Back

Sword of Damocles or choosing well. Population genetics sheds light into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 new mutant strains.

Garcia Garcia de Alcaniz, J.; Lopez-Rodas, V.; Costas, E.

2021-01-20 epidemiology
10.1101/2021.01.16.21249924 medRxiv
Show abstract

An immense scientific effort has been made worldwide due to Covid-19s pandemic magnitude. It has made possible to identify almost 300,000 SARS-CoV-2 different genetic variants, connecting them with clinical and epidemiological findings. Among this immense data collection, that constitutes the biggest evolutionary experiment in history, is buried the answer to what will happen in the future. Will new strains, more contagious than the current ones or resistant to the vaccines, arise by mutation? Although theoretic population genetics is, by far, the most powerful tool we have to do an accurate prediction, it has been barely used for the study of SARS-CoV-2 due to its conceptual difficulty. Having in mind that the size of the SARS-CoV-2 population is astronomical we can apply a discrete treatment, based on the branching process method, Fokker-Plank equations and Kolmogoroffs forward equations, to calculate the survival likelihood through time, to elucidate the likelihood to become dominant genotypes and how long will this take, for new SARS-CoV-2 mutants depending on their selective advantage. Results show that most of the new mutants that will arise in the SARS-CoV-2 meta-population will stay at very low frequencies. However, some few new mutants, significantly more infectious than current ones, will still emerge and become dominant in the population favoured by a great selective advantage. Far from showing a "mutational meltdown", SARS-CoV-2 meta-population will increase its fitness becoming more infective. There is a probability, small but finite, that new mutants arise resistant to some vaccines. High infected numbers and slow vaccination programs will significantly increase this likelihood.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
18.6%
2
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.5%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.8%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
5
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
7
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
8
Frontiers in Physics
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 42%
1.7%
11
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
13
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
15
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
16
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
17
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
22
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Mathematics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
25
The European Physical Journal Plus
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.6%
27
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
28
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
29
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%