4.8 Article

Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus

Journal

CELL
Volume 182, Issue 4, Pages 812-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC), part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)
  2. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)
  3. Genome Research Limited
  4. Wellcome Trust [110058/Z/15/Z]
  5. NIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
  6. LANL LDRD projects [20200554ECR, 20200706ER]
  7. NIH NIAID, DHHS Interagency Agreement [AAI12007-001-00000]
  8. John and Mary Tu Foundation
  9. San Diego CFAR [AI036214]
  10. NIH NIAID [AI42742]
  11. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [CoVIC INV-006133]
  12. Mastercard
  13. Wellcome
  14. Emergent Ventures
  15. Overton family
  16. Wellcome Trust [110058/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A SARS-CoV-2 variant carrying the Spike protein amino acid change D614G has become the most prevalent form in the global pandemic. Dynamic tracking of variant frequencies revealed a recurrent pattern of G614 increase at multiple geographic levels: national, regional, and municipal. The shift occurred even in local epidemics where the original D614 form was well established prior to introduction of the G614 variant. The consistency of this pattern was highly statistically significant, suggesting that the G614 variant may have a fitness advantage. We found that the G614 variant grows to a higher titer as pseudotyped virions. In infected individuals, G614 is associated with lower RT-PCR cycle thresholds, suggestive of higher upper respiratory tract viral loads, but not with increased disease severity. These findings illuminate changes important for a mechanistic understanding of the virus and support continuing surveillance of Spike mutations to aid with development of immunological interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available