Abstract
A detailed understanding of how and when SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs is crucial for designing effective prevention measures. Other than contact tracing, genome sequencing provides information to help infer who infected whom. However, the effectiveness of the genomic approach in this context depends on both (high enough) mutation and (low enough) transmission rates. Today, the level of resolution that we can obtain when describing SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks using just genomic information alone remains unclear. In order to answer this question, we sequenced 49 SARS-CoV-2 patient samples from ten local clusters for which partial epidemiological information was available, and inferred transmission history using genomic variants. Importantly, we obtained high-quality genomic data, sequencing each sample twice and using unique barcodes to exclude cross-sample contamination. Phylogenetic and cluster analyses showed that consensus genomes were generally sufficient to discriminate among independent transmission clusters. However, levels of intrahost variation were low, which prevented in most cases the unambiguous identification of direct transmission events. After filtering out recurrent variants across clusters, the genomic data were generally compatible with the epidemiological information but did not support specific transmission events over possible alternatives. We estimated the effective transmission bottleneck size to be 1-2 viral particles for sample pairs whose donor-recipient relationship was likely. Our analyses suggest that intrahost genomic variation in SARS-CoV-2 might be generally limited and that homoplasy and recurrent errors complicate identifying shared intrahost variants. Reliable reconstruction of direct SARS-CoV-2 transmission based solely on genomic data seems hindered by a slow mutation rate, potential convergent events, and technical artifacts. Detailed contact tracing seems essential in most cases to study SARS-CoV-2 transmission at high resolution.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project was funded by grant EPICOVIGAL FONDO SUPERA-COVID19 from Banco Santander-CSIC-CRUE, grant CT850A-2 from ACIS SERGAS from the Consellería de Sanidade Xunta de Galicia, and grant ED431C2018/54-GRC from the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria of Xunta de Galicia. NS and TT were supported in part by a C3.ai Digital Transformation Institute award.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was conducted under the approval of the Galician Drug Research Ethics Committee (CEIm-G code 2020-301).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Raw FASTQ files will be deposited at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive (SRA) (Leinonen et al. 2011). Viral consensus genomes will be available at the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) (Shu and McCauley 2017). Contact authors for details.
