Abstract
A new variant of SARS-CoV-2 has emerged which is increasing in frequency, primarily in the South East of England (lineage B.1.1.7 (1); VUI-202012/01). One potential hypothesis is that infection with the new variant results in higher viral loads, which in turn may make the virus more transmissible. We found higher (sequence derived) viral loads in samples from individuals infected with the new variant with median inferred viral loads were three-fold higher in individuals with the new variant. Most of the new variants were sampled in Kent and Greater London. We observed higher viral loads in Kent compared to Greater London for both the new variant and other circulating lineages. Outside Greater London, the variant has higher viral loads, whereas within Greater London, the new variant does not have significantly higher viral loads compared to other circulating lineages. Higher variant viral loads outside Greater London could be due to demographic effects, such as a faster variant growth rate compared to other lineages or concentration in particular age-groups. However, our analysis does not exclude a causal link between infection with the new variant and higher viral loads. This is a preliminary analysis and further work is needed to investigate any potential causal link between infection with this new variant and higher viral loads, and whether this results in higher transmissibility, severity of infection, or affects relative rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic infection
Document Description and Purpose This is an updated report submitted to NERVTAG in December 2020 as part of urgent investigations into the new variant of SARS-COV-2 (VUI-202012/01). It makes full use of (and is restricted to) all sequence data and associated metadata available to us at the time this original report was submitted and remains provisional. Under normal circumstances more genomes and metadata would be obtained and included before making this report public. We will update this preprint when more genomes and metadata are available and before submitting for peer review.
Background
On 14 December 2020 a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the UK was reported (2, 3), characterised by the N501Y mutation in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of Spike, the ΔH69/V70 deletion, and numerous other mutations (1). The rise in frequency of this variant is associated with a sharp increase in reported cases in the South East of England, raising concerns that the variant could be more transmissible. We performed a rapid analysis to investigate whether the new variant is associated with higher viral loads, since higher viral loads may indicate increased transmissibility.
Methods
As members of the COG-UK consortium (https://www.cogconsortium.uk/), we sequenced RT-QPCR SARS-CoV-2 positive samples originating from four UK Lighthouse laboratories, which provide Pillar 2 COVID-19 testing services. The samples were sequenced using veSEQ, our quantitative sequencing approach for which the number of unique mapped reads is correlated with, and thus can be used as a proxy for, viral load. For a full description of the sequencing protocol see (4, 5).
We used log10 (mapped reads) as a proxy for viral load (see fig S1 in (5)). Comparisons between distributions of log10 (mapped reads) were made using Welsh t-test (two-tailed), with p-values combined using Stouffer’s method where appropriate. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Number of unique mapped reads is negatively correlated with Ct value
Given the known negative correlation between viral load and cycle threshold (Ct) values (6) obtained during PCR testing (7), we first confirmed a strong negative correlation between log10(unique mapped reads) and Ct values for samples that we sequenced from Lighthouse laboratories (linear regression, r2=0.43, p<<0.001, Fig. 1).
The new variant is associated with higher viral loads
The N501Y mutation is strongly linked with other mutations characterising the new variant (VUI-202012/01) in our dataset, including the ΔH69/V70 deletion, and therefore we used Y501 as a marker of the new variant. The ΔH69/V70 deletion alone is not a specific marker of VUI-202012/01 in our data, while lineage B.1.1.70, which is currently present in Wales and in some cases carries Y501 but never the deletion, was not present in our data.
We identified 88 samples that produced consensus sequences with the Y501 variant. All variant samples were taken between 31 Oct 2020 and 13 Nov 2020, and therefore we only considered samples (Y501 and N501) taken during this period, since Ct values have been shown to vary by calendar time (7).
When comparing the number of unique mapped reads in the Y501 variant samples (median log10(reads)=4.64, N=88) with that in the to N501 samples (median log10(reads)=4.16, N=1299), we found higher counts in the former (Welch t-Test p=0.014; Fig. 1). This is equivalent to around 3-fold higher median viral loads in the Y501 variant samples compared to N501 samples.
This result remained significant when we controlled for batch (Fig. 3a, p=0.011, combined p-value via Stouffer’s method), but not Lighthouse laboratory (Fig. 3b, p=0.052). The correlation between the new variant and viral load is also associated with a relative paucity of samples with lower (<103) mapped reads among Y501 samples (Fig. 1, p=0.0053, chi-squared test; 103 logged mapped reads is equivalent to a viral load of ∼104 copies per reaction, max Ct∼28). When comparing samples with just the ΔH69/V70 deletion (without the Y501 variant) to samples without the deletion, we did not find a significant difference in log10(reads) (p=0.86; controlling for batch p=0.56, and for Lighthouse lab p=0.54) (Fig. 1).
Viral loads differ by sampling location
To test whether the difference in viral loads for samples with the new variant could in part be explained by geographic effects, we considered the sampling location (adm2 district) where this information was available. Of the 88 Y501 variants sampled, 24 were in Greater London, 46 in Kent, and in lower numbers (N=1-5) in other areas (Bristol, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Surrey and West Sussex). Regardless of variant presence, all samples from Greater London had significantly lower viral loads than those from other locations (p=0.0016, Welch’s t-test), and the association between Y501 and higher viral load was not significant in this region (p=0.91; Fig. 4). Outside Greater London, viral loads for Y501 were significantly higher than for N501 (p=0.0068). Within Kent, the location with the greatest number of Y501 samples, Y501 viral loads were not significantly higher than N501 viral loads (p=0.089). These results indicate a correlation between infection with the new variant (VUI-202012/01) and (inferred) viral load outside Greater London, although we are currently underpowered to draw firm conclusions. The lack of association within Greater London could be due to lack of power, or to demographic or epidemiological differences in London compared with the other locations.
In a multivariate logistic regression analysis for variables associated with higher viral load (Table 1), the Y501 variant was associated with a fivefold increase in odds of >=103 mapped reads (p=0.036). The fitted model with interaction terms suggest a much smaller effect of the variant outside Kent, with the total odds increase reduced to 1.75 for Greater London and 1.24 for other regions, but the interaction term coefficients were not statistically significant (p=0.27 and p=0.16, respectively). Thus, if the association of the variant with a paucity of low viral load samples is stronger in Kent compared to other areas (e.g. due to epidemiological, demographic, or sampling differences), we lack the necessary power to demonstrate it. No other variables showed evidence of an association.
Odds ratios for each variable and 95% confidence intervals for those ratios are presented. Lighthouse labs are anonymised as in Fig. 2.
Caveats and Limitations
This is a preliminary analysis, and other factors could explain the (inferred) higher viral loads in samples with the new variant (VUI-202012/01), in addition to a working hypothesis that there is a causal effect of the new variant on within-host virus abundance. Whether the correlation is causative (infections with the new variant have higher viral loads) or correlative (e.g. due to epidemiological dynamics, demographics of individuals infected with the new variant, and/or sampling) warrants further study.
Individuals contributing samples in this analysis were tested as part of the test and trace program, which is primarily aimed towards individuals seeking a test following the onset of symptoms. We observed a broad spectrum of viral loads among the samples we sequenced. Given known associations between lower viral loads and later infection (8), and higher viral loads at the onset of symptoms, this suggests our full dataset consists of individuals in both early and late stages of symptomatic infection. Whilst we do not a priori expect there to be a systematic difference in the timing of sampling relative to infection, in an exponentially growing population the expectation is to sample relatively more people early in infection (9). Whether or not early sampling-bias supports an effect on inferred viral loads will depend on the relative epidemiological dynamics of the new and other variants. If, for example, VUI-202012/01 is growing faster, this could result in a bias for it to be sampled earlier. This is consistent with the relative paucity of VUI-202012/01 samples with low viral load.
In addition, VUI-202012/01 might be circulating within particular demographics (e.g. age groups) that tend to have higher viral loads when sampled. This may explain the apparently different patterns in Greater London and elsewhere. Focussed transmission within a particular demographic group is also more likely during the early stages of epidemic growth of a given lineage, before it disperses into the wider population. We were unable to test these hypotheses as we did not have demographic data relating to the sampled individuals with the new variant. We also cannot rule out other additional confounding effects and recommend that such effects are investigated further.
Future prospects
A number of processess could have caused the rapid growth of the new variant (VUI-202012/01), including founder effects, or biological mechanisms that increase its transmissibility. Higher viral loads are one such potential mechanism: Transmissibility of viruses is understood to be higher in individuals who exhibit higher viral loads (10) and in HIV viral load is partly determined by virus genotype (11). Our observation of higher inferred viral loads in individuals infected with the new variant suggests that increased transmissibility of the new variant is plausible, but important caveats remain.
We recommend further investigations to evaluate this hypothesis. We note that we have used Y501 as a marker for the new variant; a large number of other mutations also characterise this new variant lineage (1), and therefore Y501 per se might not be causing the effect (if there is one). We also note that higher viral loads can be associated with higher levels of viral virulence, and therefore links between the new variant and the severity of infection should be monitored carefully (12).
Whether or not observed higher viral loads associated with this variant are a direct cause of infection with the variant, a consequence of faster epidemic growth, or linked to particular demographics, our data are consistent with rapid growth of this specific lineage.
Data Availability
All genomic data has been made publicly available as part of the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium via GISAID and via the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) study PRJEB37886.
Ethics
The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium study protocol was approved by the Public Health England Research Ethics and Governance Group (reference: R&D NR0195) on the 8th of April 2020. The decision was communicated to Professor Sharon Peacock by Dr Elizabeth Coates, Head of Research Governance, PHE Research Support and Governance Office.
Funding
The UK COVID-19 Genomics Consortium (COG UK) is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. The research was supported by the Wellcome Trust Core Award Grant Number 203141/Z/16/Z with funding from the NIHR Oxford BRC. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. KAL and HRF are supported by The Wellcome Trust and The Royal Society (107652/Z/15/Z) and by Li Ka Shing Foundation funding awarded to KL. TG, MH, LF, MdC, GMC, CF and DB are supported by Li Ka Shing Foundation funding awarded to CF.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Lorne Lornie, Angie Green, The Oxford Genomics Centre and The Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, for all their support in generating the data for this study.
Appendix:
COG-UK Full list of consortium names and affiliations
Funding acquisition, leadership, supervision, metadata curation, project administration, samples, logistics, Sequencing, analysis, and Software and analysis tools
Thomas R Connor 33, 34, and Nicholas J Loman 15.
Leadership, supervision, sequencing, analysis, funding acquisition, metadata curation, project administration, samples, logistics, and visualisation
Samuel C Robson 68.
Leadership, supervision, project administration, visualisation, samples, logistics, metadata curation and software and analysis tools
Tanya Golubchik 27.
Leadership, supervision, metadata curation, project administration, samples, logistics sequencing and analysis
M. Estee Torok 8, 10.
Project administration, metadata curation, samples, logistics, sequencing, analysis, and software and analysis tools
Leadership, supervision, samples logistics, project administration, funding acquisition sequencing and analysis
David Bonsall 27.
Leadership and supervision, sequencing, analysis, funding acquisition, visualisation and software and analysis tools
Ali R Awan 74.
Leadership and supervision, funding acquisition, sequencing, analysis, metadata curation, samples and logistics
Sally Corden33.
Leadership supervision, sequencing analysis, samples, logistics, and metadata curation
Ian Goodfellow 11.
Leadership, supervision, sequencing, analysis, samples, logistics, and Project administration
Darren L Smith 60, 61.
Project administration, metadata curation, samples, logistics, sequencing and analysis
Martin D Curran 14, and Surendra Parmar 14.
Samples, logistics, metadata curation, project administration sequencing and analysis
James G Shepherd 21.
Sequencing, analysis, project administration, metadata curation and software and analysis tools
Leadership, supervision, funding acquisition, samples, logistics, and metadata curation
Catherine Moore 33.
Leadership, supervision, metadata curation, samples, logistics, sequencing and analysis
Derek J Fairley6, 88, Matthew W Loose 54, and Joanne Watkins 33.
Metadata curation, sequencing, analysis, leadership, supervision and software and analysis tools
Matthew Bull 33, and Sam Nicholls 15.
Leadership, supervision, visualisation, sequencing, analysis and software and analysis tools
David M Aanensen 1, 30.
Sequencing, analysis, samples, logistics, metadata curation, and visualisation
Sharon Glaysher 70.
Metadata curation, sequencing, analysis, visualisation, software and analysis tools
Matthew Bashton 60, and Nicole Pacchiarini 33.
Sequencing, analysis, visualisation, metadata curation, and software and analysis tools: Anthony P Underwood 1, 30
Funding acquisition, leadership, supervision and project administration
Thushan I de Silva 38, and Dennis Wang 38.
Project administration, samples, logistics, leadership and supervision
Monique Andersson28, Anoop J Chauhan 70, Mariateresa de Cesare 26, Catherine Ludden 1,3, and Tabitha W Mahungu 91.
Sequencing, analysis, project administration and metadata curation
Rebecca Dewar 20, and Martin P McHugh 20.
Samples, logistics, metadata curation and project administration
Natasha G Jesudason 21, Kathy K Li MBBCh 21, Rajiv N Shah 21, and Yusri Taha 66.
Leadership, supervision, funding acquisition and metadata curation
Kate E Templeton 20.
Leadership, supervision, funding acquisition, sequencing and analysis
Simon Cottrell 33, Justin O’Grady 51, Andrew Rambaut 19, and Colin P Smith93.
Leadership, supervision, metadata curation, sequencing and analysis
Matthew T.G. Holden 87, and Emma C Thomson 21.
Leadership, supervision, samples, logistics and metadata curation
Samuel Moses 81, 82.
Sequencing, analysis, leadership, supervision, samples and logistics
Meera Chand 7, Chrystala Constantinidou 71, Alistair C Darby 46, Julian A Hiscox 46, Steve Paterson 46, and Meera Unnikrishnan 71.
Sequencing, analysis, leadership and supervision and software and analysis tools
Andrew J Page 51, and Erik M Volz 96.
Samples, logistics, sequencing, analysis and metadata curation
Charlotte J Houldcroft 8, Aminu S Jahun 11, James P McKenna 88, Luke W Meredith 11, Andrew Nelson 61, Sarojini Pandey 72, and Gregory R Young 60.
Sequencing, analysis, metadata curation, and software and analysis tools
Anna Price 34, Sara Rey 33, Sunando Roy 41, Ben Temperton49, and Matthew Wyles 38.
Sequencing, analysis, metadata curation and visualisation
Stefan Rooke19, and Sharif Shaaban 87.
Visualisation, sequencing, analysis and software and analysis tools
Helen Adams 35, Yann Bourgeois 69, Katie F Loveson 68, Áine O’Toole 19, and Richard Stark 71.
Project administration, leadership and supervision
Ewan M Harrison 1, 3, David Heyburn 33, and Sharon J Peacock 2, 3
Project administration and funding acquisition
David Buck 26, and Michaela John36
Sequencing, analysis and project administration
Dorota Jamrozy 1, and Joshua Quick 15
Samples, logistics, and project administration
Rahul Batra 78, Katherine L Bellis 1, 3, Beth Blane 3, Sophia T Girgis 3, Angie Green 26, Anita Justice 28, Mark Kristiansen 41, and Rachel J Williams 41.
Project administration, software and analysis tools
Radoslaw Poplawski15.
Project administration and visualisation
Garry P Scarlett 69.
Leadership, supervision, and funding acquisition
John A Todd 26, Christophe Fraser 27, Judith Breuer 40,41, Sergi Castellano 41, Stephen L Michell49, Dimitris Gramatopoulos 73, and Jonathan Edgeworth 78.
Leadership, supervision and metadata curation
Gemma L Kay 51.
Leadership, supervision, sequencing and analysis
Ana da Silva Filipe 21, Aaron R Jeffries 49, Sascha Ott 71, Oliver Pybus 24, David L Robertson 21, David A Simpson 6, and Chris Williams 33.
Samples, logistics, leadership and supervision
Cressida Auckland 50, John Boyes 83, Samir Dervisevic 52, Sian Ellard 49, 50, Sonia Goncalves1, Emma J Meader 51, Peter Muir 2, Husam Osman 95, Reenesh Prakash 52, Venkat Sivaprakasam
18, and Ian B Vipond 2.
Leadership, supervision and visualisation
Jane AH Masoli 49, 50.
Sequencing, analysis and metadata curation
Nabil-Fareed Alikhan 51, Matthew Carlile 54, Noel Craine 33, Sam T Haldenby 46, Nadine Holmes 54, Ronan A Lyons 37, Christopher Moore 54, Malorie Perry 33, Ben Warne 80, and Thomas Williams 19.
Samples, logistics and metadata curation
Lisa Berry 72, Andrew Bosworth 95, Julianne Rose Brown 40, Sharon Campbell 67, Anna Casey17, Gemma Clark 56, Jennifer Collins 66, Alison Cox 43, 44, Thomas Davis 84, Gary Eltringham 66,Cariad Evans 38, 39, Clive Graham 64, Fenella Halstead 18, Kathryn Ann Harris 40, ChristopherHolmes 58, Stephanie Hutchings 2, Miren Iturriza-Gomara 46, Kate Johnson 38, 39, Katie Jones 72, Alexander J Keeley 38, Bridget A Knight 49, 50, Cherian Koshy90, Steven Liggett 63, Hannah Lowe 81, Anita O Lucaci 46, Jessica Lynch 25, 29, Patrick C McClure 55, Nathan Moore 31, Matilde Mori 25, 29, 32, David G Partridge 38, 39, Pinglawathee Madona 43, 44, Hannah MPymont 2, Paul Anthony Randell 43, 44, Mohammad Raza 38, 39, Felicity Ryan 81, Robert Shaw28, Tim J Sloan 57, and Emma Swindells 65.
Sequencing, analysis, Samples and logistics
Alexander Adams 33, Hibo Asad 33, Alec Birchley 33, Tony Thomas Brooks 41, Giselda Bucca 93, Ethan Butcher 70, Sarah L Caddy 13, Laura G Caller 2, 3, 12, Yasmin Chaudhry 11, Jason Coombes33, Michelle Cronin 33, Patricia L Dyal 41, Johnathan M Evans 33, Laia Fina 33, Bree Gatica-Wilcox 33, Iliana Georgana 11, Lauren Gilbert 33, Lee Graham 33, Danielle C Groves 38, Grant Hall 11, Ember Hilvers 33, Myra Hosmillo 11, Hannah Jones 33, Sophie Jones 33, Fahad A Khokhar 13, Sara Kumziene-Summerhayes 33, George MacIntyre-Cockett 26, Rocio T Martinez Nunez 94, Caoimhe McKerr 33, Claire McMurray 15, Richard Myers 7, Yasmin Nicole Panchbhaya 41, Malte L Pinckert 11, Amy Plimmer 33, Joanne Stockton 15, Sarah Taylor 33, Alicia Thornton 7, Amy Trebes 26, Alexander J Trotter 51, Helena Jane Tutill 41, Charlotte A Williams 41, Anna Yakovleva 11 and Wen C Yew 62.
Sequencing, analysis and software and analysis tools
Mohammad T Alam 71, Laura Baxter 71, Olivia Boyd 96, Fabricia F. Nascimento 96, Timothy M Freeman 38, Lily Geidelberg 96, Joseph Hughes 21, David Jorgensen 96, Benjamin B Lindsey 38,Richard J Orton 21, Manon Ragonnet-Cronin 96 Joel Southgate 33, 34, and Sreenu Vattipally 21.
Samples, logistics and software and analysis tools
Igor Starinskij 23.
Visualisation and software and analysis tools
Joshua B Singer 21, Khalil Abudahab 1, 30, Leonardo de Oliveira Martins 51, Thanh Le-Viet 51, Mirko Menegazzo 30, Ben EW Taylor 1, 30, and Corin A Yeats 30.
Project Administration
Sophie Palmer 3, Carol M Churcher 3, Alisha Davies 33, Elen De Lacy 33, Fatima Downing 33, Sue Edwards 33, Nikki Smith 38, Francesc Coll 97, Nazreen F Hadjirin 3 and Frances Bolt 44, 45.
Leadership and supervision
Alex Alderton1, Matt Berriman1, Ian G Charles 51, Nicholas Cortes 31, Tanya Curran 88, John Danesh1, Sahar Eldirdiri 84, Ngozi Elumogo 52, Andrew Hattersley 49, 50, Alison Holmes 44, 45, Robin Howe 33, Rachel Jones 33, Anita Kenyon 84, Robert A Kingsley 51, Dominic Kwiatkowski 1, 9, Cordelia Langford1, Jenifer Mason48, Alison E Mather 51, Lizzie Meadows 51, Sian Morgan 36, James Price 44, 45, Trevor I Robinson 48, Giri Shankar 33, John Wain 51, and Mark A Webber 51.
Metadata curation
Declan T Bradley 5, 6, Michael R Chapman 1, 3, 4, Derrick Crooke 28, David Eyre 28, Martyn Guest34, Huw Gulliver 34, Sarah Hoosdally 28, Christine Kitchen 34, Ian Merrick 34, SiddharthMookerjee 44, 45, Robert Munn 34, Timothy Peto 28, Will Potter 52, Dheeraj K Sethi 52, Wendy Smith 56, Luke B Snell 75, 94, Rachael Stanley 52, Claire Stuart 52 and Elizabeth Wastenge20.
Sequencing and analysis
Erwan Acheson 6, Safiah Afifi 36, Elias Allara 2, 3, Roberto Amato 1, Adrienn Angyal 38, Elihu Aranday-Cortes 21, Cristina Ariani 1, Jordan Ashworth 19, Stephen Attwood 24, Alp Aydin 51, David J Baker 51, Carlos E Balcazar 19, Angela Beckett 68 Robert Beer 36, Gilberto Betancor 76, Emma Betteridge 1, David Bibby 7, Daniel Bradshaw7, Catherine Bresner 34, Hannah E Bridgewater 71, Alice Broos 21, Rebecca Brown 38, Paul E Brown 71, Kirstyn Brunker 22, Stephen N Carmichael 21, Jeffrey K. J. Cheng 71, Dr Rachel Colquhoun 19, Gavin Dabrera 7, Johnny Debebe 54, Eleanor Drury 1, Louis du Plessis 24, Richard Eccles 46, Nicholas Ellaby 7, Audrey Farbos 49, Ben Farr 1, Jacqueline Findlay 41, Chloe L Fisher 74, Leysa Marie Forrest 41, Sarah Francois 24, Lucy R. Frost 71, William Fuller34, Eileen Gallagher 7, Michael D Gallagher 19, Matthew Gemmell 46, Rachel AJ Gilroy 51, Scott Goodwin 1, Luke R Green 38, Richard Gregory 46, Natalie Groves 7, James W Harrison 49, Hassan Hartman 7, Andrew R Hesketh 93,Verity Hill 19, Jonathan Hubb 7, Margaret Hughes46, David K Jackson 1, Ben Jackson 19, Keith James 1,Natasha Johnson 21, Ian Johnston 1, Jon-Paul Keatley 1, Moritz Kraemer 24, Angie Lackenby 7, Mara Lawniczak 1, David Lee 7, Rich Livett 1, Stephanie Lo 1, Daniel Mair 21, Joshua Maksimovic 36, Nikos Manesis 7, Robin Manley 49, Carmen Manso 7, Angela Marchbank 34, Inigo Martincorena 1, Tamyo Mbisa 7, Kathryn McCluggage 36, JT McCrone 19, Shahjahan Miah 7, Michelle L Michelsen 49, Mari Morgan 33, Gaia Nebbia 78,Charlotte Nelson 46, Jenna Nichols 21, Paola Niola 41, Kyriaki Nomikou 21, Steve Palmer 1, Naomi Park 1, Yasmin A Parr 1, Paul J Parsons 38, Vineet Patel 7, Minal Patel 1, Clare Pearson 2, 1, Steven Platt 7, Christoph Puethe 1, Mike Quail 1,Jayna Raghwani 24, Lucille Rainbow 46, Shavanthi Rajatileka 1, Mary Ramsay 7, Paola C Resende Silva 41, 42, Steven Rudder 51, Chris Ruis 3, Christine M Sambles 49, Fei Sang 54, Ulf Schaefer7, Emily Scher 19, Carol Scott 1, Lesley Shirley 1, Adrian W Signell 76, John Sillitoe 1, Christen Smith 1, Dr Katherine L Smollett 21, Karla Spellman 36, Thomas D Stanton 19, David J Studholme 49, Grace Taylor-Joyce 71, Ana P Tedim 51, Thomas Thompson 6,Nicholas M Thomson 51, Scott Thurston1, Lily Tong 21, Gerry Tonkin-Hill 1, Rachel M Tucker 38, Edith E Vamos 4, Tetyana Vasylyeva24, Joanna Warwick-Dugdale 49, Danni Weldon 1, Mark Whitehead 46, David Williams 7, Kathleen A Williamson 19,Harry D Wilson 76,Trudy Workman34, Muhammad Yasir51, Xiaoyu Yu 19, and Alex Zarebski 24.
Samples and logistics
Evelien M Adriaenssens 51, Shazaad S Y Ahmad 2, 47, Adela Alcolea-Medina 59, 77, John Allan 60, Patawee Asamaphan 21, Laura Atkinson 40, Paul Baker 63, Jonathan Ball 55, Edward Barton64, Mathew A Beale1, Charlotte Beaver1, Andrew Beggs 16, Andrew Bell 51, Duncan J Berger 1, Louise Berry. 56, Claire M Bewshea 49, Kelly Bicknell 70, Paul Bird 58, Chloe Bishop 7, Tim Boswell 56, Cassie Breen 48, Sarah K Buddenborg1, Shirelle Burton-Fanning 66, Vicki Chalker 7, Joseph G Chappell 55, Themoula Charalampous 78, 94, Claire Cormie3, Nick Cortes29, 25, Lindsay J Coupland 52, Angela Cowell 48, Rose K Davidson 53, Joana Dias 3, Maria Diaz 51, Thomas Dibling1, Matthew J Dorman1, Nichola Duckworth57, Scott Elliott70, Sarah Essex63, Karlie Fallon 58, Theresa Feltwell 8, Vicki M Fleming 56, Sally Forrest 3, Luke Foulser1, Maria V Garcia-Casado1, Artemis Gavriil 41, Ryan P George 47, Laura Gifford 33, Harmeet K Gill 3, Jane Greenaway 65, Luke Griffith53, Ana Victoria Gutierrez51, Antony D Hale 85, Tanzina Haque 91,Katherine L Harper 85, Ian Harrison 7, Judith Heaney 89, Thomas Helmer 58, Ellen E Higginson3, Richard Hopes 2, Hannah C Howson-Wells 56, Adam D Hunter 1, Robert Impey 70, DianneIrish-Tavares 91, David A Jackson1, Kathryn A Jackson 46, Amelia Joseph 56, Leanne Kane 1,Sally Kay 1, Leanne M Kermack 3, Manjinder Khakh 56, Stephen P Kidd 29, 25,31, Anastasia Kolyva51, Jack CD Lee 40, Laura Letchford 1, Nick Levene 79, Lisa J Levett 89, Michelle M Lister 56,Allyson Lloyd 70, Joshua Loh 60, Louissa R Macfarlane-Smith 85, Nicholas W Machin 2, 47, Mailis Maes 3, Samantha McGuigan 1, Liz McMinn 1, Lamia Mestek-Boukhibar 41, Zoltan Molnar 6, Lynn Monaghan 79, Catrin Moore 27, Plamena Naydenova 3, Alexandra S Neaverson 1, Rachel Nelson 1, Marc O Niebel 21, Elaine O’Toole48, Debra Padgett 64, Gaurang Patel 1, Brendan AI Payne 66, Liam Prestwood 1, Veena Raviprakash 67, Nicola Reynolds86, Alex Richter 16, Esther Robinson 95, Hazel A Rogers1, Aileen Rowan 96, Garren Scott 64, Divya Shah 40, Nicola Sheriff 67, Graciela Sluga, Emily Souster1, Michael Spencer-Chapman1, Sushmita Sridhar 1, 3, Tracey Swingler 53, Julian Tang58, Graham P Taylor96, Theocharis Tsoleridis 55, Lance Turtle46, Sarah Walsh 57, Michelle Wantoch 86, Joanne Watts 48, Sheila Waugh 66, Sam Weeks41, Rebecca Williams31, Iona Willingham56, Emma L Wise 25, 29, 31, Victoria Wright 54, Sarah Wyllie 70, and Jamie Young 3.
Software and analysis tools
Amy Gaskin33, Will Rowe 15, and Igor Siveroni 96.
Visualisation
Robert Johnson 96.
1 Wellcome Sanger Institute, 2 Public Health England, 3 University of Cambridge, 4 Health Data Research UK, Cambridge, 5 Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland, 6 Queen’s University Belfast 7 Public Health England Colindale, 8 Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, 9 University of Oxford, 10 Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Cambridge, UK, 11 Division of Virology, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, 12 The Francis Crick Institute, 13 Cambridge Institute for Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, 14 Public Health England, Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Cambridge, UK, 15 Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, 16 University of Birmingham, 17 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 18 Heartlands Hospital, 19 University of Edinburgh, 20 NHS Lothian, 21 MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, 22 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, 23 West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre, 24 Dept Zoology, University of Oxford, 25 University of Surrey, 26 Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 27 Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 28 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 29 Basingstoke Hospital, 30 Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance, University of Oxford, 31 Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 32 University of Southampton, 33 Public Health Wales NHS Trust, 34 Cardiff University, 35 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, 36 Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, 37 Swansea University, 38 University of Sheffield, 39 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, 40 Great Ormond Street NHS Foundation Trust, 41 University College London, 42 Oswaldo Cruz Institute, Rio de Janeiro 43 North West London Pathology, 44 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, 45 NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, 46 University of Liverpool, 47 Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, 48 Liverpool Clinical Laboratories, 49 University of Exeter, 50 Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, 51 Quadram Institute Bioscience, University of East Anglia, 52 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, 53 University of East Anglia, 54 Deep Seq, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 55 Virology, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 56 Clinical Microbiology Department, Queens Medical Centre, 57 PathLinks, Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust, 58 Clinical Microbiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, 59 Viapath, 60 Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, Northumbria University, 61 NU-OMICS Northumbria University, 62 Northumbria University, 63 South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 64 North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, 65 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, 66 Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 67 County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, 68 Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth, 69 School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, 70 Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, 71 University of Warwick, 72 University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, 73 Warwick Medical School and Institute of Precision Diagnostics, Pathology, UHCW NHS Trust, 74 Genomics Innovation Unit, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 75 Centre for Clinical Infection & Diagnostics Research, St. Thomas’ Hospital and Kings College London, 76 Department of Infectious Diseases, King’s College London, 77 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 78 Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 79 Princess Alexandra Hospital Microbiology Dept., 80 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 81 East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, 82 University of Kent, 83 Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 84 Department of Microbiology, Kettering General Hospital, 85 National Infection Service, PHE and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, 86 Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, 87 Public Health Scotland, 88 Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, 89 Health Services Laboratories, 90 Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, 91 Royal Free NHS Trust, 92 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, 93 University of Brighton, 94 Kings College London, 95 PHE Heartlands, 96 Imperial College London, 97 Department of Infection Biology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Footnotes
↵3 www.cogconsortium.uk. Full list of names and affiliations are in the Appendix.