Mutations in emerging variant of concern lineages disrupt genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens

Amplicon drop-outs in P.1 lineage specimens using the Freed et al. primer scheme

The British Columbia Centre for Disease Control’s Public Health Laboratory (BCCDC PHL) currently uses the 1200 bp amplicon scheme by Freed et al. for genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens [8]. While investigating a local P.1 lineage outbreak in March and April 2021, the BCCDC PHL observed significantly reduced depth of coverage across three amplicons covering parts of the orf1ab and spike genes (Figure 1). This suggested that mutations in the P.1 lineage had occurred in primer sites targeted by the Freed et al. amplicon scheme.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Predominant mutations in the P.1 lineage reduce sequencing depth across three amplicons in the Freed et al. primer scheme.

Mean depths of coverage across all amplicons were calculated for 344 SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens collected during March and February 2021 in British Columbia, Canada. Mean depths of coverage were normalized to the mean depth of coverage of each library’s most deeply sequenced amplicon. A) Mean depths of coverage for all amplicons in all specimens are visualized in a heatmap stratified by P.1 and non-P.1 lineage. Amplicon 21, 24, and 25 drop-out is apparent in P.1 lineage specimens. B) Distributions of normalized mean depths of coverage are shown for the three amplicons impacted by widespread mutations in the P.1 lineage. Differences between P.1 and non-P.1 lineage specimens were significant for all three amplicons (p-values <0.00001, Wilcoxon rank sums test).

We used a previously published bioinformatic pipeline called PCR_strainer to search P.1 lineage genome sequences for mutations in sites targeted by the Freed et al. primers [10]. We analyzed 907 local P.1 lineage sequences generated by the BCCDC PHL before April 7, 2021. The consensus and coverage metrics were generated from short-read reference guided sequencing assembly and analysis using an OICR fork of the COG-UK nextflow pipeline and the ncov-tools package [11,12] together with lineage assigned using pangolin [13]. We also analyzed 1,634 global P.1 lineage sequences collected and submitted to GISAID before April 7, 2021. We identified three primer site variants that were widespread locally and globally, appearing in over 98% of P.1 sequences analyzed (Table 1). These primer site variants affected the same amplicons identified above with reduced depths of coverage in P.1 lineage clinical specimens.

One of these primer site variants contained 2 mismatches in the reverse primer for amplicon 21. One mismatch was located at the crucial 3’ end of the primer, which was reflected in amplicon 21 having the greatest reductions in mean depth of coverage (Figure 1B). The other two primer site variants we identified contained single mismatches with the forward primers for amplicons 24 and 25. These mismatches were located closer to the 5’ ends of these primers, so their observed impact on sequencing depth was less easily predicted. This demonstrates that the impact of mismatches identified in silico cannot be inferred from position alone and must be verified with laboratory data.

Improving sequencing depth for problematic amplicons

To address drop-out across these problematic amplicons, we designed supplemental primers for the Freed scheme based on the primer site variant sequences identified by PCR_strainer. We called these primers 21_right_P.1, 24_left_P.1, and 25_left_P.1, and they had the following sequences: 5’-GCAGAGGGTAATTGAGTTCTGT-3’, 5’-GCTGAATATGTCAACAACTCATATGA-3’, and 5’-TGCTGCTATTAAAATGTCAGAGTGT-3’ respectively. These primers were spiked into default Freed et al. primer pools at the same molarity as the other primers. We sequenced 24 P.1 lineage clinical specimens with spiked and default primer pools, then we used these paired data to calculate improvements to sequencing depth across problematic amplicons (Figure 2A). The spike-in primers significantly improved mean depths of coverage for amplicons 21 and 25 (Figure 2A). Depth of coverage across amplicon 24 was not improved, however, so we also tried 24_left_P.1 spiked-in at two- and four-times molarity (Figure 2B). Increasing the spike-in primer concentration significantly improved mean depth of coverage for amplicon 24, with four-times molarity providing the greatest improvement.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Amplicon drop-out is corrected by spiking updated primers into Freed et al. primer scheme.

Updated primers were designed for problematic amplicons based on the primer site variant sequences identified by PCR_strainer in Table 1. Freed primer pools with and without these updated primers were used to sequence 24 P.1 lineage clinical specimens. Mean depths of coverage across each amplicon were calculated and normalized to each library’s most deeply sequenced amplicon. These paired data were used to calculate changes in normalized mean depths of coverage across amplicons. A) Depth of coverage was significantly improved for amplicons 21 and 25 by spiking the updated primers into the Freed pool at one-times molarity (p-values < 0.00001, paired sample T-test). B) Depth of coverage across amplicon 24 was significantly improved when the updated primer was spiked into the Freed pool at two- and four-times molarity (p-values < 0.00001, paired sample T-test).

Based on these results, we prepared Freed scheme primer pools with the supplemental primers spiked-in. Primers 21_right_P.1 and 25_left_P.1 were spiked-in at one-times molarity, and primer 24_left_P.1 was spiked-in at four-times molarity. Using these spiked primer pools, we sequenced 347 clinical specimens (Figure 3A). For amplicons 21 and 24, mean depths of coverage for P.1 lineages exceeded non-P.1 lineages or were on par with them. Depths of coverage across amplicon 25 for P.1 lineages still trailed non-P.1 lineages but were a significant improvement.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Spike-in primers improved depth of sequencing for amplicons impacted by dominant mutations in P.1 lineages without affecting other amplicons or other lineages.

Freed primer pools were prepared with the updated primers spiked-in at one-times molarity (amplicon 21 and 25) or four-times molarity (amplicon 24). Mean depths of coverage across each amplicon were calculated and normalized to each library’s most deeply sequenced amplicon. A) 347 clinical specimens were sequenced with the updated primer pool. Mean depths of coverage were compared between P.1 and non-P.1 lineage specimens across amplicons impacted by widespread mutations in the P.1 lineage. B) 340 specimens sequenced using the updated primer pool were compared to previous results generated without the spike-in primers. No detrimental effects from the spike-in primers were observed for other amplicons or lineages.

Previous sequencing results using the default Freed pool were available for 340 of these clinical specimens. We used these paired data to calculate differences in sequencing depth between the default primer pool and our spiked primer pool (Figure 3B). We did not observe any detrimental impact from our spike-in primers on depth of coverage for other amplicons or non-P.1 lineages.

Mutations in other variant of concern lineages impacting Freed et al. and ARTIC version 3 primer sites

We expanded our in silico analysis with PCR_strainer to assess the Freed et al. primer scheme against recent global sequences from all current variant of concern lineages (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and B.1.617+) [1-6]. We also performed this analysis on the widely used and commercially supplied ARTIC version 3 primer scheme [9].

We identified 46 primer site variants affecting both protocols (Table 2). The B.1.1.7 lineage had the fewest primer site variants (n=5), followed by the B.1.351 lineage (n=9), followed by the B.1.617+ and P.1 lineages (both n=16). Many of these primer site variants were predominant globally within their lineage, as would be expected, with 12 of them being present in at least 90% of their lineage’s sequences. The ARTIC version 3 primer scheme was impacted by 34 primer site variants while the Freed et al. scheme was impacted by 12. We attribute this difference to the smaller amplicon sizes of the ARTIC version 3 protocol. This highlights an important implication of amplicon size when designing primer schemes for amplifying viral genomes. Longer amplicons require fewer primers, creating fewer opportunities for mutations to disrupt an assay. On the other hand, more genome coverage is lost with longer amplicons when a mutation impacts a primer site. This can affect a primer scheme’s longevity, and it should be balanced alongside the benefits of shorter amplicons for amplifying fragmented template material.