereira, R.H.; Sales, F.C. Evolution and epidemic spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil. Science 2020, 369, 1255–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tegally, H.; Wilkinson, E.; Lessells, R.J.; Giandhari, J.; Pillay, S.; Msomi, N.; Mlisana, K.; Bhiman, J.N.; von Gottberg, A.; Walaza, S. Sixteen novel lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in South Africa. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mutation N:D377Y across the SARS-CoV-2 Phylogeny. Available online: http://nextstrain.clinbioinfosspa.es/SARS-CoV-2-all?branchLabel=none&gt=N.377Y (accessed on 27 July 2022).
Viruses 14 01893 g001 550
Figure 1. Circulation of the five SARS-CoV-2 variants eligible for the causal analysis in Andalusia (upper panel) and Spain (lower panel).
Figure 1. Circulation of the five SARS-CoV-2 variants eligible for the causal analysis in Andalusia (upper panel) and Spain (lower panel).
Viruses 14 01893 g001
Viruses 14 01893 g002 550
Figure 2. Log hazard ratios estimated for the five variants eligible for the causal analysis using the two approaches described in the text (the closed form estimator and the bootstrap). For each analysis, an estimate of the LHR along with a 95% confidence interval and a p-value (FDR-adjusted) of significance is provided.
Figure 2. Log hazard ratios estimated for the five variants eligible for the causal analysis using the two approaches described in the text (the closed form estimator and the bootstrap). For each analysis, an estimate of the LHR along with a 95% confidence interval and a p-value (FDR-adjusted) of significance is provided.
Viruses 14 01893 g002
Viruses 14 01893 g003 550
Figure 3. Log hazard ratios estimated for the 25 viral mutations that presented a significant (FDR-corrected) association with patient survival. Causal analysis was carried out using the two approaches described in the text (the closed form estimator and the bootstrap). For each analysis, an estimate of the LHR along with a 95% confidence interval and a p-value (FDR-adjusted) of significance is provided. Mutations are represented over the genomic positions in which they occur and on the left part, the corresponding proteins are annotated. The right part represents the observed distribution of mutations observed in all the samples analyzed.
Figure 3. Log hazard ratios estimated for the 25 viral mutations that presented a significant (FDR-corrected) association with patient survival. Causal analysis was carried out using the two approaches described in the text (the closed form estimator and the bootstrap). For each analysis, an estimate of the LHR along with a 95% confidence interval and a p-value (FDR-adjusted) of significance is provided. Mutations are represented over the genomic positions in which they occur and on the left part, the corresponding proteins are annotated. The right part represents the observed distribution of mutations observed in all the samples analyzed.
Viruses 14 01893 g003
Table
Table 1. Data imported from BPS for each patient: code and definition of the variable.
Table 1. Data imported from BPS for each patient: code and definition of the variable.
CodeMeaning
FECNACBirth date
FECDEFDeath date
SEXOGender
FEC_INGRESOHospital admission date
FEC_ALTADischarge date
MOTIVO_ALTAReason for the discharge: (recovery/death/admission in another hospital/voluntary discharge/retirement home/unspecified)
COD_PATOLOGIA_CRONICAHospital codes for chronic conditions
COD_FEC_INI_PATOLOGIADate of condition diagnosis
COD_CIE_NORMALIZADOA mixture of ICD9 and ICD10 codes for diseases
DESC_CIE_NORMALIZADODescription of the ICD
FECINI_DIAGDiagnosis date
FECFIN_DIAGEnd of the diagnosed condition
FUENTE_DIAGSource of the diagnosis (hospital, emergency, etc.)
IND_CRONICO_HCUPIs it a chronic disease? (yes/no)
Test COVID: FECHATest COVID date
Test COVID: TYPEPCR/antigens
Test COVID: RESULTADO_TESTResult of the test (positive/negative)
Pharmacy (Hospital and external):
DESCRIPCION		List of drugs used in hospital or purchased in the pharmacies
Pharmacy (Hospital and external): FECHADispensing date
VACUNAList of vaccines
VACUNAFECHAVaccination dates
Table
Table 2. Mutations associated with higher patient mortality that affect PFAM motifs and pangolin lineages eligible for causal analysis with the mutation (non-synonymous from outbreak.info [68] and synonymous from cov-spectrum.org [69].
Table 2. Mutations associated with higher patient mortality that affect PFAM motifs and pangolin lineages eligible for causal analysis with the mutation (non-synonymous from outbreak.info [68] and synonymous from cov-spectrum.org [69].
MutationPositionCDSAAc
Position		AAc
Mutation		PFAM 1DefinitionLineages Eligible for Causal Analysis Bearing the Mutation
C3267T3267ORF1ab1001ORF1ab:T1001IPF12379Betacoronavirus replicase NSP3, N-terminalA; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
A4964G4964ORF1ab1567ORF1ab:T1567APF08715Coronavirus papain-like peptidaseB.1; B.1.1.7
C5388A5388ORF1ab1708ORF1ab:
A1708D		PF08715Coronavirus papain-like peptidaseB.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
del11288.
11297		11288ORF1ab3975-3677ORF1ab:del3675-3677PF08717Coronavirus replicase NSP8A; A.1; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
C14676T14676ORF1ab4803ORF1ab:P4803PPF00680RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseB.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
C15279T15279ORF1ab5004ORF1ab:
H5004H		PF00680RNA-dependent RNA polymeraseB.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
del21766.2177221766S69-70S:del69-70PF16451Betacoronavirus-like spike glycoprotein S1, N-terminalA; A.1; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
del21994.2199721994S144S:Y144-PF16451Betacoronavirus-like spike glycoprotein S1, N-terminalA; A.1; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
A23063T23063S501S:N501YPF09408Betacoronavirus spike glycoprotein S1, receptor bindingA; A.1; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
C23271A23271S570S:A570DPF19209Coronavirus spike glycoprotein S1, C-terminalA; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
C23709T23709S716S:T716IPF01601Coronavirus spike glycoprotein S2B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
T24506G24506S982S:S982APF01601Coronavirus spike glycoprotein S2B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
G24914C24914S1118S:D1118HPF01601Coronavirus spike glycoprotein S2B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
C27972T27972ORF827ORF8:Q27*PF12093Betacoronavirus NS8 proteinA; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
G28048T28048ORF852ORF8:R52IPF12093Betacoronavirus NS8 proteinA; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
A28111G28111ORF873ORF8:Y73CPF12093Betacoronavirus NS8 proteinA; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
C28977T28977N235N:S235FPF00937Coronavirus nucleocapsidA; B.1; B.1.177; B.1.1.7
1 PFAM information can be accessed at: https://pfam.xfam.org/family/PFXXXX with PFXXXX being the corresponding PFAM ID.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Loucera, C.; Perez-Florido, J.; Casimiro-Soriguer, C.S.; Ortuño, F.M.; Carmona, R.; Bostelmann, G.; Martínez-González, L.J.; Muñoyerro-Muñiz, D.; Villegas, R.; Rodriguez-Baño, J.; et al. Assessing the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Lineages and Mutations on Patient Survival. Viruses 2022, 14, 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091893

AMA Style

Loucera C, Perez-Florido J, Casimiro-Soriguer CS, Ortuño FM, Carmona R, Bostelmann G, Martínez-González LJ, Muñoyerro-Muñiz D, Villegas R, Rodriguez-Baño J, et al. Assessing the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Lineages and Mutations on Patient Survival. Viruses. 2022; 14(9):1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091893

Chicago/Turabian Style

Loucera, Carlos, Javier Perez-Florido, Carlos S. Casimiro-Soriguer, Francisco M. Ortuño, Rosario Carmona, Gerrit Bostelmann, L. Javier Martínez-González, Dolores Muñoyerro-Muñiz, Román Villegas, Jesus Rodriguez-Baño, and et al. 2022. "Assessing the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Lineages and Mutations on Patient Survival" Viruses 14, no. 9: 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091893

APA Style

Loucera, C., Perez-Florido, J., Casimiro-Soriguer, C. S., Ortuño, F. M., Carmona, R., Bostelmann, G., Martínez-González, L. J., Muñoyerro-Muñiz, D., Villegas, R., Rodriguez-Baño, J., Romero-Gomez, M., Lorusso, N., Garcia-León, J., Navarro-Marí, J. M., Camacho-Martinez, P., Merino-Diaz, L., Salazar, A. d., Viñuela, L., The Andalusian COVID-19 Sequencing Initiative, ... Dopazo, J. (2022). Assessing the Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Lineages and Mutations on Patient Survival. Viruses, 14(9), 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14091893

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop