MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208231360 · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.10.050

Mutations in emerging variant of concern lineages disrupt genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens

2021· article· en· W3208231360 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kevin S. Kuchinski, Jason Nguyen, Tracy D. Lee, Rebecca Hickman, Agatha N. Jassem, Linda Hoang, Natalie Prystajecky, John R. Tyson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyDNA sequencingLineage (genetic)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GenomeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeneticsMutationGenomic sequencingComputational biologyCoronavirusGenomicsDeep sequencingWhole genome sequencingGeneMedicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineages can interfere with laboratory methods used to generate viral genome sequences for public health surveillance. We identified 20 mutations that are widespread in variant of concern lineages and affect widely used sequencing protocols by the ARTIC network and Freed et al. Three of these mutations disrupted sequencing of P.1 lineage specimens during a recent outbreak in British Columbia, Canada. We provide laboratory validation of protocol modifications that restored sequencing performance. The study findings indicate that genomic sequencing protocols require immediate updating to address emerging mutations. This work also suggests that routine monitoring and protocol updates will be necessary as SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve. The bioinformatic and laboratory approaches used here provide guidance for this kind of assay maintenance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207