4.2 Article

Assessing the extent of community spread caused by mink-derived SARS-CoV-2 variants

期刊

INNOVATION
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100128

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; mink; human-to-human transmission

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  2. Strategic Priority Research Programme of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB29010102]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [32041010, 31900155]
  4. NSFC Outstanding Young Scholars [31900155]
  5. Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS [2017122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that at least 12.5% of all individuals infected with human-transmitted dominant mink-derived SARS-CoV-2 variants in Denmark and the Netherlands were caused by human-to-human transmission. This suggests the need for monitoring and prevention measures to avoid large-scale community transmission caused by the virus jumping between animals and humans.
SARS-CoV-2 has recently been found to have spread from humans to minks and then to have transmitted back to humans. However, it is unknown to what extent the human-to-human transmission caused by the variant has reached. Here, we used publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences from both humans and minks collected in Denmark and the Netherlands, and combined phylogenetic analysis with Bayesian inference under an epidemiological model, to trace the possibility of person-to-person transmission. The results showed that at least 12.5% of all people being infected with dominated minkderived SARS-CoV-2 variants in Denmark and the Netherlands were caused by human-to-human transmission, indicating that this backto-human SARS-CoV-2 variant has already caused human-to-human transmission. Our study also indicated the need for monitoring this mink-derived and other animal source back-to-human SARS-CoV-2 in future and that prevention and control measures should be tailored to avoid large-scale community transmission caused by the virus jumping between animals and humans.

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

4.2
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