Abstract
Persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections may act as viral reservoirs that could seed future outbreaks 1–5, give rise to highly divergent lineages 6–8, and contribute to cases with post-acute Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) sequelae (Long Covid) 9,10. However, the population prevalence of persistent infections, their viral load kinetics, and evolutionary dynamics over the course of infections remain largely unknown. We identified 381 infections lasting at least 30 days, of which 54 lasted at least 60 days. These persistently infected individuals had more than 50% higher odds of self-reporting Long Covid compared to the infected controls, and we estimate that 0.09-0.5% of SARS-CoV-2 infections can become persistent and last for at least 60 days. In nearly 70% of the persistent infections we identified, there were long periods during which there were no consensus changes in virus sequences, consistent with prolonged presence of non-replicating virus. Our findings also suggest reinfections with the same major lineage are rare and that many persistent infections are characterised by relapsing viral load dynamics. Furthermore, we found a strong signal for positive selection during persistent infections, with multiple amino acid substitutions in the Spike and ORF1ab genes emerging independently in different individuals, including mutations that are lineage-defining for SARS-CoV-2 variants, at target sites for several monoclonal antibodies, and commonly found in immunocompromised patients 11–14. This work has significant implications for understanding and characterising SARS-CoV-2 infection, epidemiology, and evolution.
Main
The emergence of highly divergent variants of SARS-CoV-2 has been a defining feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the evolutionary origins of these variants are still a matter of speculation, multiple pieces of evidence point to chronic persistent infections as their most likely source 5,7,15. In particular, infections in immunocompromised patients who cannot clear the virus may lead to persistence for months 6,7,16,17 or even years 8,18 before potentially seeding new outbreaks in the community 3. Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 during chronic infections exposes the viral population to host-immune responses and other selective pressures as a result of treatments over prolonged periods of time. They also release the virus from undergoing the tight population bottlenecks that are characteristic of SARS-CoV-2 transmission 19,20, making the viral population less vulnerable to stochastic genetic drift. These adaptive intrahost changes can lead to elevated evolutionary rates, particularly in key regions of the Spike protein that are often associated with immune escape and elevated rates of transmission 13,14. Despite the significant public health implications of persistent infections, uncertainty still surrounds how common these infections are among the general population, how long they last, their potential for adaptive evolution, and their contribution to Long Covid.
In this work, we leveraged genetic, symptom, and epidemiological data from the Office for National Statistics Covid Infection Survey (ONS-CIS) 21, an ongoing large scale community-based surveillance study carried out in the UK. We identified individuals with persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection and characterised various aspects of their infection including evolutionary changes in the virus, viral load kinetics, number of reported symptoms, and prevalence of Long Covid.
Identifying persistent infections
We considered more than 100,000 high-quality sequenced samples from the ONS-CIS collected between 2nd November 2020 to 15th August 2022, and representing ∼95,000 people living in ∼75,000 households across the UK (see Methods). Individuals in the survey were typically sampled once a week for the first four weeks of their enrolment, and then monthly thereafter. To identify persistent infections we first limited the dataset to individuals with two or more RT-PCR positive samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30 (in which sequencing was attempted; a proxy for viral load), taken at least 26 days apart, and where the consensus sequences were of the same major lineages of Alpha, Delta, BA.1 or BA.2 (BA.4 and BA.5 not considered). If those sequences also shared the same rare single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at one or more sites relative to the major-lineage population-level consensus, we classified them as having a persistent infection.
We defined a rare mutation as one observed in 400 or fewer samples within the entire ONS-CIS dataset, giving a false positive rate of identifying persistent infections of 0-3% depending on the major lineage (see Methods and Supplementary Figure 1). We note that the rare SNP method provides a conservative estimate for the true number of persistent infections since some persistent infections may not have rare mutations. To further evaluate the robustness of our method in identifying persistent infections, we considered the phylogenetic relationship between the sequences from persistent infections relative to other sequences of the same major lineage that belonged to individuals with only a single sequence within the ONS-CIS dataset. The great majority of sets of sequences identified as belonging to the same persistent infection formed monophyletic groups with strong bootstrap support (Figure 1a; see also Supplementary Figure 2). However, seven sequences did not group with the other sequence(s) from the same persistent infection. All of these had high Ct values (Ct∼30) and poor genome coverage which may explain their lack of clustering on the phylogeny (Supplementary Figure 2).
(a) Phylogenetic relationship between samples from persistent infections and reinfections with a representative background population of Alpha (see Supplementary Figure 2 for the analysis on the other three major lineages). Dashed lines connect every pair of sequences from the same individual. Pairs from persistent infections cluster closely together while reinfections do not. All sequences from the same individual are given the same colour. (b) Days between the earliest and latest genomic samples from persistent infections and reinfections. Each point represents a single individual. Solid vertical lines show the 26- and 56-day cutoffs. Numbers on the side of each box shows the total counts per category for each major lineage. (c) Total number of sequences in the ONS-CIS per major lineage over time. (d) Timing of persistent infections (black) during the UK epidemic. Some persistent infections can be identified up to weeks after the lineage has been replaced at the population level. The numbers on the side of each box shows the total sequence counts for each category.
We found 381 persistent infections with sequences spanning at least 26 days, of which 54 spanned at least 56 days, representing nearly 0.07% (54/77,561) of all individuals with one or more sequences (with Ct≤30) of the four major lineages we investigated in this study (Figure 1b; see also Table 1). Notably, 9% (2/23), 9% (19/219), and 8% (8/208) of sequences from persistent infections with Alpha, Delta, and BA.1, respectively, were sampled weeks after when the corresponding major lineage has dropped to ≤1% frequency of all the ONS-CIS sequences (Figure 1c); the longest infection was with BA.1 and lasted for at least 193 days (see Figure 1b).
The actual duration of persistent infections are likely to be at least 3-4 days longer than the time between when the first and last sequenced samples were collected, since it typically takes 3-4 days since the start of infection for viral loads to be sufficiently high to be sequenced (Ct≤30) 22,23, and similarly viral loads will be too low (Ct values too high) to sequence at the tail end of infection. Since individuals were typically sampled weekly during the first four weeks of enrollment, followed by monthly sampling thereafter, it is unsurprising that most persistent infections had observable durations clustering around 30 or 60 days (see Supplementary Figure 3).
We found evidence suggestive of transmission from 11 persistently infected individuals: we identified two households each with two members having concurrent persistent infections, and in nine other households, one member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR within 10 days of a positive sequenced sample being collected from a persistently infected individual from the same household. As well as being clustered in households, the sequences from the suspected persistently infected source and the recipient had either no consensus nucleotide differences (nine cases) or one consensus nucleotide difference (two cases), consistent with transmission. If these do represent transmission, it is worth noting that none of these persistent infections involved highly divergent sequences relative to their first sequence, and hence these do not provide an example of the emergence and spread of highly divergent lineages.
Identifying reinfections with the same major lineage
We considered a pair of sequences from the same individual to indicate a reinfection if they were sampled at least 26 days apart, had at least one consensus nucleotide difference between the sequenced sampling timepoints, and shared no rare SNPs (see Methods). This criterion may overestimate the true number of reinfections as some persistent infections may not have a rare SNP, and within-host evolution can lead to the loss of a rare SNP and/or the gain of other mutations leading to differences in the consensus sequence between the samples. We identified three individuals for which pairs of sequences from different sampling timepoints had no identical rare SNPs and at least one consensus difference, but whose viral load trajectories were consistent with a persistent chronic infection. We therefore excluded these individuals from the reinfection group (see Supplementary Figure 4).
Overall, we identified 60 reinfections with the same major lineage (Table 1). Of all the cases classed as either persistent infections or reinfections with the same major lineage,10-15% were classed as reinfections (see Table 1), rising to 20-40% if only samples collected at least 56 days apart were included (see Figure 1b). This suggests the number of individuals reinfected with the same major lineage is low compared to the number of individuals with persistent infection. Sequences from individuals identified as reinfected, collected at the point of primary infection and reinfection, did not form monophyletic groups and mostly belonged to distantly related subclades, and hence supports our method for identifying reinfections (Figure 1a; Supplementary Figure 2).
Evidence of non-replicating virus during infection
Of the 381 persistently infected individuals that we identified, nearly 70% (267/381) had a pair of sequenced samples taken at least 26 days apart with no nucleotide differences at the consensus level. This is striking given the between-host within-lineage evolutionary rate of SARS-CoV-2 of ∼2 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) per month 24–26. We contrasted the number of consensus nucleotide differences between pairs of samples from persistent infections with 16,000 random pairs of sequences sampled from the complete set of sequenced samples from the ONS-CIS, and with each pair from the same major lineage (Supplementary Figure 5). Of these, only 6 pairs had no SNVs (i.e., less than 0.04% of pairs).
Emergence of notable mutations
For all pairs of sequences from each of the persistent infections, we identified mutations for which there was a change in consensus between the two sampling time points. Among the 381 persistently infected individuals, we observed 317 changes in the consensus nucleotide representing 277 unique mutations, and 31 deletions representing 18 unique deletions. Many of these mutations have previously been identified as either lineage-defining mutations for variants of concern or variants of interest 27 (eight mutations and two deletions), recurrent mutations in immunocompromised individuals 12–14 (15 mutations and four deletions), or key mutations with antibody escape properties and target sites for various different monoclonal antibodies 11,28 (seven mutations) (Supplementary Table 1).
We observed several mutations at the same genomic positions in multiple individuals over the course of their persistent infections. For example, three BA.2 infected individuals from different households acquired a mutation at codon position 547 in Spike (Figure 2), two of which were the T547K mutation which is a lineage-defining mutation for BA.1, and one the K547T mutation (Figure 2c; also see Supplementary Table 1). Strikingly, twelve individuals acquired a deletion (ORF1ab: Δ81-87) in the NSP1 coding region. A similar deletion has previously been observed during the chronic infection of an immunocompromised individual with cancer 16, and was associated with lower type I interferon response in infected cells 29. We also identified a persistent infection with BA.1 lasting for at least 133 days during which 33 unique mutations (23 mutations in ORF1ab, 6 in Spike, 1 in ORF3a, 1 in M, and 2 in ORF7) were observed (see Supplementary Figure 2); eleven of the ORF1ab mutations and all of the mutations in Spike, ORF3a, and ORF7 were nonsynonymous.
(a) Frequency of mutations that resulted in a SNP change during one or more persistent infections. (b) Number of synonymous (blue) and non-synonymous (orange) mutations per gene during persistent infections. Numbers on each column show the total counts of SNPs in each category of mutations. (c) Description of recurrent mutations and deletions identified during persistent infections. See Supplementary Table 1 for information about other mutations.
**None of the recurrent mutations were from households with other infections.
†Δ represents a deletion
Overall, we observed a strong signal for positive selection in Spike, with nearly nine-fold more nonsynonymous compared to synonymous mutations (Figure 2b). With a total of seven nonsynonymous mutations, ORF8 had the highest per base number of nonsynonymous mutations followed by Spike with 61 nonsynonymous mutations.
Persistence with relapsing viral load
Of the 381 persistent infections, 65 had three or more RT-PCR tests taken over the course of their infection. We classified these infections as persistent-relapsing if they had a negative RT-PCR test during the infection (n=20), and the rest as persistent-chronic (n=45) (Figure 3a,b). Given the weekly or monthly sampling of individuals enrolled in the ONS-CIS, infections classed as persistent-chronic may have unsampled periods of very low viral burden, meaning the persistent-relapsing category is likely to be an underestimate. Nonetheless, the observation of relapsing viral load dynamics in over 30% of cases is striking given that, in the absence of genetic information, they could have been misidentified as reinfections, depending on the definition used. Of the 27 cases identified as reinfections with three or more RT-PCR tests, all showed relapsing viral load dynamics (Figure 3c).
Viral load trajectories of persistent infections with (a) relapsing and (b) chronic persistent infections and (c) reinfections with at least three PCR tests taken over the course of infection/until reinfection. (d) Change in cycle threshold (Ct) value and (e) total number of symptoms reported between the first and last time points with sequenced samples for all 381 persistent infections (purple) and 60 reinfections (cyan). Viral load at the last time point is significantly lower for persistent infections with Ct value being more than +6.7 (IQR: +3.2,+10.2) units higher at the last time point (paired t-test p<10−8). The difference is less pronounced for reinfections with +2.5 (IQR: -1.1, +7.4) units difference between primary infection and reinfections (paired t-test p=0.0003). Similarly, persistently infected individuals tend to report fewer number of symptoms at the later stages of their infection compared to reinfections in the last 7 days at the last time point (at which a sequence was obtained) when compared to the first. On average, persistently infected individuals report two more symptoms at the time of their first sequenceable sample (virus samples with a positive Ct≤30) relative to their last sample, with a median of 1 (IQR: 0, 4) fewer reported symptoms (paired Wilcoxon p<10−29), while reinfected individuals report only one more symptom at the point of primary infection relative to reinfection, with a median of 0 (IQR: 0, 3) fewer reported symptoms (paired Wilcoxon p=0.005).
As the sampling strategy of ONS-CIS is based on testing representative individuals across the UK regardless of symptoms, we can estimate the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 infections that are persistent and last for longer than 60 days in the general population. This requires making assumptions about how many persistent infections are missed among ONS-CIS participants due to the monthly (and weekly) sampling. More precisely, estimating the proportion of infections that are persistent depends on the proportion of days the infection has sequenceable virus during the infection (would have Ct≤30 if tested); the fewer the number of days the infection has sequenceable virus, the more likely it is that a persistent infection is be missed. By taking two extreme scenarios for the proportion of days that the virus is sequenceable during persistent infection (0.7 and 0.14; see Methods), we estimate that approximately 0.1-0.5% of infections become persistent for 60 days or more.
Difference in viral load and symptoms
For the majority of persistent infections, Ct values (inversely proportional to viral titre 30) were higher at the last sequenced time point compared to the first sequenced time point (Figure 3d). For reinfections with the same major lineage, the last sequenced sample also had higher Ct values than the first, but the magnitude of the difference was smaller compared to persistent infections (Figure 2d). In both cases, the rise in Ct value (decrease in viral titre) during infections or between reinfections could be a consequence of host immunity or within-host compartmentalisation. Additionally, the rise in Ct for reinfections could be due to the disproportionate sampling of individuals with older infections, which tend to have lower viral loads, towards the end of an epidemic wave 31,32.
Individuals with persistent infections remained largely asymptomatic during the later stages of infection, with, on average, reporting two fewer symptoms in the last 7 days at the last time of sampling (at which a sequence was obtained) when compared to the first. They also consistently reported very few or no symptoms after the first positive sample (Figure 3e). In comparison, individuals reinfected with the same major lineage reported on average only one fewer symptom at the reinfection sampling time point compared to the primary sampling time point (Figure 3e).
Prevalence of Long Covid
From February 2021, as well as reporting symptoms, participants were asked if they describe themselves as having Long Covid and still experiencing symptoms more than four weeks after they first had COVID-19 (see Methods). We estimated the prevalence of self-reported Long Covid in the persistently infected individuals compared with a control group, accounting for several confounding variables (see Methods). In the persistent infection group, 9.0% of respondents (32/354) self-reported Long Covid at their first visit ≥12 weeks since the start of infection, and 7.1% (19/266) reported Long Covid at ≥26 weeks. However, in the control group, only 5.1% (4,976/97,404) reported Long Covid at their first visit ≥12 weeks, and 4.5% (3,261/72,407) reported Long Covid at ≥26 weeks.
Correcting for confounders, we found strong evidence for a 55% higher odds of reporting Long Covid ≥12 weeks post-infection among persistently infected individuals compared to controls (Chi square test with Yates correction 33 p=0.004 for the unadjusted model, p=0.021 for the adjusted model), but no evidence of a difference for Long Covid ≥26 weeks post-infection (p=0.127 for the unadjusted model, p=0.367 for the adjusted model) (Table 2). The lower rate of reporting Long Covid 26 weeks post-infection could be because the majority of the persistent infections we identified lasted for less than 26 weeks, and hence persistence of an infection may no longer be a contributing factor to Long Covid.
Discussion
We developed a robust approach for identifying persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections in individuals with sequenced samples spanning a month or longer. Of the 381 persistent infections we identified among participants of the ONS-CIS, 54 lasted at least two months, two over six months, and in some cases the infecting lineage had gone extinct in the general population. In contrast, we only identified 60 reinfections by the same major lineage as the primary infection, suggesting immunity to the same variant remains strong after infection, at least until the lineage has gone extinct.
The large number of persistent infections we uncovered is striking, given the leading hypothesis that many of the variants of concern (VOCs) emerged wholly or partially during long-term chronic infections in immunocompromised individuals 1. Since the ONS-CIS is a community-based surveillance study, our observations suggest the pool of people in which long-term infections could occur, and hence potential sources of divergent variants, may be much larger than generally thought. We estimate that more than nearly one in a thousand of all infections, and potentially as many as one in 200, may become persistent for at least two months. The harbouring of these persistent infections in the general community may also help explain the early detection of cryptic lineages circulating in wastewaters 34,35 long before they spread in the population at large.
In support of the hypothesis that VOCs may emerge during prolonged infections, a number of studies have shown elevated evolutionary rates driven by selection during chronic infections of immunocompromised individuals 6–8. Among the persistently infected individuals we identified, we also found strong evidence for positive selection and parallel evolution, particularly in Spike and ORF1ab. In the most extreme case, we observed one persistent infection with 33 substitutions over a four-month period, 20 of which were nonsynonymous.
Potentially more remarkable, however, was our discovery of viral infections exhibiting latent evolutionary dynamics, with no consensus level genome changes for two months or longer. As far as we are aware, this is the first study to demonstrate that decelerated evolutionary rates may be a common outcome of persistent infection.
The factors causing these low rates of evolution are unknown, but one possible explanation is infection of long-lived cells 36,37 which then seed new outbreaks within the infected individual weeks or months later. Although the relapsing viral load dynamics we found in many of the persistently infected individuals supports this hypothesis, we did not find any consistent pattern between the amount of viral divergence during infection and the lower viral load activity in these individuals.
Intriguingly, individuals with persistent infections report fewer symptoms later in a persistent infection compared to at their first positive sample, or remain asymptomatic throughout infection, but have more than 50% higher odds of Long Covid compared to a control group. Although the link between viral persistence and Long Covid may not be causal, these results suggest persistent infections could be contributing to the pathophysiology of Long Covid 10,38, as also evidenced by the observation of circulating SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein in a subset of patients with Long Covid months after first infection 39. The association between persistent infection and Long Covid does not imply that every persistent infection can lead to Long Covid, only 9% of persistently infected individuals reported having Long Covid, nor does it mean that all cases of Long Covid are due to a persistent infection.
Indeed, many other possible mechanisms have been suggested to contribute to Long Covid including autoimmunity/inflammation, organ damage, EBV reactivation, and micro thrombosis (see ref 10 for a recent review).
Taken together, our observations highlight the continuing importance of community-based genomic surveillance both to monitor the emergence and spread of new variants, but also to gain a fundamental understanding of the natural history and evolution of novel pathogens and their clinical implications for patients.
Methods
ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey
The ONS-CIS is a UK household-based surveillance study in which participant households are approached at random from address lists across the country to provide a representative sample of the population 40. All individuals aged two years and older from each household who provide written informed consent provide swab samples (taken by the participant or parent/carer for those under 12 years), regardless of symptoms, and complete a questionnaire at assessments, which occur weekly for the first month in the survey and then monthly. From 26 April 2020 to 31 July 2022, assessments were conducted by study workers visiting each household; from 14 July 2022 onwards assessments were remote, with swabs taken using kits posted to participants and returned by post or courier, and questionnaires completed online or by telephone. Positive swab samples with Ct≤30 were sent for sequencing (see below). For this analysis, we included data from 2nd November 2020 to 15th August 2022, spanning a period from the earliest Alpha to latest Omicron BA.2 sequences within the ONS-CIS dataset.
This work contains statistical data from ONS which is Crown Copyright. The use of the ONS statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the statistical data. This work uses research datasets which may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates.
Sequencing
From December 2020 onwards sequencing was attempted on all positive samples with Ct≤30; before this date, sequencing was attempted in real-time wherever possible, with some additional retrospective sequencing of stored samples. The vast majority of samples were sequenced on Illumina Novaseq, with a small number using Oxford Nanopore GridION or MINION. One of two protocols were used: either the ARTIC amplicon protocol 41 with consensus FASTA sequence files generated using the ARTIC nextflow processing pipeline 42, or veSeq, an RNASeq protocol based on a quantitative targeted enrichment strategy 19,43 with consensus sequences produced using shiver 44. During our study period, we identified 94,943 individuals with a single sequence and 5,774 individuals with two or more sequences. Here, we only included sequences with ≥50% genome coverage.
Identifying rare SNPs
An important criterion for determining whether two sequences from the same individual are from the same infection is whether they share a rare single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). These are defined as SNPs that are shared by fewer than 400 sequences corresponding to each major lineage within the full ONS-CIS dataset (Supplementary Figure 1). The thresholds were chosen to maximise the number of persistent infections identified whilst minimising the number of false positives (see below). The major lineages we considered were Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron BA.1 and Omicron BA.2, including their sublineages. Approximately 92-98% of all sequences from the four major lineages had a rare SNP relative to the major-lineage population-level consensus.
Identifying reinfections with the same major lineage
Any pair of sequences from the same individual, of the same major lineage, and at least 26 days apart were considered as candidate reinfections. Of these, pairs that had at least one nucleotide difference at the consensus level, and did not share any rare SNPs, were classed as reinfections. Pairs that had no identical rare SNPs, nor any nucleotide differences at the consensus level, were classed as undetermined.
Identifying individuals with persistent infection
We first identified individuals with two or more sequenced samples taken at least 26 days apart. We chose this cutoff because the majority of acutely infected individuals shed the virus for <20 days and no longer than 30 days in the respiratory tract 23,45. Given the extreme heterogeneity in the shedding profiles during some acute infections 23, we also considered a more conservative 56-day cutoff for some analyses.
For each identified individual we calculated the number of consensus nucleotide differences per site for all within-individual pairwise combinations of samples (Supplementary Figure 6). Only sites where a nucleotide difference could be called were included.
Candidate persistent infections were defined in one of two ways: (1) pairs of sequenced samples that belonged to the same major lineage, and (2) pairs of sequenced samples where one or both had no defined phylogenetic lineage, but where the genetic distance between them was lower than that required to differentiate two major lineages (see Supplementary Figure 6). We assumed pairs belonging to different major lineages were either coinfections or reinfections with two different virus lineages. Only candidate persistent infections were considered in further analysis.
Among the pool of candidate persistent infections, we defined persistent infections as those with sequences sharing one or more rare SNPs at two or more consecutive time points relative to the population-level consensus. A rare SNP is one that is observed in 400 or fewer samples within the entire ONS-CIS dataset.
Determining the false positive rate for persistent infections
For each major lineage we generated a data set of 1,000 randomly paired sequences from different individuals in the ONS-CIS, each sampled at least 26 days apart. We determined the number of these pairs that would have been incorrectly identified as persistent infections as a function of the threshold for determining if a SNP is rare (Supplementary Figure 1). Although the total number of persistent infections identified grew as the threshold for determining if a SNP is rare increased, at very high thresholds the rate of false positives was also high. In our study, we chose a threshold of 400 sequences (corresponding to all sequences of the same major lineage within the full ONS-CIS dataset) for all of the major lineages, giving a false positive rate (identifying an infection as persistent when it was not) of 0-3%.
Estimating the prevalence of persistent infections
Within the ONS-CIS we identified 54 infections that lasted 60 days or more. Comparing this to the number of individuals that had sequenced samples belonging to Alpha, Delta, BA.1 or BA.2, which to a good approximation will be the number of infections of these variants, we identified approximately 54/77,561 (0.07%) infections as persistent for >= 60 days. Since the ONS-CIS is a representative sample of individuals from the general population, we can estimate the percentage of all SARS-CoV-2 infections that became persistent for two months or longer. At one extreme, if all persistent infections have sequenceable virus for only four days per month (assuming viral dynamics similar to one acute infection each month), only 14% of persistent infections would be detected through monthly sampling. Correcting for this, we would estimate the percentage of persistent infections in the general population to be 0.5% (0.07% / 0.14). At the other extreme, if we assume all persistent-chronic infections (70% of persistent infections; see Main text) are detectable through monthly sampling, and the rest have detectable virus for 4 days per month, then we estimate that 74% (70% + 0.14*30%) of persistent infections were identified, giving an estimate of 0.09% (0.07% / 0.74) infections being persistent in the general population.
Phylogenetic analysis
For each of the four major lineages, we chose 600 consensus sequences with at least 95% coverage from the ONS-CIS dataset using weighted random sampling, with each sample of major lineage i collected in week j given a weight 1/nij, where nij is the number of sequences of major lineage i collected during week j 25. These sequences were added as a background set to the collection of all consensus sequences for samples from persistent infections and reinfections. Mapping of each sequence to the Wuhan-Hu-1 reference sequence was already performed by shiver and thus a full alignment for each of the four lineages could be constructed using only this.
Maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees were constructed using IQ-TREE 1.6.12 46 using the GTR+gamma substitution model and the ultrafast bootstrap 47. Each tree was rooted using the collection dates of the samples and the heuristic residual mean square algorithm in TempEst 48. Visualisation used ggtree 49.
Comparing viral load activities and symptoms
To quantify the changes in viral load activities during persistent infections, we compared Ct values at the last time point a sequence was obtained to when the first sequence was collected. Similarly, for reinfections, we compared the changes in Ct value between the primary infection and reinfection. We used a paired t-test to calculate p-values in both cases as the distribution of differences in Ct values were normally distributed for both persistent infections (W=0.99, p=0.28) and reinfections (W=0.99, p=0.78) as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk test 50.
We also tracked 12 symptoms consistently solicited from all participants at every assessment. Symptoms were fever, weakness/tiredness, diarrhoea, shortness of breath, headache, nausea/vomiting, sore throat, muscle ache, abdominal pain, cough, loss of smell, and loss of taste. At each follow-up assessment, participants were asked whether these 12 symptoms had been present in the past seven days. Symptom discontinuation was defined as the first occurrence of two successive follow-up visits without reporting symptoms. To compare symptom counts during persistent infections and reinfections, we used the paired Wilcoxon test as the distribution of symptom differences is not normally distributed (see Figure 3d).
Long Covid analysis
From February 2021, at every assessment, participants were asked “would you describe yourself as having Long Covid, that is, you are still experiencing symptoms more than 4 weeks after you first had COVID-19, that are not explained by something else?”. When estimating Long Covid prevalence in this analysis, we considered the first assessment at least 12 weeks and at least 26 weeks after infection. Our control group comprised all individuals with a positive PCR test and Ct≤30, excluding the persistently infected individuals identified in this study, over the same time span as persistent infections. We also ensured the follow-up from the start of infection to first Long Covid response was similar between persistent infections and controls (see Table 2).
In calculating the odds ratio of Long Covid in persistently infected individuals relative to the control group, we accounted for confounding variables such as age at the last birthday, sex, Ct value, calendar date, area deprivation quintile group, presence of self-reported long-term health conditions (binary), vaccination status (unvaccinated or single-vaccinated, fully-vaccinated or booster-vaccinated 14-89 days ago, fully-vaccinated or booster-vaccinated 90-179 days ago, fully-vaccinated or booster-vaccinated ≥180 days ago), and days from first positive test to Long Covid follow-up response. All variables except the last one were defined at the time of the first positive test. Continuous variables (age, Ct value, calendar date, days to follow-up response) were modelled as restricted cubic splines with a single internal knot at the median of the distribution and boundary knots at the 5th and 95th percentiles.
Vaccination status was derived from a combination of CIS and NIMS data for participants in England, and CIS data alone for participants in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We were unable to do the Long Covid analysis for the reinfection group due to the low number of participants in this cohort who reported new-onset Long Covid ≥12 weeks or ≥26 weeks after infections.
Funding Statement
The CIS was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and the UK Health Security Agency with in-kind support from the Welsh Government, the Department of Health on behalf of the Northern Ireland Government and the Scottish Government. 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) (grant code: MC_PC_19027), and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. The authors acknowledge use of data generated through the COVID-19 Genomics Programme funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. ASW is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UK HSA) (NIHR200915) and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. TH is supported by the Royal Society and Alan Turing Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence. KAL is supported by the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust (107652/Z/15/Z). 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. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social Care or UKHSA.
Data and materials availability
All genomic data have been made publicly available as part of the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium 51. All other data, excluding personal clinical information on participants, are available in the main text, supplementary materials, or our GitHub repository (https://github.com/mg878/ONS-CIS_analysis).
Supplementary figures
Threshold value of 1 for rare SNPs implies the rare SNP is only found in one sequence of that lineage in the ONS-CIS dataset, excluding sequences from any persistently infected individuals. As the threshold value for calling a rare SNP increases, the number of persistent infections (of any duration) identified (black) increases until at some point the threshold value becomes so high that any individual with two or more sequences of the same major lineage would be identified as a persistent infection based on the rare SNP criterion at which point the false positivity rate (magenta) reaches 100%. At threshold value 400 (vertical dashed line) chosen in this study for identifying persistent infections, the percentage of false positives are 0% for BA.1 and BA.2 and 3% for Alpha and Delta.
Dashed lines connect every pair of sequences from the same individual. All sequences from the same individual are given the same colour. Pairs of sequences for (a) Alpha, (b) Delta, (c) Omicron BA.1, and (d) Omicron BA.2 that belong to persistent infections cluster closely together while reinfections do not. However, some of the sequences in 2 (out of 97) persistent infections with BA.1 and 5 (out of 167) persistent infections with BA.2 have poor bootstrap support (<80) and do not cluster together or cluster in a basal sister relationship. In all of these 7 cases, at least one of the sequences from each individual has a Ct value close to 30 with poor coverage. On the other hand, all sequences that belong to the same individual and have strong bootstrap support (>80) cluster together.
Pairs of sequences are classified as (i) pairs with at least one unidentified Pango lineage (green), (ii) pairs with identical major lineage (orange), and (iii) pairs from different major lineages. Bottom panel shows the counts of pairs in each of these three categories for the first 200-day time span (highlighted in a dashed rectangle in the top panel). Pairs include all possible combinations of sequences from the same individual. The number of pairs peaks at the 7-, 30-, and 60-day periods due to the sampling frequency of ONS-CIS (see Methods). Note that pairs with identical major lineage may not necessarily have identical Pango lineages (see Methods).
Viral load activities of individuals, with 3 or more PCR tests taken during infection/until reinfection, identified as having (a) persistent infections and (b) reinfections with relapsing (left column) and persistent chronic (right column) trajectories. Three reinfections (two occurring in < 60 days and one between 60 to 90 days since first sequence) with persistent chronic viral load dynamics are excluded from the reinfection group as they are deemed potential persistent infections which do not have rare SNPs.
Number of Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) per site between all the sequences collected from persistent infections (purple) and random pairs from individuals with only a single sequence within the ONS-CIS (blue) as a function of the number of days between each pair. For each major lineage, a pool of sequences from individuals with only one sequence within the ONS-CIS was sub-sampled and 500 random pairs generated for every 20 additional days between samples. For some major lineages where there were fewer than 500 pairs available beyond a certain time point, all possible random pairs within that 20-day period are used. Solid line and shaded area show the median and interquartile range, respectively, for random pairs over time. Note that the line and shaded area in each graph does not represent the rate of evolution but can be deemed as a measure of lineage diversity as a function of time difference between samples.
(Left column) Number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) between pairs of sequences from each individual with two or more sequences. Pairs include all possible combinations of sequences from the same individual. Vertical dashed line shows the lowest number of SNPs per base for pairs with different major lineages. Any pair with at least one unidentified lineage with a SNP per base smaller than the dashed line is selected as a candidate pair from a persistent infection. Pairs with different major lineages are coloured based on their number of SNPs per base into three groups: (i) pairs with one BA.1 and one BA.2 or BA.4 or BA.5 sequence (orange); (ii) pairs with one BA.2 and one BA.4 or BA.5 sequence (blue); and (iii) pairs with one Omicron (including all BA.x lineages) and one Delta (B.1.617.2), Alpha (B.1.1.7), or B.1.177 sequence (green). (Right column) Proportion of sequences with different number overlapping base pairs. Those with at least one unidentified lineage have a lower number of overlapping base pairs relative to pairs with identifiable lineage (i.e. pairs with identical or different major lineage) mainly due to having lower coverage.
The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium
June 2021 V.1
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Dr Samuel C Robson PhD 13, 84
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Thomas R Connor PhD 11, 74 and Prof Nicholas J Loman PhD 43
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Dr Tanya Golubchik PhD 5
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:
Dr Rocio T Martinez Nunez PhD 46
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr David Bonsall PhD 5
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Prof Andrew Rambaut DPhil 104
Funding acquisition, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Luke B Snell MSc, MBBS 12
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Rich Livett MSc 116
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Catherine Ludden PhD 20, 70
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Sally Corden PhD 74 and Dr Eleni Nastouli FRCPath 96, 95, 30
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Gaia Nebbia PhD, FRCPath 12
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Ian Johnston BSc 116
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Prof Katrina Lythgoe PhD 5, Dr M. Estee Torok FRCP 19, 20 and Prof Ian G Goodfellow PhD 24 Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:
Dr Jacqui A Prieto PhD 97, 82 and Dr Kordo Saeed MD, FRCPath 97, 83
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr David K Jackson PhD 116
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:
Dr Catherine Houlihan PhD 96, 94
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Dr Dan Frampton PhD 94, 95
Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr William L Hamilton PhD 19 and Dr Adam A Witney PhD 41
Funding acquisition, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Dr Giselda Bucca PhD 101
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Project administration:
Dr Cassie F Pope PhD40, 41
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Catherine Moore PhD 74
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis:
Prof Emma C Thomson PhD, FRCP 53
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Ewan M Harrison PhD 116, 102
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and
Visualisation:
Prof Colin P Smith PhD 101
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis:
Fiona Rogan BSc 77
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:
Shaun M Beckwith MSc 6, Abigail Murray Degree 6, Dawn Singleton HNC 6, Dr Kirstine Eastick PhD, FRCPath 37, Dr Liz A Sheridan PhD 98, Paul Randell MSc, PgD 99, Dr Leigh M Jackson PhD 105, Dr Cristina V Ariani PhD 116 and Dr Sónia Gonçalves PhD 116
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Derek J Fairley PhD 3, 77, Prof Matthew W Loose PhD 18 and Joanne Watkins MSc 74
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation: Dr Samuel Moses MD 25, 106
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Sam Nicholls PhD 43, Dr Matthew Bull PhD 74 and Dr Roberto Amato PhD 116
Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Prof Darren L Smith PhD 36, 65, 66
Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Prof David M Aanensen PhD 14, 116 and Dr Jeffrey C Barrett PhD 116
Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Dinesh Aggarwal MRCP20, 116, 70, Dr James G Shepherd MBCHB, MRCP 53, Dr Martin D Curran PhD 71 and Dr Surendra Parmar PhD 71
Metadata curation, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Matthew D Parker PhD 109
Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Catryn Williams PhD 74
Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Dr Sharon Glaysher PhD 68
Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Dr Anthony P Underwood PhD 14, 116, Dr Matthew Bashton PhD 36, 65, Dr Nicole Pacchiarini PhD 74, Dr Katie F Loveson PhD 84 and Matthew Byott MSc 95, 96
Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Dr Alessandro M Carabelli PhD 20
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Metadata curation: Dr Kate E Templeton PhD 56, 104
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Project administration:
Dr Thushan I de Silva PhD 109, Dr Dennis Wang PhD 109, Dr Cordelia F Langford PhD 116 and John Sillitoe BEng 116
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Samples and logistics: Prof Rory N Gunson PhD, FRCPath 55
Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Simon Cottrell PhD 74, Dr Justin O’Grady PhD 75, 103 and Prof Dominic Kwiatkowski PhD116, 108
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Project administration: Dr Patrick J Lillie PhD, FRCP 37
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Nicholas Cortes MBCHB 33, Dr Nathan Moore MBCHB 33, Dr Claire Thomas DPhil 33, Phillipa J Burns MSc, DipRCPath 37, Dr Tabitha W Mahungu FRCPath 80 and Steven Liggett BSc 86
Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis: Angela H Beckett MSc 13, 81 and Prof Matthew TG Holden PhD 73
Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Lisa J Levett PhD 34, Dr Husam Osman PhD 70, 35 and Dr Mohammed O Hassan-Ibrahim PhD, FRCPath 99
Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis: Dr David A Simpson PhD 77
Leadership and supervision, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Meera Chand PhD 72, Prof Ravi K Gupta PhD 102, Prof Alistair C Darby PhD 107 and Prof Steve Paterson PhD 107
Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools: Prof Oliver G Pybus DPhil 23, Dr Erik M Volz PhD 39, Prof Daniela de Angelis PhD 52, Prof David L Robertson PhD 53, Dr Andrew J Page PhD 75 and Dr Inigo Martincorena PhD 116
Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation: Dr Louise Aigrain PhD 116 and Dr Andrew R Bassett PhD 116
Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Nick Wong DPhil, MRCP, FRCPath 50, Dr Yusri Taha MD, PhD 89, Michelle J Erkiert BA 99 and Dr Michael H Spencer Chapman MBBS 116, 102
Metadata curation, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis: Dr Rebecca Dewar PhD 56 and Martin P McHugh MSc 56, 111
Metadata curation, Project administration, and Software and analysis tools: Siddharth Mookerjee MPH 38, 57
Metadata curation, Project administration, and Visualisation:
Stephen Aplin 97, Matthew Harvey 97, Thea Sass 97, Dr Helen Umpleby FRCP 97 and Helen Wheeler 97
Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr James P McKenna PhD 3, Dr Ben Warne MRCP 9, Joshua F Taylor MSc 22, Yasmin Chaudhry BSc 24, Rhys Izuagbe 24, Dr Aminu S Jahun PhD 24, Dr Gregory R Young PhD 36, 65, Dr Claire McMurray PhD 43, Dr Clare M McCann PhD 65, 66, Dr Andrew Nelson PhD 65, 66 and Scott Elliott 68
Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:
Hannah Lowe MSc 25
Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Anna Price PhD 11, Matthew R Crown BSc 65, Dr Sara Rey PhD 74, Dr Sunando Roy PhD
96 and Dr Ben Temperton PhD 105
Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:
Dr Sharif Shaaban PhD 73 and Dr Andrew R Hesketh PhD 101
Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Kenneth G Laing PhD41, Dr Irene M Monahan PhD 41 and Dr Judith Heaney PhD 95, 96, 34
Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:
Dr Emanuela Pelosi FRCPath 97, Siona Silviera MSc 97 and Dr Eleri Wilson-Davies MD, FRCPath 97
Samples and logistics, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation: Dr Helen Fryer PhD 5
Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualization:
Dr Helen Adams PhD 4, Dr Louis du Plessis PhD 23, Dr Rob Johnson PhD 39, Dr William T Harvey PhD 53, 42, Dr Joseph Hughes PhD 53, Dr Richard J Orton PhD 53, Dr Lewis G Spurgin PhD 59, Dr Yann Bourgeois PhD 81, Dr Chris Ruis PhD 102, Áine O’Toole MSc 104, Marina Gourtovaia MSc 116 and Dr Theo Sanderson PhD 116
Funding acquisition, and Leadership and supervision:
Dr Christophe Fraser PhD 5, Dr Jonathan Edgeworth PhD, FRCPath 12, Prof Judith Breuer MD 96, 29, Dr Stephen L Michell PhD 105 and Prof John A Todd PhD 115
Funding acquisition, and Project administration:
Michaela John BSc 10 and Dr David Buck PhD 115
Leadership and supervision, and Metadata curation:
Dr Kavitha Gajee MBBS, FRCPath 37 and Dr Gemma L Kay PhD 75
Leadership and supervision, and Project administration:
Prof Sharon J Peacock PhD 20, 70 and David Heyburn 74
Leadership and supervision, and Samples and logistics:
Katie Kitchman BSc 37, Prof Alan McNally PhD 43, 93, David T Pritchard MSc, CSci 50, Dr Samir Dervisevic FRCPath 58, Dr Peter Muir PhD 70, Dr Esther Robinson PhD 70, 35, Dr Barry B Vipond PhD 70, Newara A Ramadan MSc, CSci, FIBMS 78, Dr Christopher Jeanes MBBS 90, Danni Weldon BSc 116, Jana Catalan MSc 118 and Neil Jones MSc 118Leadership and supervision, and Sequencing and analysis: Dr Ana da Silva Filipe PhD 53, Dr Chris Williams MBBS 74, Marc Fuchs BSc 77, Dr Julia Miskelly PhD 77, Dr Aaron R Jeffries PhD 105, Karen Oliver BSc 116 and Dr Naomi R Park PhD 116Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics: Amy Ash BSc 1, Cherian Koshy MSc, CSci, FIBMS 1, Magdalena Barrow 7, Dr Sarah L Buchan PhD 7, Dr Anna Mantzouratou PhD 7, Dr Gemma Clark PhD 15, Dr Christopher W Holmes PhD 16, Sharon Campbell MSc 17, Thomas Davis MSc 21, Ngee Keong Tan MSc 22, Dr Julianne R Brown PhD 29, Dr Kathryn A Harris PhD 29, 2, Stephen P Kidd MSc 33, Dr Paul R Grant PhD 34, Dr Li Xu-McCrae PhD 35, Dr Alison Cox PhD 38, 63, Pinglawathee Madona 38, 63, Dr Marcus Pond PhD 38, 63, Dr Paul A Randell MBBCh 38, 63, Karen T Withell FIBMS 48, Cheryl Williams MSc 51, Dr Clive Graham MD 60, Rebecca Denton-Smith BSc 62, Emma Swindells BSc 62, Robyn Turnbull BSc 62, Dr Tim J Sloan PhD 67, Dr Andrew Bosworth PhD 70, 35, Stephanie Hutchings 70, Hannah M Pymont MSc 70, Dr Anna Casey PhD 76, Dr Liz Ratcliffe PhD 76, Dr Christopher R Jones PhD 79, 105, Dr Bridget A Knight PhD 79, 105, Dr Tanzina Haque PhD, FRCPath 80, Dr Jennifer Hart MRCP 80, Dr Dianne Irish-Tavares FRCPath 80, Eric Witele MSc 80, Craig Mower BA 86, Louisa K Watson DipHE 86, Jennifer Collins BSc 89, Gary Eltringham BSc 89, Dorian Crudgington 98, Ben Macklin 98, Prof Miren Iturriza-Gomara PhD 107, Dr Anita O Lucaci PhD 107 and Dr Patrick C McClure PhD 113
Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis:
Matthew Carlile BSc 18, Dr Nadine Holmes PhD 18, Dr Christopher Moore PhD 18, Dr Nathaniel Storey PhD 29, Dr Stefan Rooke PhD 73, Dr Gonzalo Yebra PhD 73, Dr Noel Craine DPhil 74, Malorie Perry MSc 74, Dr Nabil-Fareed Alikhan PhD 75, Dr Stephen Bridgett PhD 77, Kate F Cook MScR 84, Christopher Fearn MSc 84, Dr Salman Goudarzi PhD 84, Prof Ronan A Lyons MD 88, Dr Thomas Williams MD 104, Dr Sam T Haldenby PhD 107, Jillian Durham BSc 116 and Dr Steven Leonard PhD 116
Metadata curation, and Software and analysis tools:
Robert M Davies MA (Cantab) 116
Project administration, and Samples and logistics:
Dr Rahul Batra MD 12, Beth Blane BSc 20, Dr Moira J Spyer PhD 30, 95, 96, Perminder Smith MSc 32, 112, Mehmet Yavus 85, 109, Dr Rachel J Williams PhD 96, Dr Adhyana IK Mahanama MD 97, Dr Buddhini Samaraweera MD 97, Sophia T Girgis MSc 102, Samantha E Hansford CSci 109, Dr Angie Green PhD 115, Dr Charlotte Beaver PhD 116, Katherine L Bellis 116, 102, Matthew J Dorman 116, Sally Kay 116, Liam Prestwood 116 and Dr Shavanthi Rajatileka PhD 116
Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Joshua Quick PhD 43
Project administration, and Software and analysis tools:
Radoslaw Poplawski BSc 43
Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:
Dr Nicola Reynolds PhD 8, Andrew Mack MPhil 11, Dr Arthur Morriss PhD 11, Thomas Whalley BSc 11, Bindi Patel BSc 12, Dr Iliana Georgana PhD 24, Dr Myra Hosmillo PhD 24, Malte L Pinckert MPhil 24, Dr Joanne Stockton PhD 43, Dr John H Henderson PhD 65, Amy Hollis HND 65, Dr William Stanley PhD 65, Dr Wen C Yew PhD 65, Dr Richard Myers PhD 72, Dr Alicia Thornton PhD 72, Alexander Adams BSc 74, Tara Annett BSc 74, Dr Hibo Asad PhD 74, Alec Birchley MSc 74, Jason Coombes BSc 74, Johnathan M Evans MSc 74, Laia Fina 74, Bree Gatica-Wilcox MPhil 74, Lauren Gilbert 74, Lee Graham BSc 74, Jessica Hey BSc 74, Ember Hilvers MPH 74, Sophie Jones MSc 74, Hannah Jones 74, Sara Kumziene-Summerhayes MSc 74, Dr Caoimhe McKerr PhD 74, Jessica Powell BSc 74, Georgia Pugh 74, Sarah Taylor 74, Alexander J Trotter MRes 75, Charlotte A Williams BSc 96, Leanne M Kermack MSc 102, Benjamin H Foulkes MSc 109, Marta Gallis MSc 109, Hailey R Hornsby MSc 109, Stavroula F Louka MSc 109, Dr Manoj Pohare PhD 109, Paige Wolverson MSc 109, Peijun Zhang MSc 109, George MacIntyre-Cockett BSc 115, Amy Trebes MSc 115, Dr Robin J Moll PhD 116, Lynne Ferguson MSc 117, Dr Emily J Goldstein PhD 117, Dr Alasdair Maclean PhD 117 and Dr Rachael Tomb PhD 117
Samples and logistics, and Software and analysis tools:
Dr Igor Starinskij MSc, MRCP 53
Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:
Laura Thomson BSc 5, Joel Southgate MSc 11, 74, Dr Moritz UG Kraemer DPhil 23, Dr Jayna Raghwani PhD 23, Dr Alex E Zarebski PhD 23, Olivia Boyd MSc 39, Lily Geidelberg MSc 39, Dr Chris J Illingworth PhD 52, Dr Chris Jackson PhD 52, Dr David Pascall PhD 52, Dr Sreenu Vattipally PhD 53, Timothy M Freeman MPhil 109, Dr Sharon N Hsu PhD 109, Dr Benjamin B Lindsey MRCP 109, Dr Keith James PhD 116, Kevin Lewis 116, Gerry Tonkin-Hill 116 and Dr Jaime M Tovar-Corona PhD 116
Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:
MacGregor Cox MSci 20
Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:
Dr Khalil Abudahab PhD 14, 116, Mirko Menegazzo 14, Ben EW Taylor MEng 14, 116, Dr Corin A Yeats PhD 14, Afrida Mukaddas BTech 53, Derek W Wright MSc 53, Dr Leonardo de Oliveira Martins PhD 75, Dr Rachel Colquhoun DPhil 104, Verity Hill 104, Dr Ben Jackson PhD 104, Dr JT McCrone PhD 104, Dr Nathan Medd PhD 104, Dr Emily Scher PhD 104 and Jon-Paul Keatley 116
Leadership and supervision:
Dr Tanya Curran PhD 3, Dr Sian Morgan FRCPath 10, Prof Patrick Maxwell PhD 20, Prof Ken Smith PhD 20, Dr Sahar Eldirdiri MBBS, MSc, FRCPath 21, Anita Kenyon MSc 21, Prof Alison H Holmes MD 38, 57, Dr James R Price PhD 38, 57, Dr Tim Wyatt PhD 69, Dr Alison E Mather PhD 75, Dr Timofey Skvortsov PhD 77 and Prof John A Hartley PhD 96
Metadata curation:
Prof Martyn Guest PhD 11, Dr Christine Kitchen PhD 11, Dr Ian Merrick PhD 11, Robert Munn BSc 11, Dr Beatrice Bertolusso Degree 33, Dr Jessica Lynch MBCHB 33, Dr Gabrielle Vernet MBBS 33, Stuart Kirk MSc 34, Dr Elizabeth Wastnedge MD 56, Dr Rachael Stanley PhD 58, Giles Idle 64, Dr Declan T Bradley PhD 69, 77, Dr Jennifer Poyner MD 79 and Matilde Mori BSc 110
Project administration:
Owen Jones BSc 11, Victoria Wright BSc 18, Ellena Brooks MA 20, Carol M Churcher BSc 20, Mireille Fragakis HND 20, Dr Katerina Galai PhD 20, 70, Dr Andrew Jermy PhD 20, Sarah Judges BA 20, Georgina M McManus BSc 20, Kim S Smith 20, Dr Elaine Westwick PhD 20, Dr Stephen W Attwood PhD 23, Dr Frances Bolt PhD 38, 57, Dr Alisha Davies PhD 74, Elen De Lacy MPH 74, Fatima Downing 74, Sue Edwards 74, Lizzie Meadows MA 75, Sarah Jeremiah MSc 97, Dr Nikki Smith PhD 109 and Luke Foulser 116
Samples and logistics:
Dr Themoula Charalampous PhD 12, 46, Amita Patel BSc 12, Dr Louise Berry PhD 15, Dr Tim Boswell PhD 15, Dr Vicki M Fleming PhD 15, Dr Hannah C Howson-Wells PhD 15, Dr Amelia Joseph PhD 15, Manjinder Khakh 15, Dr Michelle M Lister PhD 15, Paul W Bird MSc, MRes 16, Karlie Fallon 16, Thomas Helmer 16, Dr Claire L McMurray PhD 16, Mina Odedra BSc 16, Jessica Shaw BSc 16, Dr Julian W Tang PhD 16, Nicholas J Willford MSc 16, Victoria Blakey BSc 17, Dr Veena Raviprakash MD 17, Nicola Sheriff BSc 17, Lesley-Anne Williams BSc 17, Theresa Feltwell MSc 20, Dr Luke Bedford PhD 26, Dr James S Cargill PhD 27, Warwick Hughes MSc 27, Dr Jonathan Moore MD 28, Susanne Stonehouse BSc 28, Laura Atkinson MSc 29, Jack CD Lee MSc 29, Dr Divya Shah PhD 29, Adela Alcolea-Medina Clinical scientist 32, 112, Natasha Ohemeng-Kumi MSc 32, 112, John Ramble MSc 32, 112, Jasveen Sehmi MSc 32, 112, Dr Rebecca Williams BMBS 33, Wendy Chatterton MSc 34, Monika Pusok MSc 34, William Everson MSc 37, Anibolina Castigador IBMS HCPC 44, Emily Macnaughton FRCPath 44, Dr Kate El Bouzidi MRCP 45, Dr Temi Lampejo FRCPath 45, Dr Malur Sudhanva FRCPath 45, Cassie Breen BSc 47, Dr Graciela Sluga MD, MSc 48, Dr Shazaad SY Ahmad MSc 49, 70, Dr Ryan P George PhD 49, Dr Nicholas W Machin MSc 49, 70, Debbie Binns BSc 50, Victoria James BSc 50, Dr Rachel Blacow MBCHB 55, Dr Lindsay Coupland PhD 58, Dr Louise Smith PhD 59, Dr Edward Barton MD 60, Debra Padgett BSc 60, Garren Scott BSc 60, Dr Aidan Cross MBCHB 61, Dr Mariyam Mirfenderesky FRCPath 61, Jane Greenaway MSc 62, Kevin Cole 64, Phillip Clarke 67, Nichola Duckworth 67, Sarah Walsh 67, Kelly Bicknell 68, Robert Impey MSc 68, Dr Sarah Wyllie PhD 68, Richard Hopes 70, Dr Chloe Bishop PhD 72, Dr Vicki Chalker PhD 72, Dr Ian Harrison PhD 72, Laura Gifford MSc 74, Dr Zoltan Molnar PhD 77, Dr Cressida Auckland FRCPath 79, Dr Cariad Evans PhD 85, 109, Dr Kate Johnson PhD 85, 109, Dr David G Partridge FRCP, FRCPath 85, 109, Dr Mohammad Raza PhD 85, 109, Paul Baker MD 86, Prof Stephen Bonner PhD 86, Sarah Essex 86, Leanne J Murray 86, Andrew I Lawton MSc 87, Dr Shirelle Burton-Fanning MD 89, Dr Brendan AI Payne MD 89, Dr Sheila Waugh MD 89, Andrea N Gomes MSc 91, Maimuna Kimuli MSc 91, Darren R Murray MSc 91, Paula Ashfield MSc 92, Dr Donald Dobie MBCHB 92, Dr Fiona Ashford PhD 93, Dr Angus Best PhD 93, Dr Liam Crawford PhD 93, Dr Nicola Cumley PhD 93, Dr Megan Mayhew PhD 93, Dr Oliver Megram PhD 93, Dr Jeremy Mirza PhD 93, Dr Emma Moles-Garcia PhD 93, Dr Benita Percival PhD 93, Megan Driscoll BSc 96, Leah Ensell BSc 96, Dr Helen L Lowe PhD 96, Laurentiu Maftei BSc 96, Matteo Mondani MSc 96, Nicola J Chaloner BSc 99, Benjamin J Cogger BSc 99, Lisa J Easton MSc 99, Hannah Huckson BSc 99, Jonathan Lewis MSc, PgD, FIBMS 99, Sarah Lowdon BSc 99, Cassandra S Malone MSc 99, Florence Munemo BSc 99, Manasa Mutingwende MSc 99, Roberto Nicodemi BSc 99, Olga Podplomyk FD 99, Thomas Somassa BSc 99, Dr Andrew Beggs PhD 100, Dr Alex Richter PhD 100, Claire Cormie 102, Joana Dias MSc 102, Sally Forrest BSc 102, Dr Ellen E Higginson PhD 102, Mailis Maes MPhil 102, Jamie Young BSc 102, Dr Rose K Davidson PhD 103, Kathryn A Jackson MSc 107, Dr Lance Turtle PhD, MRCP 107, Dr Alexander J Keeley MRCP 109, Prof Jonathan Ball PhD 113, Timothy Byaruhanga MSc 113, Dr Joseph G Chappell PhD 113, Jayasree Dey MSc 113, Jack D Hill MSc 113, Emily J Park MSc 113, Arezou Fanaie MSc 114, Rachel A Hilson MSc 114, Geraldine Yaze MSc 114 and Stephanie Lo 116
Sequencing and analysis:
Safiah Afifi BSc 10, Robert Beer BSc 10, Joshua Maksimovic FD 10, Kathryn McCluggage Masters 10, Karla Spellman FD 10, Catherine Bresner BSc 11, William Fuller BSc 11, Dr Angela Marchbank BSc 11, Trudy Workman HNC 11, Dr Ekaterina Shelest PhD 13, 81, Dr Johnny Debebe PhD 18, Dr Fei Sang PhD 18, Dr Marina Escalera Zamudio PhD 23, Dr Sarah Francois PhD 23, Bernardo Gutierrez MSc 23, Dr Tetyana I Vasylyeva DPhil 23, Dr Flavia Flaviani PhD 31, Dr Manon Ragonnet-Cronin PhD 39, Dr Katherine L Smollett PhD 42, Alice Broos BSc 53, Daniel Mair BSc 53, Jenna Nichols BSc 53, Dr Kyriaki Nomikou PhD 53, Dr Lily Tong PhD 53, Ioulia Tsatsani MSc 53, Prof Sarah O’Brien PhD 54, Prof Steven Rushton PhD 54, Dr Roy Sanderson PhD 54, Dr Jon Perkins MBCHB 55, Seb Cotton MSc 56, Abbie Gallagher BSc 56, Dr Elias Allara MD, PhD 70, 102, Clare Pearson MSc 70, 102, Dr David Bibby PhD 72, Dr Gavin Dabrera PhD 72, Dr Nicholas Ellaby PhD 72, Dr Eileen Gallagher PhD 72, Dr Jonathan Hubb PhD 72, Dr Angie Lackenby PhD 72, Dr David Lee PhD 72, Nikos Manesis 72, Dr Tamyo Mbisa PhD 72, Dr Steven Platt PhD 72, Katherine A Twohig 72, Dr Mari Morgan PhD 74, Alp Aydin MSci 75, David J Baker BEng 75, Dr Ebenezer Foster-Nyarko PhD 75, Dr Sophie J Prosolek PhD 75, Steven Rudder 75, Chris Baxter BSc 77, Sílvia F Carvalho MSc 77, Dr Deborah Lavin PhD 77, Dr Arun Mariappan PhD 77, Dr Clara Radulescu PhD 77, Dr Aditi Singh PhD 77, Miao Tang MD 77, Helen Morcrette BSc 79, Nadua Bayzid BSc 96, Marius Cotic MSc 96, Dr Carlos E Balcazar PhD 104, Dr Michael D Gallagher PhD 104, Dr Daniel Maloney PhD 104, Thomas D Stanton BSc 104, Dr Kathleen A Williamson PhD 104, Dr Robin Manley PhD 105, Michelle L Michelsen BSc 105, Dr Christine M Sambles PhD 105, Dr David J Studholme PhD 105, Joanna Warwick-Dugdale BSc 105, Richard Eccles MSc 107, Matthew Gemmell MSc 107, Dr Richard Gregory PhD 107, Dr Margaret Hughes PhD 107, Charlotte Nelson MSc 107, Dr Lucille Rainbow PhD 107, Dr Edith E Vamos PhD 107, Hermione J Webster BSc 107, Dr Mark Whitehead PhD 107, Claudia Wierzbicki BSc 107, Dr Adrienn Angyal PhD 109, Dr Luke R Green PhD 109, Dr Max Whiteley PhD 109, Emma Betteridge BSc 116, Dr Iraad F Bronner PhD 116, Ben W Farr BSc 116, Scott Goodwin MSc 116, Dr Stefanie V Lensing PhD 116, Shane A McCarthy 116, 102, Dr Michael A Quail PhD 116, Diana Rajan MSc 116, Dr Nicholas M Redshaw PhD 116, Carol Scott 116, Lesley Shirley MSc 116 and Scott AJ Thurston BSc 116
Software and analysis tools:
Dr Will Rowe PhD43, Amy Gaskin MSc 74, Dr Thanh Le-Viet PhD 75, James Bonfield BSc 116, Jennifier Liddle 116 and Andrew Whitwham BSc 1161 Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, 2 Barts Health NHS Trust, 3 Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, 4 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, 5 Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 6 Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 7 Bournemouth University, 8 Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, 9 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 10 Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, 11 Cardiff University, 12 Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 13 Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth, 14 Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance, University of Oxford, 15 Clinical Microbiology Department, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, 16 Clinical Microbiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, 17 County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, 18 Deep Seq, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 19 Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 20 Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, 21 Department of Microbiology, Kettering General Hospital, 22 Department of Microbiology, South West London Pathology, 23 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 24 Division of Virology, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, 25 East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, 26 East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, 27 East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, 28 Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, 29 Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, 30 Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (GOS ICH), University College London (UCL), 31 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Biomedical Research Centre, 32 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 33 Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 34 Health Services Laboratories, 35 Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, 36 Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, Northumbria University, 37 Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, 38 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, 39 Imperial College London, 40 Infection Care Group, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 41 Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George’s University of London, 42 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, 43 Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, 44 Isle of Wight NHS Trust, 45 King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 46 King’s College London, 47 Liverpool Clinical Laboratories, 48 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, 49 Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, 50 Microbiology Department, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, 51 Microbiology, Royal Oldham Hospital, 52 MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, 53 MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, 54 Newcastle University, 55 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 56 NHS Lothian, 57 NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, 58 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 59 Norfolk County Council, 60 North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, 61 North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, 62 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, 63 North West London Pathology, 64 Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, 65 Northumbria University, 66 NU-OMICS, Northumbria University, 67 Path Links, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, 68 Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, 69 Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland, 70 Public Health England, 71 Public Health England, Cambridge, 72 Public Health England, Colindale, 73 Public Health Scotland, 74 Public Health Wales, 75 Quadram Institute Bioscience, 76 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, 77 Queen’s University Belfast, 78 Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, 79 Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, 80 Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, 81 School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, 82 School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, 83 School of Medicine, University of Southampton, 84 School of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, 85 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 86 South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 87 Southwest Pathology Services, 88 Swansea University, 89 The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 90 The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, 91 The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, 92 The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, 93 Turnkey Laboratory, University of Birmingham, 94 University College London Division of Infection and Immunity, 95 University College London Hospital Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics Unit, 96 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 97 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, 98 University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, 99 University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, 100 University of Birmingham, 101 University of Brighton, 102 University of Cambridge, 103 University of East Anglia, 104 University of Edinburgh, 105 University of Exeter, 106 University of Kent, 107 University of Liverpool, 108 University of Oxford, 109 University of Sheffield, 110 University of Southampton, 111 University of St Andrews, 112 Viapath, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 113 Virology, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 114 Watford General Hospital, 115 Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 116 Wellcome Sanger Institute, 117 West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 118 Whittington Health NHS Trust
Footnotes
↵** The full list of names is available at https://www.sanger.ac.uk/project/wellcome-sanger-institute-covid-19-surveillance-team/
↵++ The full list of names and affiliations of COG-UK members is provided in the appendix
References
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos