Genomic epidemiology of COVID-19 in care homes in the East of England

  1. William L Hamilton  Is a corresponding author
  2. Gerry Tonkin-Hill
  3. Emily R Smith
  4. Dinesh Aggarwal
  5. Charlotte J Houldcroft
  6. Ben Warne
  7. Colin S Brown
  8. Luke W Meredith
  9. Myra Hosmillo
  10. Aminu S Jahun
  11. Martin D Curran
  12. Surendra Parmar
  13. Laura G Caller
  14. Sarah L Caddy
  15. Fahad A Khokhar
  16. Anna Yakovleva
  17. Grant Hall
  18. Theresa Feltwell
  19. Malte L Pinckert
  20. Iliana Georgana
  21. Yasmin Chaudhry
  22. Nicholas M Brown
  23. Sonia Gonçalves
  24. Roberto Amato
  25. Ewan M Harrison
  26. Mathew A Beale
  27. Michael Spencer Chapman
  28. David K Jackson
  29. Ian Johnston
  30. Alex Alderton
  31. John Sillitoe
  32. Cordelia Langford None
  33. Gordon Dougan
  34. Sharon J Peacock
  35. Dominic P Kwiatowski
  36. Ian G Goodfellow
  37. M Estee Torok  Is a corresponding author
  38. COVID-19 Genomics Consortium UK
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. Wellcome Sanger Institute, United Kingdom
  3. Cambridgeshire County Council, United Kingdom
  4. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
  5. Public Health England, United Kingdom
  6. Public Health England (PHE), United Kingdom
  7. MRC-Laboratory of Molecular Biology, United Kingdom
  8. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  9. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, United Kingdom

Abstract

COVID-19 poses a major challenge to care homes, as SARS-CoV-2 is readily transmitted and causes disproportionately severe disease in older people. Here, 1,167 residents from 337 care homes were identified from a dataset of 6,600 COVID-19 cases from the East of England. Older age and being a care home resident were associated with increased mortality. SARS-CoV-2 genomes were available for 700 residents from 292 care homes. By integrating genomic and temporal data, 409 viral clusters within the 292 homes were identified, indicating two different patterns - outbreaks among care home residents and independent introductions with limited onward transmission. Approximately 70% of residents in the genomic analysis were admitted to hospital during the study, providing extensive opportunities for transmission between care homes and hospitals. Limiting viral transmission within care homes should be a key target for infection control to reduce COVID-19 mortality in this population.

Data availability

The main analysis set comprised 700 genomes from care home residents. Additionally, a randomised selection of 700 genomes from non-care home residents was used for comparing lineage composition, and genomes from 76 healthcare workers tested at CUH were included for the analysis of care home resident-HCW transmission. Consensus fasta sequences for the 1,476 genomes are publicly accessible through the COG-UK website data section (https://www.cogconsortium.uk/data/). COG-UK also regularly deposits data into public databases such as GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org/). GISAID accession IDs and virus names are included in the Supplementary Materials. 13 samples were not added to GISAID as they did not pass GISAID's quality control filtering, but these fasta sequences are available in the COG-UK database.Sequences have associated public metadata (also available via the COG-UK website or GISAID), including patient age, sex, collection date (if available), and location to the level of UK county. However, not all of the metadata used in this study can be released publicly. COG-UK samples are sequenced under statutory powers granted to the UK Public Health Agencies. Matched patient data is securely released to the COG-UK consortium under a data sharing framework which strictly controls the handling of patient data. The status of individuals living in a care home and groups of such care home patients are both on the consortium restricted data list. This means that this data cannot be publicly released linked to sequencing identifiers, sampling date and UK counties. This is because of the risk of deductive disclosure. If a research scientist would like to repeat our analysis using these data fields, they should write to the corresponding authors to discuss the process of signing a data sharing agreement that will allow them to access the data securely.

The following previously published data sets were used
    1. GISAID
    (2020) GISAID
    GISAID, see Supplementary File 1 for identifiers.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William L Hamilton

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    will.l.hamilton@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Gerry Tonkin-Hill

    Parasites and Microbes, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4397-2224
  3. Emily R Smith

    Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Dinesh Aggarwal

    University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5938-8172
  5. Charlotte J Houldcroft

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1833-5285
  6. Ben Warne

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Colin S Brown

    Public Health England, Colindale, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Luke W Meredith

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Myra Hosmillo

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3514-7681
  10. Aminu S Jahun

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4585-1701
  11. Martin D Curran

    Clinical Microbiology & Public Health Laboratory, Public Health England (PHE), Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Surendra Parmar

    Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Laura G Caller

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Sarah L Caddy

    PNAC, MRC-Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9790-7420
  15. Fahad A Khokhar

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Anna Yakovleva

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Grant Hall

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3928-3979
  18. Theresa Feltwell

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Malte L Pinckert

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Iliana Georgana

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8976-1177
  21. Yasmin Chaudhry

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Nicholas M Brown

    Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, Public Health England, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6657-300X
  23. Sonia Gonçalves

    Malaria Programme, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. Roberto Amato

    Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  25. Ewan M Harrison

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  26. Mathew A Beale

    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4740-3187
  27. Michael Spencer Chapman

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5320-8193
  28. David K Jackson

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8090-9462
  29. Ian Johnston

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  30. Alex Alderton

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  31. John Sillitoe

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  32. Cordelia Langford None

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  33. Gordon Dougan

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  34. Sharon J Peacock

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1718-2782
  35. Dominic P Kwiatowski

    Human Genetics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  36. Ian G Goodfellow

    Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9483-510X
  37. M Estee Torok

    Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    et317@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    M Estee Torok, I have received grant support from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Health Foundation, and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. I have also received book royalties from Oxford University Press and honoraria from the Wellcome Sanger Institute.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9098-8590
  38. COVID-19 Genomics Consortium UK

Funding

Medical Research Council (COG-UK grant to SJP)

  • Sharon J Peacock

National Institute for Health Research (COG-UK grant to SJP)

  • William L Hamilton
  • Emily R Smith
  • Sharon J Peacock

Genome Research Ltd (COG-UK grant to SJP)

  • Sharon J Peacock

The Wellcome Trust (Senior Fellowship 097997/Z/11/Z)

  • Ian G Goodfellow

Academy of Medical Sciences (Clinician Scientist Fellowship to MET)

  • M Estee Torok

Health Foundation (Clinician Scientist Fellowship to MET)

  • M Estee Torok

NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre

  • Ben Warne
  • Gordon Dougan
  • M Estee Torok

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: This study was conducted as part of surveillance for COVID-19 infections under the auspices of Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006. It therefore did not require individual patient consent or ethical approval. The COG-UK study protocol was approved by the Public Health England Research Ethics Governance Group (reference: R&D NR0195).

Copyright

© 2021, Hamilton et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,814
    views
  • 290
    downloads
  • 21
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. William L Hamilton
  2. Gerry Tonkin-Hill
  3. Emily R Smith
  4. Dinesh Aggarwal
  5. Charlotte J Houldcroft
  6. Ben Warne
  7. Colin S Brown
  8. Luke W Meredith
  9. Myra Hosmillo
  10. Aminu S Jahun
  11. Martin D Curran
  12. Surendra Parmar
  13. Laura G Caller
  14. Sarah L Caddy
  15. Fahad A Khokhar
  16. Anna Yakovleva
  17. Grant Hall
  18. Theresa Feltwell
  19. Malte L Pinckert
  20. Iliana Georgana
  21. Yasmin Chaudhry
  22. Nicholas M Brown
  23. Sonia Gonçalves
  24. Roberto Amato
  25. Ewan M Harrison
  26. Mathew A Beale
  27. Michael Spencer Chapman
  28. David K Jackson
  29. Ian Johnston
  30. Alex Alderton
  31. John Sillitoe
  32. Cordelia Langford None
  33. Gordon Dougan
  34. Sharon J Peacock
  35. Dominic P Kwiatowski
  36. Ian G Goodfellow
  37. M Estee Torok
  38. COVID-19 Genomics Consortium UK
(2021)
Genomic epidemiology of COVID-19 in care homes in the East of England
eLife 10:e64618.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64618

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64618

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Riccardo Spott, Mathias W Pletz ... Christian Brandt
    Research Article

    Given the rapid cross-country spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting difficulty in tracking lineage spread, we investigated the potential of combining mobile service data and fine-granular metadata (such as postal codes and genomic data) to advance integrated genomic surveillance of the pandemic in the federal state of Thuringia, Germany. We sequenced over 6500 SARS-CoV-2 Alpha genomes (B.1.1.7) across 7 months within Thuringia while collecting patients’ isolation dates and postal codes. Our dataset is complemented by over 66,000 publicly available German Alpha genomes and mobile service data for Thuringia. We identified the existence and spread of nine persistent mutation variants within the Alpha lineage, seven of which formed separate phylogenetic clusters with different spreading patterns in Thuringia. The remaining two are subclusters. Mobile service data can indicate these clusters’ spread and highlight a potential sampling bias, especially of low-prevalence variants. Thereby, mobile service data can be used either retrospectively to assess surveillance coverage and efficiency from already collected data or to actively guide part of a surveillance sampling process to districts where these variants are expected to emerge. The latter concept was successfully implemented as a proof-of-concept for a mobility-guided sampling strategy in response to the surveillance of Omicron sublineage BQ.1.1. The combination of mobile service data and SARS-CoV-2 surveillance by genome sequencing is a valuable tool for more targeted and responsive surveillance.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Marina Padilha, Victor Nahuel Keller ... Gilberto Kac
    Research Article

    Background: The role of circulating metabolites on child development is understudied. We investigated associations between children's serum metabolome and early childhood development (ECD).

    Methods: Untargeted metabolomics was performed on serum samples of 5,004 children aged 6-59 months, a subset of participants from the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019). ECD was assessed using the Survey of Well-being of Young Children's milestones questionnaire. The graded response model was used to estimate developmental age. Developmental quotient (DQ) was calculated as the developmental age divided by chronological age. Partial least square regression selected metabolites with a variable importance projection ≥ 1. The interaction between significant metabolites and the child's age was tested.

    Results: Twenty-eight top-ranked metabolites were included in linear regression models adjusted for the child's nutritional status, diet quality, and infant age. Cresol sulfate (β = -0.07; adjusted-p < 0.001), hippuric acid (β = -0.06; adjusted-p < 0.001), phenylacetylglutamine (β = -0.06; adjusted-p < 0.001), and trimethylamine-N-oxide (β = -0.05; adjusted-p = 0.002) showed inverse associations with DQ. We observed opposite directions in the association of DQ for creatinine (for children aged -1 SD: β = -0.05; p =0.01; +1 SD: β = 0.05; p =0.02) and methylhistidine (-1 SD: β = - 0.04; p =0.04; +1 SD: β = 0.04; p =0.03).

    Conclusion: Serum biomarkers, including dietary and microbial-derived metabolites involved in the gut-brain axis, may potentially be used to track children at risk for developmental delays.

    Funding: Supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the Brazilian National Research Council.