MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417506982 · doi:10.1099/mgen.0.001575

Sequencing and variant calling of SARS-CoV-2 from floor swabs: a potential tool for identifying emergent lineages

2025· article· en· W4417506982 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benazir Hodzic-Santor, Aaron Hinz, Rees Kassen, Ju‐Ling Liu, Haig Djambazian, Sally Lee, Alexandra Hicks, Calvin Sjaarda, Henry Wong, Prameet M. Sheth, Caroline Nott, Derek R. MacFadden, Anne-Marie Roy, Jiannis Ragoussis, Lucas Castellani, Michael Fralick, Alex Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobial Genomics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalNOSM UniversityKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversitySault Area HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome CentreSinai Health SystemCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakGenetic diversitySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Lineage (genetic)Sampling (signal processing)DNA sequencing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ongoing viral evolution is a key driver of global pandemics, such as COVID-19, contributing to the repeated emergence and spread of new variants of concern. Identifying emerging viral variants is crucial for controlling the spread of infection; however, patient testing is not always feasible, and clinical samples are not routinely sequenced. As a result, new approaches, such as environmental-based surveillance, are needed for monitoring genetic diversity. Floor swabs provide greater spatial resolution than other environmental sampling approaches, but pose challenges for genomic analyses due to microbial RNA/DNA yields. We investigate the potential of obtaining whole-genome diversity data from floor swab samples to detect circulating lineages of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Floor swabs (n=23) were collected and sequenced from public locations in Ottawa, Canada, during December 2022, and were compared with contemporaneous human samples. Low biomass recovery remained a challenge, as approximately half of the swabs did not yield sufficient genetic material for analysis. The most commonly identified lineages from the floor swabs were XBB, while B (12.5%) and BA (12.5%) lineages appeared less frequently. In contrast, swab results from humans most often identified BQ (49.3%), BA (23.8%) and BF (17.8%), with XBB detected at a lower prevalence (2.7%). XBB became the dominant lineage in the region in the month following floor swab collection, suggesting that floor swabs may offer early signals of emerging outbreaks in comparison with hospital-based clinical sampling. This may suggest a role for floor swabs in outbreak prediction; however, larger studies are needed to validate this approach.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobial GenomicsSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207