Omicron Subvariants: Clinical, Laboratory, and Cell Culture Characterization

Ethical considerations and Data availability

The research was performed with a waiver of consent under the Johns Hopkins protocol IRB00221396. Whole genomes that met the quality standards were made publicly available at GISAID.

Specimens and Patients’ Data

In this retrospective observational cohort study, we used nasopharyngeal or lateral mid-turbinate nasal swabs from remnant clinical specimens from the Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) after standard of care SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic or screening testing for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Specimens included samples obtained from across all inpatient and outpatient settings in the National Capital Region (4, 11). SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed using different molecular approaches as we described before (4, 6, 11-14).

Sample size

We included all Omicron infections identified from November 25^th, 2021, the date the first Omicron variant identified in our system (11), through July 17^th, 2022. Because only 3 Omicron infections were identified in our system in November, total infections and positivity rates were calculated from the beginning of December 2021. For patients who were tested more than once, we used their initial collection. Whole genome sequencing for surveillance was attempted for all positive specimens with left-over volumes from JHHS and samples are collected in real-time on a daily basis. All samples with genomes that did not pass a quality of coverage > 90% and mean depth >100 were excluded. Genomes with unassigned lineages were excluded. For Ct and cell culture experiments, samples were randomly selected from the whole cohort based on availability (Table 1).

Clinical data analysis

Clinical and vaccination data for patients whose samples were characterized by whole genome sequencing was bulk extracted as previously detailed (4, 11) and cases with missing data were excluded. Because every patient admitted to a JHHS hospital is tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of symptoms, we used presenting complaints, ED admission diagnoses, reason for testing, and timing of testing relative to admission to distinguish between patients who were admitted primarily for COVID-19 treatment from incidental asymptomatic admissions. Patients with an ED diagnosis related to an upper respiratory infection or with chief complaints consistent with COVID-19 (based on influenza like illness (ILI) syndromic surveillance) or whose reason for testing was other than asymptomatic, were considered a COVID-related admission. Patients tested under asymptomatic admission protocols were considered non-COVID-related admissions. Each admission was scored based on the likelihood of the admission being COVID-related based on the complaints, diagnoses, and reasons for testing. Full vaccination was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 test results more than 14 days after the second shot for pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 or 14 days after the J&J/Janssen. In our vaccinated patients’ population, 65.1% received Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna mRNA-1273 (30.1%), and the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccines (4.8%).

Ct value analysis

To ensure comparable Ct values for relative viral load analyses, Ct values of the N gene were collected. For that, samples were retested with either the PerkinElmers SARS-CoV-2 kit (https://www.fda.gov/media/136410/download, Last accessed August 17, 2022) or the CDC designed primers and probes for the N gene (14).

Amplicon based Sequencing

Specimen preparation, extractions, and sequencing were performed as described previously (11, 15, 16). Library preparation was performed using the NEBNext® ARTIC SARS-CoV-2 Companion Kit (VarSkip Short SARS-CoV-2 # E7660-L). Sequencing was performed using the Nanopore GridION and analysis was performed as described in (11). Sequences with coverage >90% and mean depth >100 were submitted to GISAID database. Genomes with lineages assigned by Pangolin were included (coverage > 70%, Tables S1 details the quality of the genomes).

Cell culture

VeroE6TMPRSS2 (VT) cells (RRID: CVCL_YQ49) were obtained from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan and are described in (5) and were processed as we described previously (11). VeroE6-ACE2-TMPRSS2 (VAT) cells were obtained from the BEI resources repository and cultured in an identical manner to VT cells. The cells were cultured and infected with aliquots of swab specimens as previously described for VeroE6 cells (17) except that 75 μL was added to VT or VAT cells for experiments that assessed parallel virus isolations. Cultures were incubated for 7 days or until cytopathic effect (CPE) was obvious and SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed by reverse transcriptase PCR (17). Wells with approximately 75% of the cells showing CPE were considered positive and the day this occurred was documented.

Viruses

SARS-CoV-2/USA-WA1/2020 (EPI_ISL_404895) was obtained from BEI Resources. The other SARS-CoV-2 viruses used in this study were hCoV19/USA/MD-HP00076/2020 (EPI_ISL_438234), hCoV19/USA/MD-HP11011/2021 (EPI_ISL_825013), hCoV19/USA/CA-VRLC088/2021 (EPI_ISL_2987142), hCoV19/USA/MD-HP07626/2021 (EPI_ISL_3373222), hCoV19/USA/MD-HP05660/2021 (EPI_ISL_2331507), hCoV19/USA/MD-HP25001/2022 (EPI_ISL_9245416), hCoV19/USA/MD-HP28972/2022 (EPI_ISL_11962964), hCoV19/USA/MD-HP32103/2022 (GISAID accession number pending) and hCoV19/USA/MD-HP30386/2022 (EPI_ISL_12416220), which were all isolated from COVID-19 patients at JHHS as previously described (11).

Tissue culture infective dose (TCID₅₀) assay for infectious SARS-CoV-2 titer quantification

The infectious virus titer was determined on VT or VAT cells using a 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID₅₀) assay as previously described for SARS-CoV-2 (11). VT or VAT cells were grown to 90-100% confluence in 96 well plates. Serial 10-fold dilutions of the virus stock were made in infection media (IM) (identical to CM except the FBS was reduced to 2.5%), and then 20 μL of each dilution was added to the cells in sextuplicate. The cells were incubated at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 5 days. The cells were fixed by adding 100 μL of 4% formaldehyde in PBS per well overnight and visualized by staining with 75 μL of naphthol blue-black solution overnight and scored visually for cytopathic effect. A Reed and Muench calculation were used to determine the TCID50 per mL.

Statistical analysis

Chi-square analysis was used for categorical variables with and without correction for confounding variables. For association between lineage and hospitalization or mortality, age and vaccine status were controlled using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method utilizing 5 categories for continuous variables (3). Where appropriate, Fisher Exact test was used for categorical variable comparisons. One-way ANOVA and t test were used for comparing continuous independent variables. Post-hoc analysis was carried out with Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction where appropriate.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity and Omicron subvariants trends December 2021-July 2022

The monthly SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was highest in January 2022 (23.7%) then declined to a mean of 1.6% in March 2022 before increasing again in May 2022 to a mean of 7.6% (Figure 1A). The positivity rate then largely plateaued through July 2022 (Figure 1A). The predominant Omicron subvariant in December 2021 and January 2022 was BA.1 (82.7% and 96.3% respectively, Figure 1B). Other subvariants displaced the BA.1 including the BA.1.1 in February (58%), BA.2 in March and April (52.2% and 66.9%), the BA.2.12.1 in May and June (53.6% and 49.5%), and the BA.5 in July (62.9%). Notably, COVID-19 related admissions peaked in January 2022, correlating with the peak of BA.1 then declined in March and April, before increasing again in May 2022 and plateauing similar to the positivity rate (Figure 1C and D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity, Omicron subvariants trends, and COVID-19 related admissions, December 2021-July 17, 2022. A) SARS-CoV-2 average monthly total tests, total positives, and positivity rates for both symptomatic and asymptomatic testing. B) SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant average monthly percent to total sequenced. C) Total patients admitted each month as inpatients (includes hospitalized observations) in JHHS between November 25^th, 2021 and July 17, 2022 (excludes neonates born in the hospital). COVID-19 hospitalizations includes any patient with a positive test in the 14 days prior to admission or within the first 48 hours. D) Total patients admitted with a positive COVID-19 test in the 14 days prior to admission or within the 48 hours after admission. “For COVID” is an estimate of the percentage of patients that were admitted because of COVID-19 and not for a different issue then had an incidental positive laboratory test with no symptoms during hospital screening. The high case only includes patients flagged as having symptoms and not flagged as asymptomatic and had influenza like illness (ILI) complaints and an ILI diagnosis at admission. The med case includes all high cases as well as cases that only had an ILI complaint or ILI diagnosis or noted symptoms at admission and were not tested asymptomatically. The conservative case included cases were there was either an ILI complaint or ILI diagnosis or noted symptoms at admission but were tested with an asymptomatic flag or there was no ILI or symptoms noted but there was not an asymptomatic flag on the test.

Patient characteristics and outcomes in infections caused by Omicron subvariants

Of 199,378 samples tested for SARS-CoV-2 from JHHS between November 25th 2021 and July 17th 2022, a total of 21,007 samples were positive, of them, 11,775 were sequenced for genomic surveillance and 8,377 were of high quality. After excluding repeat tests in patients and all other clades than Omicron, virus genome sequencing identified a total of 6,993 unique patients who were infected with Omicron subvariants. Only the major subvariants that showed high prevalence were used for further analysis (N = 6,954, Table 1). Subvariants BA.1.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 were compared to subvariant BA.1 (which we characterized as compared to Delta in a prior study (11)). Samples within branches from subvariants were traced back to lineages used in the study (i.e. BA.1.2 would be considered BA.1, and BA.1.1.2 would be considered BA.1.1, Table S1). Notably, the percentages of infections in individuals who received booster vaccination increased from 22% with BA.1 to 40.8%, 37.9%, 38.6%, and 38% with BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 (Table 1).

Compared to BA.1, the odds ratio for COVID-19 related hospitalization was higher with BA.1.1 (1.2, p = 0.45), BA.2 (1.57, p = 0.0032), BA.2.12.1 (1.62, p = 0.001), BA.4 (1.87, p = 0.023), and BA.5 (1.66, p = 0.021) after controlling for patients’ age and vaccine status with lower likelihood of COVID-19 related mortality (Table 2). Similar trends were observed when these variables were not accounted for (Table 3). In general, fully vaccinated patients and those who received booster vaccination were less likely to be hospitalized (0.83 (p = 0.09) and 0.92 (p = 0.47)), and different underlying conditions increased the likelihood of admissions including primarily kidney disease, heart disease, and immune suppression (Table 3).

Omicron subvariants cycle threshold (Ct) values in upper respiratory samples

The mean Ct value of BA.1 samples (19.43) was significantly lower compared to all other subvariants (BA.1.1 (22.81), BA.2 (22.74), BA.2.12.1 (22.74), BA.4 (22.56), BA.5 (21.92), one-way ANOVA, p < 0.0001, Figure 2A). This held true when comparing Ct values from symptomatic cases within the first 5 days of symptoms (BA.1 (18.79), BA.1.1 (22.26), BA.2 (22.06), BA.2.12.1 (21.76), BA.4 (22.39), BA.5 (21.41), one-way ANOVA, p < 0.0001, Figure 2B), and when comparing Ct values from asymptomatic patients (BA.1 (21.23), BA.1.1 (24.42), BA.2 (24.24), BA.2.12.1 (23.79), BA.4 (23.7), BA.5 (24.74), one-way ANOVA, p < 0.0001, Figure 2C). No differences were noted when Ct values were compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients from all groups, however, the mean Ct of BA.1 was consistently lower than the other subvariants in unvaccinated, fully vaccinated, and patients who received a booster vaccination (Figure 2D). Figure 2E and Table 1 and 4 summarize the numbers tested for each subvariant.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Omicron subvariants cycle threshold (Ct) values in upper respiratory samples. A) Ct values of Omicron subvariants from all samples with available Ct values (N gene). B) Ct values of Omicron subvariants from samples collected 5 days or less from the onset of symptoms. For this analysis, samples from asymptomatic patients were not included. C) Ct values of Omicron subvariants collected from patients with “asymptomatc” status in the charts. D) Ct values from Omicron subvariants groups stratified by vaccination status. E) Total samples used for each Omicron subvariant. Vaccinated, fully vaccinated patients who didn’t receive a booster dose; boosted, patients with booster dose. Data shown as violin plots and horizontal bars represent medians and quartiles.

Recovery of infectious virus in Omicron subvariant groups

Recovery of infectious virus was performed for 713 samples on VT cells (Table 1 and 5), the same cell line that we used to compare Omicron to Delta in a prior study (11). The recovery of infectious virus was higher from samples with lower mean Ct values regardless of the subvariant (Figure 3A, mean Ct for positive versus negative cell culture: BA.1 (16.4 vs 20.5, p < 0.0001), BA.1.1 (18.5 vs 25.1, p = 0.004), BA.2 (20.3 vs 24.9, p < 0.0001), BA.2.12.1 (21.2 vs 23.7, p = 0.19), BA.4 (19.3 vs 25.1, p = 0.0001), BA.5 (18.5 vs 26.4, p < 0.0001). Recovery rates for Omicron subvariants were not significantly different from BA.1, with the exception of BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 which consistently showed less recovery of infectious virus on VT cells, regardless of patients’ vaccination status, when the relative virus loads of the samples were not accounted for (Figure 3B and Table 5). When we used samples with Ct values less than 20 to compare between groups, BA.5 showed statistically higher recovery of infectious virus (Figure 3C and Table 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Recovery of infectious virus from respiratory samples of patients infected with Omicron subvariants. A) Total positives and negatives for Omicron subvariants in association with Ct values. B) Percent positives for the recovery of infectious virus with Omicron subvariants for all Ct values or for samples with Ct values less than 20 (C). CPE: cytopathic effect.

Sensitivity of VAT versus VT cell lines for the recovery of infectious Omicron subvariants

To assess the difference of the recovery of infectious Omicron subvariants if we use a cell line that expresses ACE-2 in addition to TMPRSS2, 332 samples were cultured side by side on both VAT and VT cell lines. A significant increase in the recovery of infectious virus was notable on VAT compared to VT for all samples (59.3% vs 47.3%, P = 0.0031, Figure 4A), as well as for samples with Ct more than 20 (45.3% vs 31.3%, P = 0.012, Figure 4B), but the difference did not reach statistical significance for samples with Ct < 20 (Figure 4C and Table 6). Only BA.5 samples with Ct more than 20 showed a significant difference in virus recovery between VAT and VT (Table 6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Recovery of infectious virus from respiratory samples of patients infected with Omicron subvariants on VT versus VAT cell lines. A) Percent positives and negatives for Omicron subvariants. B) Percent positives and negatives for samples with Ct values more than 20 (C) Percent positives and negatives for Omicron subvariants with Ct values less than 20. CPE: cytopathic effect.

To further assess if VAT cell line enhances the isolation of Omicron subvariants, we selected 4 different Omicron subvariants’ isolates and compared their TCID₅₀ on VAT versus VT cell lines. We included the wild type strain (WAS, SARS-CoV-2/USA-WA1/2020) in addition to some pre-Omicron lineages (Table 7). The average log TCID₅₀ of 4 replicates per each isolate was consistently higher and mostly statistically significant when VAT cells were used with an average log difference of 0.47 between VAT and VT cell lines (Table 7).

Reinfections caused by Omicron subvariants

To assess the possibility of reinfections with Omicron subvariants after a prior infection with Omicron, we evaluated the timing of multiple positives from the same patients in our cohort. There were 170 likely reinfections with lineages BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4 or BA.5 based on patients having multiple positive samples with an initial positive occurring prior to the first detection of that lineage. Median days from initial sample to reinfection was 167 days (mean of 236). For samples with an initial infection in December 2021 or January 2022, which was likely BA.1 or BA.1.1, a total of 133 were identified as reinfected with another Omicron subvariant (Table 8).