On January 7, virologist Leondos Kostrikis reported on local television that his research group at the University of Cyprus had identified several SARS-CoV-2 genomes that contain elements of both delta and omicron variants.
Kostrikis and his team uploaded 25 strings of “variable delta-crown” to the popular online database platform GISAID. A few days later they added 27 more. On January 8, financial news magazine Bloomsberg picked up the story and Deltachrone is no longer world news.
But soon science had an explanation for this phenomenon. Several specialists on social media and in the press indicated that sequence 52 did not come from a new variant and therefore was not the result of recombination between the two virus variants. It may have been the result of contamination that originated in the laboratory.
There is no such thing as Dreltakron, “Krutika Kuppalli, member of the WHO COVID-19 technical team, tweeted Jan. 9.”themicron and DrElta did not constitute a super variant.
How a small amount of SARS-CoV-2 sequences became the center of a short and intense scientific debate is a complex story. Some researchers praise the rapid detection of a potential serial error. However, others are urging caution to avoid spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
Kostrikis says aspects of his original hypothesis have been misinterpreted. The confusing name led the media to suspect that it was a recombination of the delta and omicron variants, but he never said it was a hybrid form between the two viruses.
Despite this, Kostrikis deleted the data from the accessible portion of the database 72 hours after it was uploaded pending further investigation.
Sheryl Bennett, Contributor to the Sequencing errors can occur as more than 7 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes have been uploaded to the GISAID database since January 2020, the Washington office of the GISAID Foundation says.
Bennett agrees that jumping to conclusions based on the data that labs just made available under great pressure to generate data quickly is not ideal in any outbreak.
The ‘Delta Crohn’ sequence was discovered by Kostrikis and his team during the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 variants in Cyprus. In doing so, the researchers observed genetic features that were similar to those of the omicron variant in the backbone protein gene, which the virus uses to enter cells.
Kostrikis’ initial hypothesis was that some delta virus particles had independently developed mutations on the spiny protein that the omikron variant also possessed. After the word “deltakron” made headlines around the world, experts pointed to another possibility: a lab error.
The sequence is done with the truck Ignition. These are small pieces of DNA that act as the starting point for the sequencing by binding to the target sequence.
The delta variant contains a mutation in the gene that encodes a backbone protein that can prevent some primers from being bound, making sequencing this part of the genome more difficult. Omikron does not have this mutation. So when omicircles in Getting into a sample containing delta particles can make the spinocytoprotein gene look like the altered omicron gene, says Jeremy Kamel, a virologist at Louisiana State University Health Shrevebor.
“This type of pollution is very common,” says Kamel.
Kostrikis objects to this. If the deltacron was due to contamination, the omicron sequence also appeared with delta-like mutations, as the omicron has a primer-inhibitory mutation. He believes that “the idea of lab contamination was brought up via social media without looking at the full data set and without any argument to prove that the deltacron discovery was not real.”
Other researchers say that even if the detected sequences are not the result of contamination, the mutations are not unique to the omicron: they occur in other variants, too. So Deltakron is not a correct name.
“GISAID is full of sequences that contain elements of the sequences we see in other variants,” said Thomas Peacock, a virologist at Imperial College London. “Sequences like these are constantly loaded,” he says. “But usually scientists don’t have to explain these data because the international press is not in it.”
“Scientists should be careful what they say,” says the virologist, who wished to remain anonymous so as not to get embroiled in controversies. “If we say something, it could close the borders.”
Kostrikis says he is currently investigating all the important insights from prominent scientists he interacts with around the world he met Delta Crown. Plans to submit research for peer review.
Meanwhile, Kamel and other researchers fear that such incidents will make researchers more reluctant to publish very recent data. Science must be given time to correct itself. But in the event of a pandemic, we simply need to be able to quickly publish viral genome data in order to detect variants.
This article previously appeared in Nature News I translated itSaber de Chipper.
