Phylodynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in France, Europe and the world in 2020

  1. Romain Coppée  Is a corresponding author
  2. François Blanquart
  3. Aude Jary
  4. Valentin Leducq
  5. Valentine Marie Ferré
  6. Anna Maria Franco Yusti
  7. Léna Daniel
  8. Charlotte Charpentier
  9. Samuel Lebourgeois
  10. Karen Zafilaza
  11. Vincent Calvez
  12. Diane Descamps
  13. Anne-Geneviève Marcelin
  14. Benoit Visseaux
  15. Antoine Bridier-Nahmias  Is a corresponding author
  1. Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, France
  2. Collège de France, France
  3. Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, France
  4. Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, France

Abstract

Although France was one of the most affected European countries by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 movement within France, but also involving France in Europe and in the world, remain only partially characterized in this timeframe. Here, we analyzed GISAID deposited sequences from 1st January to 31th December 2020 (n = 638,706 sequences at the time of writing). To tackle the challenging number of sequences without the bias of analyzing a single subsample of sequences, we produced 100 subsamples of sequences and related phylogenetic trees from the whole dataset for different geographic scales (worldwide, European countries and French administrative regions) and time periods (from 1st January to 25th July 2020, and from 26th July to 31th December 2020). We applied a maximum likelihood discrete trait phylogeographic method to date exchange events (i.e., a transition from one location to another one), to estimate the geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions and lineages into, from and within France, Europe and the world. The results unraveled two different patterns of exchange events between the first and second half of 2020. Throughout the year, Europe was systematically associated with most of the intercontinental exchanges. SARS-CoV-2 was mainly introduced into France from North America and Europe (mostly by Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium and Germany) during the first European epidemic wave. During the second wave, exchange events were limited to neighboring countries without strong intercontinental movement, but Russia widely exported the virus into Europe during the summer of 2020. France mostly exported B.1 and B.1.160 lineages, respectively during the first and second European epidemic waves. At the level of French administrative regions, the Paris area was the main exporter during the first wave. But, for the second epidemic wave, it equally contributed to virus spread with Lyon area, the second most populated urban area after Paris in France. The main circulating lineages were similarly distributed among the French regions. To conclude, by enabling the inclusion of tens of thousands of viral sequences, this original phylodynamic method enabled us to robustly describe SARS-CoV-2 geographic spread through France, Europe and worldwide in 2020.

Data availability

All genome sequences and associated metadata in the dataset are published in GISAID's EpiCoV database. To view the contributors of each individual sequence with details such as accession number, virus name, collection date, originating lab and submitting lab and the list of authors, visit: https://doi.org/10.55876/gis8.230120zd.All the scripts developed for this study were deposited in the following GitHub repository: https://github.com/Rcoppee/PhyloCoV

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Romain Coppée

    Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    romain.coppee@inserm.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3024-5928
  2. François Blanquart

    Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Biology, Collège de France, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0591-2466
  3. Aude Jary

    Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Valentin Leducq

    Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Valentine Marie Ferré

    Service de Virologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anna Maria Franco Yusti

    Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Léna Daniel

    Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Charlotte Charpentier

    Service de Virologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Samuel Lebourgeois

    Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Karen Zafilaza

    Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Vincent Calvez

    Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Diane Descamps

    Service de Virologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Anne-Geneviève Marcelin

    Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Benoit Visseaux

    Service de Virologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Antoine Bridier-Nahmias

    Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    antoine.bridier-nahmias@inserm.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0376-6840

Funding

No external funding was received for this work.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Caroline Colijn, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Version history

  1. Received: August 8, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: August 11, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: April 15, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 26, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: May 11, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Coppée 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

  • 649
    views
  • 106
    downloads
  • 3
    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. Romain Coppée
  2. François Blanquart
  3. Aude Jary
  4. Valentin Leducq
  5. Valentine Marie Ferré
  6. Anna Maria Franco Yusti
  7. Léna Daniel
  8. Charlotte Charpentier
  9. Samuel Lebourgeois
  10. Karen Zafilaza
  11. Vincent Calvez
  12. Diane Descamps
  13. Anne-Geneviève Marcelin
  14. Benoit Visseaux
  15. Antoine Bridier-Nahmias
(2023)
Phylodynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in France, Europe and the world in 2020
eLife 12:e82538.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82538

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82538

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Lijun Bian, Zhimin Ma ... Guangfu Jin
    Research Article

    Background:

    Age is the most important risk factor for cancer, but aging rates are heterogeneous across individuals. We explored a new measure of aging-Phenotypic Age (PhenoAge)-in the risk prediction of site-specific and overall cancer.

    Methods:

    Using Cox regression models, we examined the association of Phenotypic Age Acceleration (PhenoAgeAccel) with cancer incidence by genetic risk group among 374,463 participants from the UK Biobank. We generated PhenoAge using chronological age and nine biomarkers, PhenoAgeAccel after subtracting the effect of chronological age by regression residual, and an incidence-weighted overall cancer polygenic risk score (CPRS) based on 20 cancer site-specific polygenic risk scores (PRSs).

    Results:

    Compared with biologically younger participants, those older had a significantly higher risk of overall cancer, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–1.27) in men, and 1.26 (1.22–1.31) in women, respectively. A joint effect of genetic risk and PhenoAgeAccel was observed on overall cancer risk, with HRs of 2.29 (2.10–2.51) for men and 1.94 (1.78–2.11) for women with high genetic risk and older PhenoAge compared with those with low genetic risk and younger PhenoAge. PhenoAgeAccel was negatively associated with the number of healthy lifestyle factors (Beta = –1.01 in men, p<0.001; Beta = –0.98 in women, p<0.001).

    Conclusions:

    Within and across genetic risk groups, older PhenoAge was consistently related to an increased risk of incident cancer with adjustment for chronological age and the aging process could be retarded by adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

    Funding:

    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82230110, 82125033, 82388102 to GJ; 82273714 to MZ); and the Excellent Youth Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20220100 to MZ).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Zhanwei Du, Lin Wang ... Lauren A Meyers
    Short Report

    Paxlovid, a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral, not only prevents severe illness but also curtails viral shedding, lowering transmission risks from treated patients. By fitting a mathematical model of within-host Omicron viral dynamics to electronic health records data from 208 hospitalized patients in Hong Kong, we estimate that Paxlovid can inhibit over 90% of viral replication. However, its effectiveness critically depends on the timing of treatment. If treatment is initiated three days after symptoms first appear, we estimate a 17% chance of a post-treatment viral rebound and a 12% (95% CI: 0%-16%) reduction in overall infectiousness for non-rebound cases. Earlier treatment significantly elevates the risk of rebound without further reducing infectiousness, whereas starting beyond five days reduces its efficacy in curbing peak viral shedding. Among the 104 patients who received Paxlovid, 62% began treatment within an optimal three-to-five-day day window after symptoms appeared. Our findings indicate that broader global access to Paxlovid, coupled with appropriately timed treatment, can mitigate the severity and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.