Literature DB >> 35550234

Increased Stability of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant over Ancestral Strain.

Alex Wing Hong Chin, Alison Man Yuk Lai, Malik Peiris, Leo Lit Man Poon.   

Abstract

As of April 2022, the Omicron BA.1 variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2 was spreading quickly around the world and outcompeting other circulating strains. We examined its stability on various surfaces and found that this Omicron variant is more stable than its ancestral strain on smooth and porous surfaces.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Omicron; SARS-CoV-2; coronavirus disease; respiratory infections; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; stability; variant of concern; viruses; zoonoses

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35550234      PMCID: PMC9239870          DOI: 10.3201/eid2807.220428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis        ISSN: 1080-6040            Impact factor:   16.126


The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC) is highly transmissible in humans. As of April 2022, it has outcompeted other known variants and dominated in different regions (). Its spike protein has >30 mutations compared with the ancestral strain (). A 2022 structural study indicates the Omicron spike protein is more stable than that of the ancestral strain (); this finding prompted us to hypothesize that Omicron VOC is also more stable on different surfaces. We previously showed that the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain can still be infectious at room temperature for several days on smooth surfaces and several hours on porous surfaces (). We used previously described ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (PANGO lineage A) and Omicron VOC (PANGO lineage BA.1) in this study (,). We tested their stability on different surfaces using our previously described protocol (,). In brief, we applied a 5-μL droplet of each virus (107 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID50]/mL) on different surfaces in triplicate. We incubated the treated surfaces at room temperature (21°C–22°C) for different time points as indicated and then immersed them in viral transport medium for 30 min to recover the residual infectious virus. We titrated the recovered virus by TCID50 assays using Vero E6 cells, as described (,). Compared with the ancestral SARS-CoV-2, the Omicron BA.1 variant was more stable on all surfaces we studied (Table). On day 4 postinoculation, we recovered no infectious ancestral SARS-CoV-2 from stainless steel, polypropylene sheet, or 2 of 3 glass samples. We did not recover infectious virus from glass on day 7. In contrast, infectious Omicron variant was still recoverable from all treated surfaces on day 7 postincubation.
Table

Stability of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and of Omicron variant on different surfaces*

MaterialIncubation time†Ancestral SARS-CoV-2
Omicron variant
Mean log10(TCID50/mL) ±SD‡% Reduction in viral titerMean log10(TCID50/mL) +SD‡% Reduction in viral titer
Stainless steel05.02 +0.39NA5.35 +0.18NA
3 h4.21 +0.3685.154.82 +0.2369.78
6 h3.73 +0.1095.804.62 +0.3179.86
1 d2.99 +0.1799.214.65 +0.1780.28
2 d2.08 +0.1199.914.51 +0.1585.82
4 d§>99.933.72 +0.1297.72

7 d
§
>99.93

3.58 +0.30
98.19
Polypropylene04.85 +0.23NA5.43 +0.16NA
3 h4.12 +0.1981.724.65 +0.3481.27
6 h3.53 +0.1595.434.33 +0.1492.34
1 d3.13 +0.3497.864.45 +0.2389.25
2 d2.01 +0.10¶>99.864.34 +0.2591.53
4 d§>99.883.97 +0.1996.48

7 d
§
>99.88

2.95 +0.27
99.65
Glass05.10+0.24NA5.65 +0.28NA
3 h4.26 +0.0586.794.90 +0.1583.62
6 h3.69 +0.1196.424.52 +0.1393.20
1 d2.83 +0.1399.494.20 +0.0196.84
2 d2.14 +0.1399.904.43 +0.2993.87
4 d1.96 +0.00¶>99.934.06 +0.1697.64

7 d
§
>99.93

3.76 +0.10
98.83
Tissue paper04.70 +0.22NA5.21 +0.14NA
5 min3.85 +0.2884.984.64 +0.7053.94
15 min2.12 +0.1499.753.72 +1.2272.99
30 min§>99.842.92 +0.4099.34

60 min
§
>99.84

§
>99.95
Printing paper05.21 +0.00NA5.34 +0.13NA
5 min2.69 +0.1699.683.26 +0.4298.91
15 min§>99.942.20 +0.33¶>99.91
30 min§>99.942.16 +0.36¶>99.92
60 min§>99.94§>99.96

*Tests were performed in triplicate. NA, not applicable; TCID50, 50% tissue culture infectious dose. †The samples were incubated at room temperature (21°C–22°C). ‡Vero E6 cells were used for titration of viable viruses. §All the triplicates were below detection limit of the TCID50 assay. ¶One or two out of three replicates were below detection limit of the TCID50 assay.

*Tests were performed in triplicate. NA, not applicable; TCID50, 50% tissue culture infectious dose. †The samples were incubated at room temperature (21°C–22°C). ‡Vero E6 cells were used for titration of viable viruses. §All the triplicates were below detection limit of the TCID50 assay. ¶One or two out of three replicates were below detection limit of the TCID50 assay. The stability of the Omicron variant was also higher than ancestral SARS-CoV-2 on porous surfaces, such as tissue paper and printing paper. On tissue paper, viable ancestral SARS-CoV-2 was no longer recoverable after a 30-minute incubation. However, we detected viable Omicron variant after a 30-minute incubation. On printing paper, we detected no infectious virus after a 15-minute incubation. In contrast, viable Omicron variant was recovered from 2 of 3 replicates after a 30-minute incubation. To confirm our observations, we used transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2)–expressing Vero E6 cells to titrate infectious virus particles recovered from treated stainless steel and printing paper (Appendix Table). On stainless steel, infectious ancestral virus was undetectable on day 10 postincubation, whereas viable Omicron variant was still recoverable. Similarly, no infectious ancestral virus was detected on printing paper after a 30-minute incubation, whereas we detected viable Omicron variant in 1 out of 3 replicates. Although the virus could be trapped in the porous materials and inefficiently recovered, our findings confirm that Omicron variant is more stable than its ancestral strain on surfaces. We noted that the cell line used for virus titration can affect our findings. It has been reported that Omicron variant is less dependent upon TMPRSS2 for cell entry (); therefore, we were not surprised that different cell lines led to different viral inactivation profiles. Nonetheless, results from both cell lines suggest that the Omicron variant is more stable than the ancestral strain. This observation is consistent with other recent findings (R. Hirose et al., unpub. data, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.18.476607v1). More evidence is needed to account for the increased transmissibility of Omicron variant. The virus’s stability on surfaces may be one factor and should be taken into consideration when recommending control measures against infection. A recent study revealed that an infectious dose as low as 10 TCID50 units could infect >50% of human study participants (). Our findings indicate that Omicron variant has an increased likelihood for transmission by the fomite route; they may also indicate that the enhanced stability deduced from structural studies () and now demonstrated on different surfaces may be relevant for droplet or aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Of interest, stability of avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses has been shown to have an association with transmissibility of avian influenza virus between mammals by the airborne route, although the mechanisms underlying this association are not fully understood (). Further studies on the stability of Omicron variant and its emerging subvariants in droplets and aerosols are warranted. One limitation of our study is that the experiments were conducted in a well-controlled laboratory environment. Variations in environmental conditions would affect the rate of viral inactivation. Therefore, the time required for virus inactivation that we demonstrated may not reflect all real-life scenarios. In addition, the components of the viral droplet medium applied in this study were different from those of the respiratory droplets, which could also affect the stability of the virus. Nonetheless, our findings demonstrate that the Omicron variant is more stable than the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 on different surfaces, a finding that may be relevant for determining recommendations for public health measures to limit virus transmission.

Appendix

Additional information about the difference in stability of Omicron variant and ancestral SARS-CoV-2.
  9 in total

Review 1.  Transmission of influenza A/H5N1 viruses in mammals.

Authors:  M Imai; S Herfst; E M Sorrell; E J A Schrauwen; M Linster; M De Graaf; R A M Fouchier; Y Kawaoka
Journal:  Virus Res       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 3.303

2.  Sequence analysis of the emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron in South Africa.

Authors:  Lulan Wang; Genhong Cheng
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 2.327

3.  Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults.

Authors:  Ben Killingley; Alex J Mann; Mariya Kalinova; Alison Boyers; Niluka Goonawardane; Jie Zhou; Kate Lindsell; Samanjit S Hare; Jonathan Brown; Rebecca Frise; Emma Smith; Claire Hopkins; Nicolas Noulin; Brandon Löndt; Tom Wilkinson; Stephen Harden; Helen McShane; Mark Baillet; Anthony Gilbert; Michael Jacobs; Christine Charman; Priya Mande; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Malcolm G Semple; Robert C Read; Neil M Ferguson; Peter J Openshaw; Garth Rapeport; Wendy S Barclay; Andrew P Catchpole; Christopher Chiu
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 87.241

4.  Neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant BA.1 following homologous and heterologous CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination.

Authors:  Samuel M S Cheng; Chris Ka Pun Mok; Yonna W Y Leung; Susanna S Ng; Karl C K Chan; Fanny W Ko; Chunke Chen; Karen Yiu; Bosco H S Lam; Eric H Y Lau; Ken K P Chan; Leo L H Luk; John K C Li; Leo C H Tsang; Leo L M Poon; David S C Hui; Malik Peiris
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 87.241

5.  Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters.

Authors:  Sin Fun Sia; Li-Meng Yan; Alex W H Chin; Kevin Fung; Ka-Tim Choy; Alvina Y L Wong; Prathanporn Kaewpreedee; Ranawaka A P M Perera; Leo L M Poon; John M Nicholls; Malik Peiris; Hui-Ling Yen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Structural and functional characterizations of infectivity and immune evasion of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron.

Authors:  Zhen Cui; Pan Liu; Nan Wang; Lei Wang; Kaiyue Fan; Qianhui Zhu; Kang Wang; Ruihong Chen; Rui Feng; Zijing Jia; Minnan Yang; Ge Xu; Boling Zhu; Wangjun Fu; Tianming Chu; Leilei Feng; Yide Wang; Xinran Pei; Peng Yang; Xiaoliang Sunney Xie; Lei Cao; Yunlong Cao; Xiangxi Wang
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 41.582

7.  Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions.

Authors:  Alex W H Chin; Julie T S Chu; Mahen R A Perera; Kenrie P Y Hui; Hui-Ling Yen; Michael C W Chan; Malik Peiris; Leo L M Poon
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2020-04-02

8.  A Surface Coating that Rapidly Inactivates SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Saeed Behzadinasab; Alex Chin; Mohsen Hosseini; Leo Poon; William A Ducker
Journal:  ACS Appl Mater Interfaces       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 9.229

9.  Altered TMPRSS2 usage by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron impacts infectivity and fusogenicity.

Authors:  Bo Meng; Adam Abdullahi; Isabella A T M Ferreira; Niluka Goonawardane; Akatsuki Saito; Izumi Kimura; Daichi Yamasoba; Pehuén Pereyra Gerber; Saman Fatihi; Surabhi Rathore; Samantha K Zepeda; Guido Papa; Steven A Kemp; Terumasa Ikeda; Mako Toyoda; Toong Seng Tan; Jin Kuramochi; Shigeki Mitsunaga; Takamasa Ueno; Kotaro Shirakawa; Akifumi Takaori-Kondo; Teresa Brevini; Donna L Mallery; Oscar J Charles; John E Bowen; Anshu Joshi; Alexandra C Walls; Laurelle Jackson; Darren Martin; Kenneth G C Smith; John Bradley; John A G Briggs; Jinwook Choi; Elo Madissoon; Kerstin B Meyer; Petra Mlcochova; Lourdes Ceron-Gutierrez; Rainer Doffinger; Sarah A Teichmann; Andrew J Fisher; Matteo S Pizzuto; Anna de Marco; Davide Corti; Myra Hosmillo; Joo Hyeon Lee; Leo C James; Lipi Thukral; David Veesler; Alex Sigal; Fotios Sampaziotis; Ian G Goodfellow; Nicholas J Matheson; Kei Sato; Ravindra K Gupta
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 69.504

  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  Differences in New Variant of Concern Replication at Physiological Temperatures In Vitro.

Authors:  Charles B Stauft; Kotou Sangare; Tony T Wang
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 7.759

2.  Ancestral lineage of SARS-CoV-2 is more stable in human biological fluids than Alpha, Beta and Omicron variants of concern.

Authors:  Taeyong Kwon; Natasha N Gaudreault; David A Meekins; Chester D McDowell; Konner Cool; Juergen A Richt
Journal:  bioRxiv       Date:  2022-08-19

3.  Regional Association between Mean Air Temperature and Case Numbers of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Lineages throughout the Pandemic.

Authors:  Camilla Mattiuzzi; Brandon M Henry; Giuseppe Lippi
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 5.818

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.