ArticlePLoS pathogens2024
Lineage frequency time series reveal elevated levels of genetic drift in SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England.
Article in PLoS pathogens, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying the predictability of evolution by analysis of coalescent rate variation.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Rapid evolution reveals long-range spread of SARS-CoV-2.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The evolution of genetic drift over 50,000 generations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Uncovering heterogeneous intercommunity disease transmission from neutral allele frequency time series.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Epidemic-induced local awareness behavior inferred from surveys and genetic sequence data.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A phylogenetics and variant calling pipeline to support SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology in the UK.Virus evolution · 2024Article
- Proliferating active matter.Nature reviews. Physics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic drift in infectious disease transmission results from randomness of transmission and host recovery or death. The strength of genetic drift for SARS-CoV-2 transmission is expected to be high due to high levels of superspreading, and this is expected to substantially impact disease epidemiology and evolution. However, we don't yet have an understanding of how genetic drift changes over time or across locations. Furthermore, noise that results from data collection can potentially confound estimates of genetic drift. To address this challenge, we develop and validate a method to jointly infer genetic drift and measurement noise from time-series lineage frequency data. Our method is highly scalable to increasingly large genomic datasets, which overcomes a limitation in commonly used phylogenetic methods. We apply this method to over 490,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences from England collected between March 2020 and December 2021 by the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium and separately infer the strength of genetic drift for pre-B.1.177, B.1.177, Alpha, and Delta. We find that even after correcting for measurement noise, the strength of genetic drift is consistently, throughout time, higher than that expected from the observed number of COVID-19 positive individuals in England by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude, which cannot be explained by literature values of superspreading. Our estimates of genetic drift suggest low and time-varying establishment probabilities for new mutations, inform the parametrization of SARS-CoV-2 evolutionary models, and motivate future studies of the potential mechanisms for increased stochasticity in this system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.