4.6 Article

Population Bottlenecks and Intra-host Evolution During Human-to-Human Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.585358

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; population bottleneck; intra-host variation; human to human transmission; evolution

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC1200100, 2018ZX10301403, 2018YFC1311900]
  2. emergency grants for prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 of Ministry of Science and Technology [2020YFC0841400]
  3. Guangdong province [2020B111107001, 2020B111108001, 2020B111109001, 2018B020207013, 2020B111112003]
  4. Guangdong Province Basic and Applied Basic Research Fund [2020A1515010911]
  5. Guangzhou Medical University High-level University Innovation Team Training Program (Guangzhou Medical University released [2017]) [159]
  6. Shenzhen Municipal Government of China Peacock Plan [KQTD2015033017150531]
  7. China National GeneBank (CNGB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found active viral replication in the respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients and genetically distinct viruses within the same host. Comparisons between viral populations among patients revealed a narrow transmission bottleneck within the same households, indicating a dominant role of stochastic dynamics in both inter-host and intra-host evolutions.
The emergence of the novel human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, causes a global COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic. Here, we have characterized and compared viral populations of SARS-CoV-2 among COVID-19 patients within and across households. Our work showed an active viral replication activity in the human respiratory tract and the co-existence of genetically distinct viruses within the same host. The inter-host comparison among viral populations further revealed a narrow transmission bottleneck between patients from the same households, suggesting a dominated role of stochastic dynamics in both inter-host and intra-host evolutions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据