Literature DB >> 35293771

SARS-CoV-2 Evolution: On the Sudden Appearance of the Omicron Variant.

Ben Berkhout1, Elena Herrera-Carrillo1.   

Abstract

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads rapidly and harbors many mutations in the spike protein, but the origin of this virus variant remains unclear. We address the role of unusual virus evolution mechanisms such as hypermutation, out-of-frame reading, and recombination. Rather, regular Darwinian evolution, that is, the repeated selection of beneficial spike mutations, seems to have led to the appearance of the grossly altered spike protein of the Omicron variant.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Omicron; SARS-CoV-2; evolution

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35293771      PMCID: PMC9006888          DOI: 10.1128/jvi.00090-22

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Virol        ISSN: 0022-538X            Impact factor:   5.103


TEXT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This virus unleashed a true pandemic in 2019 that continues until today, although a fair level of protection can be achieved by several newly developed vaccines and, hopefully, by herd immunity. Multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) have been designated by the World Health Organization (WHO). Omicron (B.1.1.529) is the newest virus variant first reported from South Africa in November 2021 (1, 2). Compared to other VOCs, Omicron is believed to spread much quicker, as first shown for South Africa and recently confirmed for the United Kingdom and other countries (3–6). The Omicron variant has acquired around 60 mutations compared to the original Wuhan isolate, a finding that has concerned scientists. Some 35 mutations can be found in the gene encoding the spike protein that result in 30 amino acid substitutions (Table 1) (7). This was recently described as an unusual cluster of mutational changes, suggesting that initial mutations may have caused a fitness loss, which triggered additional but compensatory changes to mitigate the fitness loss (8). The spike protein is responsible for attachment to target cells, and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) runs from positions 319 to 541. The spike protein also facilitates subsequent viral entry into the cell, and the many Omicron substitutions may thus influence the cell tropism and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, any change in the amino acid side chain (charge, size, and hydrophobicity) can have an effect on the intrinsic properties of the affected protein and on the interaction with other proteins or other molecules. The Omicron strain can replicate rapidly in vitro on human primary nasal epithelial cultures (9). The spike protein is the only viral protein that decorates the surface of virion particles and is the main antigenic target of antibodies induced by natural infection and vaccination. Thus, another concern is that the Omicron spike protein may be less sensitive to the current vaccines, although rapid adaptation of especially the RNA-based vaccines seems fairly easy.
TABLE 1

Mutations acquired by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron compared to the Wuhan prototype

MutationCodon changeSubstitutionPeculiarity
21762 C to UGCU to GUUAla67Val
21765–21770 ΔUACAUG6 nt/2 aa removed
21846 C to UACU to AUUThr95Ile
21987–21995 ΔGUGUUUAUU9 nt/3 aa removed
22194–22196 ΔAUU3 nt/1 aa removed
22205 +GAGCCAGAA9 nt/3 aa inserted
22587 G to AGGU to GAUGly339AspCharge gain −1
22599 G to AAGA to AAAArg346Lys
22673 UC to CUUCC to CUCSer371Leu*
22679 U to CUCA to CCASer373Pro*
22686 C to UUCC to UUCSer375Phe*
22813 G to UAAG to AAULys417AsnCharge loss +1
22882 U to GAAU to AAGAsn440LysCharge gain +1
22898 G to AGGU to AGUGly446Ser
22992 G to AAGC to AACSer477Asn*
22995 C to AACA to AAAThr478Lys*Charge gain +1
23013 A to CGAA to GCAGlu484AlaCharge loss −1
23040 A to GCAA to CGAGln493Arg*Charge gain +1
23048 G to AGGU to AGUGly496Ser*
23055 A to GCAA to CGAGln498Arg*Charge gain +1
23063 A to UAAU to UAUAsn501Tyr*
23075 U to CUAC to CACTyr505His*Charge gain +1
23202 C to AACA to AAAThr547LysCharge gain +1
23403 A to GGAU to GGUAsp614GlyCharge loss −1
23525 C to UCAU to UAUHis655TyrCharge loss +1
23599 U to GAAU to AAGAsn679LysCharge gain +1
23604 C to ACCU to CAUPro681HisCharge gain +1
23664 C to UGCA to GUAAla701Val
23854 C to ACCG to ACGPro764Thr
23948 G to UGAU to UAUAsp796TyrCharge loss −1
24130 C to AAAC to AAAAsn856LysCharge gain +1
24424 A to UCAA to CAUGln954HisCharge gain +1
24469 U to AAAU to AAAAsn969LysCharge gain +1
24503 C to UCUU to UUULeu981Phe
25000 C to UGAC to GAUSilent

nt, nucleotides; aa, amino acids; +, insertion; Δ, deletion; *, mutation cluster (<10 bp between two mutations).

Mutations acquired by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron compared to the Wuhan prototype nt, nucleotides; aa, amino acids; +, insertion; Δ, deletion; *, mutation cluster (<10 bp between two mutations). The origin of the Omicron variant remains unclear (10, 11). A curious feature of Omicron is that it consists of three distinct sublineages (called BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3) that seem to have emerged at around the same time (8, 12). Two of these lineages have taken off globally. Anyhow, what this means is that Omicron had time to diversify before it was discovered. In this brief perspective, we focus on the potential mechanisms of virus evolution that led to the Omicron variant. The standard scenario of virus evolution calls for the repeated selection of spontaneous mutations that affect the phenotype of the virus, e.g., by improved recognition of the receptor, a switch to other host cells, or being less visible to the innate and adaptive immune systems. This scenario of Darwinian evolution seems quite possible for spike adaptations in SARS-CoV-2 as this protein not only mediates the recognition of the ACE2 receptor on target cells to trigger virus entry but also is the prime target for antibodies. This means that there is much selection pressure acting on the viral spike protein, which could explain the acquisition of many mutations in the spike gene of the Omicron isolate. The acquisition of many clustered mutations in the spike gene could in theory also be explained by more exotic evolutionary events that we will introduce and critically test. First, viral genomes can be subject to “hypermutation,” a process in which multiple changes occur in a clustered manner in parts of the viral genome. These mutations are introduced either by the viral polymerase, possibly by an error-prone mutant thereof, or by cellular restriction systems as exemplified by the HIV apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing catalytic polypeptide-like protein (APOBEC) case (13, 14). A characteristic of hypermutation is that a common mutational pattern can usually be recognized, e.g., monotonous G-to-A changes in the HIV genome (15). Mutation pressure may also have been exerted on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome by antiviral defense systems of the host cell, including APOBEC, adenosine deaminase acting on RNA proteins (ADAR), and reactive oxygen species (ROS) (16). The resulting hypermutation signatures will not always remain visible as they may become blurred during the evolutionary path from the parental virus strain to Omicron. We inspected the required mutations assuming a direct evolutionary path from the prototype Wuhan strain to the new Omicron variant (Table 1). The scenario may be too simple, but a more precise picture should await the identification of intermediate variants in the evolutionary history of Omicron. We analyzed the mutations that are common among 629 Omicron isolates. The sequences were extracted from the GISAID EpiCoV database on 8 December 2021. We excluded nucleotide changes that were described for fewer than 10 isolates. Therefore, the listed mutations do not represent random isolate-specific mutations but represent truly acquired characteristics of the Omicron lineage. No distinct mutational profile was observed (Table 1). Instead, we scored a regular pattern with more transitions (6 C-to-U, 5 G-to-A, 2 U-to-C, and 3 A-to-G changes) than transversions (5 C-to-A, 2 G-to-U, 2 U-to-G, 2 A-to-U, 1 A-to-C, 1 U-to-A, and no C-to-G and G-to-C changes), in total 16 transitions versus 13 transversions. The absence of any particular mutational profile does not support the hypermutation scenario. However, even a mild mutational bias, e.g., the prevalence of mutations that remove C residues, can, when executed over an extended evolutionary time scale, contribute to the biased nucleotide composition that can be recognized in all coronavirus RNA genomes (17). A second evolutionary scenario that could instantaneously generate many mutations is a double-frameshift event that causes the ribosome to temporarily read in a different reading frame (18). This out-of-frame reading should be restricted to a short segment of the spike open reading frame as extended out-of-frame reading will likely be lethal because inactive proteins will be made or premature stop codons will soon be encountered. Inspection of the Wuhan-to-Omicron changes revealed a single insertion of 9 nucleotides that adds 3 amino acids, and three small deletions were present in the N-terminal domain of the spike protein that caused the removal of 1, 2, and 3 amino acids. Theoretically, a certain combination of deletion plus insertion could cause temporary out-of-frame reading; but all four indel mutations in Omicron are in frame, and this second scenario can thus also be refuted. The remarkable clustering of an insertion and multiple deletions may eventually tell us something about the structure or function of this small domain of the spike protein. To broaden the test of the first two hypotheses, we also inspected the hypothetical evolutionary paths from any of the VOCs (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Delta plus, and Gamma) to Omicron. This analysis also did not reveal any special mutational profile or frameshift events that could support these scenarios (results not shown). A third scenario that can trigger a gross yet sudden mutational event is recombination, the mixing of Omicron genome sequences with sequences derived from other viruses or the human host. Such swapping of genetic information is a well-known phenomenon in virology and is well documented for coronaviruses (19). For instance, it was recently proposed that Omicron acquired a 9-nucleotide stretch from the common cold coronavirus 229E (20). In general, there is currently no good evidence to support this evolutionary scenario, but the future identification of evolutionary intermediates of the Wuhan-to-Omicron transition may provide more definitive answers. Having considered three unusual scenarios for the evolution of the Omicron variant, we cautiously conclude that regular virus evolution, that is, by the repeated selection of beneficial mutations in the spike gene or Darwinian evolution, underlies the appearance of this variant. Because Omicron first appeared in South Africa, it has been suggested that SARS-CoV-2 could evolve rapidly in this setting because of the weakened immune system of more than 20% of the local human population that is HIV infected (21). In light of recent reports of rapid SARS-CoV-2 evolution in unsuppressed HIV patients, most of the current discussion centers around chronic infections in immunocompromised hosts (22). But other hypothetical contributors include a variety of causes: selective pressure exerted by vaccination; the impact of modification of antigenic sites in spike on receptor recognition and viral fitness; the very likely important, yet ill-understood, determinants of virus transmissibility; and the impact of genetic bottlenecks that may occur during virus transmission. The most compelling evidence for this scenario of regular Darwinian evolution actually comes from inspection of the genetic changes, which reveals a profound preference for mutations that change the amino acid composition of the spike protein: 30 nonsilent changes versus 1 silent mutation (Table 1). This evolutionary pressure is also reflected in the type of codon change observed (Table 1): 14 at the second codon position, 9 at the first codon position, and only 7 with a change in the third codon position that frequently creates a synonymous codon that does not change the encoded amino acid. In fact, 6 of the latter 7 codon changes are nonsilent, underlining the idea that strong selection pressure acted on the Omicron spike protein. Some or all of these amino acid substitutions may affect the basic viral functions of receptor recognition and cell entry, and other substitutions may represent compensatory changes in the spike protein. We noticed a remarkable adjustment in the usage of charged amino acids: 2 positively charged residues were removed, but some 11 were gained, whereas a more balanced picture was seen for negatively charged residues (1 gained and 3 removed). Such changes in net or local charge could affect the interactions of the spike protein with other molecules, among which are the ACE2 receptor and antibodies raised by natural infection or immunization. Experimental studies are needed to test these ideas. Mutations in key domains of the spike protein may have an impact on the virulence and pathogenicity of this virus, possibly correlating with early epidemiological and clinical data showing that Omicron is less pathogenic than other SARS-CoV-2 variants (23). In conclusion, it seems likely that strong evolutionary pressure has led to the selection of the grossly altered spike protein of the Omicron variant. However, much remains currently unknown. First of all, extensive sampling may reveal virus isolates that are intermediate between the Wuhan and Omicron strains, which could more firmly prove or deny the exact path of virus evolution. Experiments should then address the biological effects imposed by the many spike protein substitutions, both direct effects on virus replication and also indirect effects through escape from host-induced immune pressure. In the meantime, we should rapidly update the RNA-based vaccines against this rapidly spreading SARS-CoV-2 variant.
  16 in total

1.  Where did 'weird' Omicron come from?

Authors:  Kai Kupferschmidt
Journal:  Science       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Detection of a SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern in South Africa.

Authors:  Houriiyah Tegally; Eduan Wilkinson; Marta Giovanetti; Arash Iranzadeh; Vagner Fonseca; Jennifer Giandhari; Deelan Doolabh; Sureshnee Pillay; Emmanuel James San; Nokukhanya Msomi; Koleka Mlisana; Anne von Gottberg; Sibongile Walaza; Mushal Allam; Arshad Ismail; Thabo Mohale; Allison J Glass; Susan Engelbrecht; Gert Van Zyl; Wolfgang Preiser; Francesco Petruccione; Alex Sigal; Diana Hardie; Gert Marais; Nei-Yuan Hsiao; Stephen Korsman; Mary-Ann Davies; Lynn Tyers; Innocent Mudau; Denis York; Caroline Maslo; Dominique Goedhals; Shareef Abrahams; Oluwakemi Laguda-Akingba; Arghavan Alisoltani-Dehkordi; Adam Godzik; Constantinos Kurt Wibmer; Bryan Trevor Sewell; José Lourenço; Luiz Carlos Junior Alcantara; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond; Steven Weaver; Darren Martin; Richard J Lessells; Jinal N Bhiman; Carolyn Williamson; Tulio de Oliveira
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  APOBEC3G-induced hypermutation of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 is typically a discrete "all or nothing" phenomenon.

Authors:  Andrew E Armitage; Koen Deforche; Chih-Hao Chang; Edmund Wee; Beatrice Kramer; John J Welch; Jan Gerstoft; Lars Fugger; Andrew McMichael; Andrew Rambaut; Astrid K N Iversen
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 5.917

4.  On the biased nucleotide composition of the human coronavirus RNA genome.

Authors:  Ben Berkhout; Formijn van Hemert
Journal:  Virus Res       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 3.303

Review 5.  Host-directed editing of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Authors:  Tobias Mourier; Mukhtar Sadykov; Michael J Carr; Gabriel Gonzalez; William W Hall; Arnab Pain
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 3.575

6.  Relative instantaneous reproduction number of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant with respect to the Delta variant in Denmark.

Authors:  Kimihito Ito; Chayada Piantham; Hiroshi Nishiura
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 20.693

7.  Likely role of APOBEC3G-mediated G-to-A mutations in HIV-1 evolution and drug resistance.

Authors:  Patric Jern; Rebecca A Russell; Vinay K Pathak; John M Coffin
Journal:  PLoS Pathog       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 6.823

8.  Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study.

Authors:  Nicole Wolter; Waasila Jassat; Sibongile Walaza; Richard Welch; Harry Moultrie; Michelle Groome; Daniel Gyamfi Amoako; Josie Everatt; Jinal N Bhiman; Cathrine Scheepers; Naume Tebeila; Nicola Chiwandire; Mignon du Plessis; Nevashan Govender; Arshad Ismail; Allison Glass; Koleka Mlisana; Wendy Stevens; Florette K Treurnicht; Zinhle Makatini; Nei-Yuan Hsiao; Raveen Parboosing; Jeannette Wadula; Hannah Hussey; Mary-Ann Davies; Andrew Boulle; Anne von Gottberg; Cheryl Cohen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 202.731

9.  Rapid epidemic expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in southern Africa.

Authors:  Raquel Viana; Sikhulile Moyo; Daniel G Amoako; Houriiyah Tegally; Cathrine Scheepers; Christian L Althaus; Ugochukwu J Anyaneji; Phillip A Bester; Maciej F Boni; Mohammed Chand; Wonderful T Choga; Rachel Colquhoun; Michaela Davids; Koen Deforche; Deelan Doolabh; Louis du Plessis; Susan Engelbrecht; Josie Everatt; Jennifer Giandhari; Marta Giovanetti; Diana Hardie; Verity Hill; Nei-Yuan Hsiao; Arash Iranzadeh; Arshad Ismail; Charity Joseph; Rageema Joseph; Legodile Koopile; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond; Moritz U G Kraemer; Lesego Kuate-Lere; Oluwakemi Laguda-Akingba; Onalethatha Lesetedi-Mafoko; Richard J Lessells; Shahin Lockman; Alexander G Lucaci; Arisha Maharaj; Boitshoko Mahlangu; Tongai Maponga; Kamela Mahlakwane; Zinhle Makatini; Gert Marais; Dorcas Maruapula; Kereng Masupu; Mogomotsi Matshaba; Simnikiwe Mayaphi; Nokuzola Mbhele; Mpaphi B Mbulawa; Adriano Mendes; Koleka Mlisana; Anele Mnguni; Thabo Mohale; Monika Moir; Kgomotso Moruisi; Mosepele Mosepele; Gerald Motsatsi; Modisa S Motswaledi; Thongbotho Mphoyakgosi; Nokukhanya Msomi; Peter N Mwangi; Yeshnee Naidoo; Noxolo Ntuli; Martin Nyaga; Lucier Olubayo; Sureshnee Pillay; Botshelo Radibe; Yajna Ramphal; Upasana Ramphal; James E San; Lesley Scott; Roger Shapiro; Lavanya Singh; Pamela Smith-Lawrence; Wendy Stevens; Amy Strydom; Kathleen Subramoney; Naume Tebeila; Derek Tshiabuila; Joseph Tsui; Stephanie van Wyk; Steven Weaver; Constantinos K Wibmer; Eduan Wilkinson; Nicole Wolter; Alexander E Zarebski; Boitumelo Zuze; Dominique Goedhals; Wolfgang Preiser; Florette Treurnicht; Marietje Venter; Carolyn Williamson; Oliver G Pybus; Jinal Bhiman; Allison Glass; Darren P Martin; Andrew Rambaut; Simani Gaseitsiwe; Anne von Gottberg; Tulio de Oliveira
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Emergence of Omicron third lineage BA.3 and its importance.

Authors:  Perumal A Desingu; K Nagarajan; Kuldeep Dhama
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 20.693

View more
  4 in total

1.  Natural selection plays a significant role in governing the codon usage bias in the novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC).

Authors:  Neetu Tyagi; Rahila Sardar; Dinesh Gupta
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.061

Review 2.  The SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro): Structure, function, and emerging therapies for COVID-19.

Authors:  Qing Hu; Yuan Xiong; Guang-Hao Zhu; Ya-Ni Zhang; Yi-Wen Zhang; Ping Huang; Guang-Bo Ge
Journal:  MedComm (2020)       Date:  2022-07-14

Review 3.  Evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants BA.1 to BA.5: Implications for immune escape and transmission.

Authors:  Lok Bahadur Shrestha; Charles Foster; William Rawlinson; Nicodemus Tedla; Rowena A Bull
Journal:  Rev Med Virol       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 11.043

Review 4.  Immune Escape Associated with RBD Omicron Mutations and SARS-CoV-2 Evolution Dynamics.

Authors:  Aleksandr V Kudriavtsev; Anna V Vakhrusheva; Valery N Novosеletsky; Marine E Bozdaganyan; Konstantin V Shaitan; Mikhail P Kirpichnikov; Olga S Sokolova
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.818

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.