Erik Volz1, Sergei Pond2. 1. Imperial College London. 2. University of California San Diego.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ebola virus (EBOV) epidemic in Western Africa is the largest in recorded history and control efforts have so far failed to stem the rapid growth in the number of infections. Mathematical models serve a key role in estimating epidemic growth rates and the reproduction number (R0) from surveillance data and, recently, molecular sequence data. Phylodynamic analysis of existing EBOV time-stamped sequence data may provide independent estimates of the unobserved number of infections, reveal recent epidemiological history, and provide insight into selective pressures acting upon viral genes. METHODS: We fit a series mathematical models of infectious disease dynamics to phylogenies estimated from 78 whole EBOV genomes collected from distinct patients in May and June of 2014 in Sierra Leone, and perform evolutionary analysis on these genomes combined with closely related EBOV genomes from previous outbreaks. Two analyses are conducted with values of the latent period that have been used in recent modelling efforts. We also examined the EBOV sequences for evidence of possible episodic adaptive molecular evolution during the 2014 outbreak. RESULTS: We find evidence for adaptive evolution affecting L and GP protein coding regions of the EBOV genome, which is unlikely to bias molecular clock and phylodynamic analyses. We estimate R0=2.40 (95% HPD:1.54-3.87 ) if the mean latent period is 5.3 days, and R0=3.81, (95% HPD:2.47-6.3) if the mean latent period is 12.7 days. The estimated coefficient of variation (CV) of the number of transmissions per infected host is very high, and a large proportion of infections yield no transmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of R0 are sensitive to the unknown latent infectious period which can not be reliably estimated from genetic data alone. EBOV phylogenies show significant evidence for superspreading and extreme variance in the number of transmissions per infected individual during the early epidemic in Sierra Leone.
BACKGROUND: The Ebola virus (EBOV) epidemic in Western Africa is the largest in recorded history and control efforts have so far failed to stem the rapid growth in the number of infections. Mathematical models serve a key role in estimating epidemic growth rates and the reproduction number (R0) from surveillance data and, recently, molecular sequence data. Phylodynamic analysis of existing EBOV time-stamped sequence data may provide independent estimates of the unobserved number of infections, reveal recent epidemiological history, and provide insight into selective pressures acting upon viral genes. METHODS: We fit a series mathematical models of infectious disease dynamics to phylogenies estimated from 78 whole EBOV genomes collected from distinct patients in May and June of 2014 in Sierra Leone, and perform evolutionary analysis on these genomes combined with closely related EBOV genomes from previous outbreaks. Two analyses are conducted with values of the latent period that have been used in recent modelling efforts. We also examined the EBOV sequences for evidence of possible episodic adaptive molecular evolution during the 2014 outbreak. RESULTS: We find evidence for adaptive evolution affecting L and GP protein coding regions of the EBOV genome, which is unlikely to bias molecular clock and phylodynamic analyses. We estimate R0=2.40 (95% HPD:1.54-3.87 ) if the mean latent period is 5.3 days, and R0=3.81, (95% HPD:2.47-6.3) if the mean latent period is 12.7 days. The estimated coefficient of variation (CV) of the number of transmissions per infected host is very high, and a large proportion of infections yield no transmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of R0 are sensitive to the unknown latent infectious period which can not be reliably estimated from genetic data alone. EBOV phylogenies show significant evidence for superspreading and extreme variance in the number of transmissions per infected individual during the early epidemic in Sierra Leone.
Authors: Erik M Volz; Edward Ionides; Ethan O Romero-Severson; Mary-Grace Brandt; Eve Mokotoff; James S Koopman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Maria D Van Kerkhove; Ana I Bento; Harriet L Mills; Neil M Ferguson; Christl A Donnelly Journal: Sci Data Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Michael T Osterholm; Kristine A Moore; Nicholas S Kelley; Lisa M Brosseau; Gary Wong; Frederick A Murphy; Clarence J Peters; James W LeDuc; Phillip K Russell; Michel Van Herp; Jimmy Kapetshi; Jean-Jacques T Muyembe; Benoit Kebela Ilunga; James E Strong; Allen Grolla; Anja Wolz; Brima Kargbo; David K Kargbo; David Avram Sanders; Gary P Kobinger Journal: mBio Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: Daniel J Park; Gytis Dudas; Shirlee Wohl; Augustine Goba; Shannon L M Whitmer; Kristian G Andersen; Rachel S Sealfon; Jason T Ladner; Jeffrey R Kugelman; Christian B Matranga; Sarah M Winnicki; James Qu; Stephen K Gire; Adrianne Gladden-Young; Simbirie Jalloh; Dolo Nosamiefan; Nathan L Yozwiak; Lina M Moses; Pan-Pan Jiang; Aaron E Lin; Stephen F Schaffner; Brian Bird; Jonathan Towner; Mambu Mamoh; Michael Gbakie; Lansana Kanneh; David Kargbo; James L B Massally; Fatima K Kamara; Edwin Konuwa; Josephine Sellu; Abdul A Jalloh; Ibrahim Mustapha; Momoh Foday; Mohamed Yillah; Bobbie R Erickson; Tara Sealy; Dianna Blau; Christopher Paddock; Aaron Brault; Brian Amman; Jane Basile; Scott Bearden; Jessica Belser; Eric Bergeron; Shelley Campbell; Ayan Chakrabarti; Kimberly Dodd; Mike Flint; Aridth Gibbons; Christin Goodman; John Klena; Laura McMullan; Laura Morgan; Brandy Russell; Johanna Salzer; Angela Sanchez; David Wang; Irwin Jungreis; Christopher Tomkins-Tinch; Andrey Kislyuk; Michael F Lin; Sinead Chapman; Bronwyn MacInnis; Ashley Matthews; James Bochicchio; Lisa E Hensley; Jens H Kuhn; Chad Nusbaum; John S Schieffelin; Bruce W Birren; Marc Forget; Stuart T Nichol; Gustavo F Palacios; Daouda Ndiaye; Christian Happi; Sahr M Gevao; Mohamed A Vandi; Brima Kargbo; Edward C Holmes; Trevor Bedford; Andreas Gnirke; Ute Ströher; Andrew Rambaut; Robert F Garry; Pardis C Sabeti Journal: Cell Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 41.582