RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Genomic epidemiology reveals the dominance of Hennepin County in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Minnesota from 2020-2022
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.07.24.22277978
DO 10.1101/2022.07.24.22277978
A1 Scotch, Matthew
A1 Lauer, Kimberly
A1 Wieben, Eric D.
A1 Cherukuri, Yesesri
A1 Cunningham, Julie M
A1 Klee, Eric W
A1 Harrington, Jonathan J.
A1 Lau, Julie S
A1 McDonough, Samantha J
A1 Mutawe, Mark
A1 O’Horo, John C.
A1 Rentmeester, Chad E.
A1 Schlicher, Nicole R
A1 White, Valerie T
A1 Schneider, Susan K
A1 Vedell, Peter T
A1 Wang, Xiong
A1 Yao, Joseph D
A1 Pritt, Bobbi S
A1 Norgan, Andrew P
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/26/2022.07.24.22277978.abstract
AB SARS-CoV-2 has had an unprecedented impact on human health and highlights the need for genomic epidemiology studies to increase our understanding of virus evolution and spread, and to inform policy decisions. We sequenced viral genomes from over 22,000 patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories between 2020-2022 and use Bayesian phylodynamics to describe county and regional spread in Minnesota.The earliest introduction into Minnesota was to Hennepin County from a domestic source around January 22, 2020; six weeks before the first confirmed case in the state. This led to the virus spreading to Northern Minnesota, and eventually, the rest of the state. International introductions were most abundant in Hennepin (home to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International (MSP) airport) totaling 45 (out of 107) over the two-year period. Southern Minnesota counties were most common for domestic introductions with 19 (out of 64), potentially driven by bordering states such as Iowa and Wisconsin as well as Illinois which is nearby. Hennepin also was, by far, the most dominant source of in-state transmissions to other Minnesota locations (n=772) over the two-year period.We also analyzed the diversity of the location source of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in each county and noted the timing of state-wide policies as well as trends in clinical cases. Neither the number of clinical cases or major policy decisions, such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, appeared to have impact on virus diversity across each individual county.Importance We analyzed over 22,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes of patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories during a two-year period in the COVID-19 pandemic that included Alpha, Delta, and Omicron VoCs to examine the roles and relationships of Minnesota virus transmission.We found that Hennepin County, the most populous county, drove the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the state after including the formation of earlier clades including 20A, 20C, and 20G, as well as variants of concern Alpha and Delta. We also found that Hennepin County was the source for most of the county-to-county introductions after its initial introduction with the virus in early 2020 from an international source, while other counties acted as transmission “sinks”. In addition, major policies such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, did not appear to have an impact on virus diversity across individual counties.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis publication was supported by funding from the Center for Individualized Medicine-Mayo Clinic Research. Research reported in this publication was also supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number R01AI164481 (to MS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This research was conducted under approval of ethics by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board and assigned a study ID IRB#: 20-005896 and entitled Large Scale Whole Genome Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2. All our published datasets contain randomly generated study IDs and no personal identifiers. All data analysis was performed behind the Mayo Clinic firewall.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesWe have deposited the SARS-CoV-2 genomes and metadata from this study in GISAID with a list available at doi.org/10.55876/gis8.220720me. The Minnesota Department of Health sequences used in this study are available on GISAID with acknowledgments at doi.org/10.55876/gis8.220709mv. Our GenBank international sequences were identified via the Nextstrain site and obtained from NCBI Virus. We have deposited BEAST XML files, empirical set of posterior trees, and our introductions in figshare at 10.6084/m9.figshare.21777995; 10.6084/m9.figshare.21778004; 10.6084/m9.figshare.21777998; 10.6084/m9.figshare.22679449.