Phylodynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in France, Europe and the world in 2020
- Université Paris Cité and Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, France
- Collège de France, France
- Sorbonne Université, Inserm, iPLESP, France
- 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
François Blanquart
Antoine Bridier-Nahmias
Funding
No external funding was received for this work.
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
-
- 858
- views
-
- 118
- downloads
-
- 4
- 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)
Phylodynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in France, Europe and the world in 2020
eLife 12:e82538.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82538
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Background:
Biological aging exhibits heterogeneity across multi-organ systems. However, it remains unclear how is lifestyle associated with overall and organ-specific aging and which factors contribute most in Southwest China.
Methods:
This study involved 8396 participants who completed two surveys from the China Multi-Ethnic Cohort (CMEC) study. The healthy lifestyle index (HLI) was developed using five lifestyle factors: smoking, alcohol, diet, exercise, and sleep. The comprehensive and organ-specific biological ages (BAs) were calculated using the Klemera–Doubal method based on longitudinal clinical laboratory measurements, and validation were conducted to select BA reflecting related diseases. Fixed effects model was used to examine the associations between HLI or its components and the acceleration of validated BAs. We further evaluated the relative contribution of lifestyle components to comprehension and organ systems BAs using quantile G-computation.
Results:
About two-thirds of participants changed HLI scores between surveys. After validation, three organ-specific BAs (the cardiopulmonary, metabolic, and liver BAs) were identified as reflective of specific diseases and included in further analyses with the comprehensive BA. The health alterations in HLI showed a protective association with the acceleration of all BAs, with a mean shift of –0.19 (95% CI −0.34, –0.03) in the comprehensive BA acceleration. Diet and smoking were the major contributors to overall negative associations of five lifestyle factors, with the comprehensive BA and metabolic BA accounting for 24% and 55% respectively.
Conclusions:
Healthy lifestyle changes were inversely related to comprehensive and organ-specific biological aging in Southwest China, with diet and smoking contributing most to comprehensive and metabolic BA separately. Our findings highlight the potential of lifestyle interventions to decelerate aging and identify intervention targets to limit organ-specific aging in less-developed regions.
Funding:
This work was primarily supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82273740) and Sichuan Science and Technology Program (Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province, Grant No. 2024NSFSC0552). The CMEC study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0907305, 2017YFC0907300). The sponsors had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or writing of this article.
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Background:
In many settings, a large fraction of the population has both been vaccinated against and infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, quantifying the protection provided by post-infection vaccination has become critical for policy. We aimed to estimate the protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of an additional vaccine dose after an initial Omicron variant infection.
Methods:
We report a retrospective, population-based cohort study performed in Shanghai, China, using electronic databases with information on SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination history. We compared reinfection incidence by post-infection vaccination status in individuals initially infected during the April–May 2022 Omicron variant surge in Shanghai and who had been vaccinated before that period. Cox models were fit to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).
Results:
275,896 individuals were diagnosed with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in April–May 2022; 199,312/275,896 were included in analyses on the effect of a post-infection vaccine dose. Post-infection vaccination provided protection against reinfection (aHR 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.85). For patients who had received one, two, or three vaccine doses before their first infection, hazard ratios for the post-infection vaccination effect were 0.84 (0.76–0.93), 0.87 (0.83–0.90), and 0.96 (0.74–1.23), respectively. Post-infection vaccination within 30 and 90 days before the second Omicron wave provided different degrees of protection (in aHR): 0.51 (0.44–0.58) and 0.67 (0.61–0.74), respectively. Moreover, for all vaccine types, but to different extents, a post-infection dose given to individuals who were fully vaccinated before first infection was protective.
Conclusions:
In previously vaccinated and infected individuals, an additional vaccine dose provided protection against Omicron variant reinfection. These observations will inform future policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccination in China and other countries.
Funding:
This study was funded the Key Discipline Program of Pudong New Area Health System (PWZxk2022-25), the Development and Application of Intelligent Epidemic Surveillance and AI Analysis System (21002411400), the Shanghai Public Health System Construction (GWVI-11.2-XD08), the Shanghai Health Commission Key Disciplines (GWVI-11.1-02), the Shanghai Health Commission Clinical Research Program (20214Y0020), the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (22ZR1414600), and the Shanghai Young Health Talents Program (2022YQ076).
