Genomic assessment of invasion dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1

Introduction

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019, multiple variants of concern (VOCs) have sequentially dominated the pandemic across different regions in the world. The Omicron variant (PANGO lineage B.1.1.529 later divided into lineages including BA.1 and BA.2) was discovered first through genomic surveillance in Botswana and South Africa in late November 2021 (1) and designated a VOC by the World Health Organisation on 26 November 2021 (2). A dramatic initial surge in Omicron cases in South Africa suggested a higher transmission rate than previous variants (3), which studies later attributed to a shorter serial interval, increased immune evasion and greater intrinsic transmissibility than Delta (4–7). The mechanism for this greater transmissibility is hypothesised to be altered tropism and higher replication in the upper respiratory tract (8, 9). Together with a waning level of population immunity from previous infections and vaccination (10), local transmission of Omicron BA.1 was soon reported thereafter in major travel hubs worldwide, including New York City and London by early December 2021, despite travel restrictions on international flights from multiple southern African countries (11, 12).

Following the first confirmed case of Omicron BA.1 in England on 27 November 2021 (13), Omicron prevalence increased rapidly across all English regions, with Greater London peaking first in mid-December at ∼6% prevalence, followed by the South East region (14). Other metropolitan areas in the North West and North East, e.g. Greater Manchester and Newcastle, saw similar but delayed increases in prevalence with observed peaks between early- and mid-January 2022. Incidence of Omicron BA.1 had substantially declined in Greater London and other southern regions by early-January 2022, resulting in a gradient of decreasing prevalence from north to south England (15).

This spatiotemporal pattern of early BA.1 spread has some similarity with that of the Alpha variant (16), but is markedly different from the invasion of the Delta variant which spread initially from the North West and surrounding regions of England (17). The rapid surge in the number of infections during the initial emergence of Omicron in England prompted the UK government to impose a number of interventions, including a move to “Plan B” non-pharmaceutical restrictions (e.g. mandatory COVID pass for entry into certain indoor venues, face coverings and work-from-home guidance) on 8 December 2021 (18) and an accelerated vaccine rollout to provide access to booster doses for all adults by mid-December 2021 (19). From mid- to late-January 2022, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England decreased, coincident with a falling proportion of BA.1 infections, and the BA.2 lineage started to replace BA.1 as the dominant variant which was later replaced by BA.4 and BA.5 (20–22).

Understanding and quantifying the relative contributions of the various factors that shaped the spatial dissemination of Omicron BA.1 in England can help inform the design of spatially targeted interventions against future VOCs (23). Here we analyse the Omicron BA.1 wave in England, from its first detection in November 2021 to the end of January 2022. Specifically, we use a dataset of 48,615 Omicron BA.1 genomes sampled in England, corresponding to ∼1 percent of all confirmed COVID-19 cases of the Omicron variant in England during the study period and representing 313 lower tier local authorities (LTLAs), together with sub-city level aggregated and anonymized human mobility and epidemiological data. Furthermore, using a statistical model we explore the impact of changes in disease prevalence on the connectivity to and from major travel hubs in England.

Results

International seeding events and Omicron BA.1 lineage dynamics

To evaluate the timing of virus importations into England and the dynamics of their descendent local transmission lineages, we undertook a large-scale phylodynamic analysis of 115,622 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron genomes (BA.1/BA.2 and their descendent lineages) sampled globally between 8 November 2021 and 31 January 2022. About 42% (n=48,615) of the genomes were sampled from England and sequenced by the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium (24). All English and global genomes (as available from COG-UK and GISAID on 12 and 9 April 2022 respectively) collected prior to 28 November 2021 were included; genomes collected after that date were randomly subsampled in proportion to weekly Omicron case incidence while maintaining a roughly 1:1 ratio between England and non-England samples. Furthermore, to reduce sampling bias due to heterogeneous sequencing coverage, we performed a weighted subsampling of the English genomes using a previously developed procedure which takes into account differences in number of sequences sampled per reported case at the Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLA) level (https://github.com/robj411/sequencing_coverage) (Materials and Methods).

We identified at least 6,455 [95% HPD: 6,184 to 6,722] independent introduction events. Most importations from outside of England (69.9% [95% HPD: 69.0 to 70.7]) were singletons (i.e. a single English genome associated with an importation event that did not lead to any local transmission observable in our dataset). The earliest introduction event is estimated between 5 November and 18 November (approximated as the midpoint between the inferred times of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the transmission lineage and the parent of the MRCA (TPMRCA)). Between the first introduction event and mid-December 2021, we infer an approximately exponential increase in the daily number of imports before a plateau in early January 2022 (Figure 1C). This rapid increase in importations occurred despite restrictions on incoming international travel from 11 southern African countries and was likely due in part to a surge of Omicron infections in US East Coast cities in early December 2021 and substantially greater influx of air passengers from the US. To derive city-level estimates of importation intensity from the US and country-level estimates from South Africa, we calculate the Estimated Importation Intensity (EII) using a combination of the weekly number of reported COVID-19 cases, weekly prevalence of Omicron BA.1 genomes, and monthly number of air passengers travelling to the United Kingdom from the origin airports (see Methods & Materials). Whilst the majority of early imports were likely to have come from South Africa, we find the average weekly Omicron BA.1 EII from the US was about four times that of South Africa during the weeks of travel restrictions; Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Dynamics of Omicron BA.1 transmission lineages in England.

(A) Timeline of key events during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 wave in England until February 2022. (B) Histogram of the estimated daily number of Omicron BA.1 cases, coloured according to the proportion of cases that can be attributed to importations before/during/after the travel restrictions between 26 November and 15 December 2021 (shaded region). Solid lines represent the daily frequency of inferred importations (7-day rolling average), coloured according to the size of resulting local transmission lineages; shading denotes the 95% HPD across the posterior tree distribution. Forest plot (bottom left) shows the distribution of inferred time of importation, TPMRCA (inferred time of parent of most recent common ancestor) and TMRCA (inferred time of most recent common ancestor) of the 8 largest detected transmission lineages (labelled A to H). (C) Daily frequency of inferred importations (7-day rolling average), without stratification by size of resulting local transmission lineage (black dots); error bars denote the 95% HPD across the posterior tree distribution. Solid blue line represents the daily number of importations expected from an exponential model fitted to the observed 7-day rolling average importation intensity (Materials and Methods). (D) Distribution of TPMRCAs and TMRCAs of all 6,455 detected introductions. Each horizontal line represents a single introduction event that led to either a transmission lineage or a singleton, with the left limit indicating the TPMRCA and the right limit indicating the TMRCA (or the collection date of the genome sample for a singleton).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Importation intensity of Omicron BA.1 from South Africa and the United States.

(A) Estimated weekly number of Omicron BA.1 cases arriving in the United Kingdom (Estimated Importation Intensity (EII); see Methods & Materials for calculations) from South Africa (red solid line) and 20 cities in the United States (each grey dashed line represents a city; black solid line represents the total EII from the 20 cities considered). Grey shaded region represents the period (26 November to 15 December 2021) when travel restrictions on international arrivals from multiple southern African countries were implemented. (B) Proportion of weekly EII of Omicron BA.1 by country and 20 cities in the United States.

To cross-validate the importation dynamics inferred from viral genomes using an independent data source, we extracted data from the Variant and Mutations (VAM) line list (26) provided by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) to calculate the daily number of incoming travellers who later tested positive for Omicron in community surveillance (Pillar 2) of the UK SARS-CoV-2 testing programme. The temporal profile of importation intensity from these epidemiological data appears broadly consistent with that inferred from the phylodynamic analysis, with the latter being expanded and lagging in time compared to the former (Figure S1). This observation is consistent with previous studies (27), where the apparent discrepancy represents an increasing time lag between lineage importation into England and the time of first detection of local transmission events. This increase in importation lag is also evident from the increasing difference between the TPMRCA and TMRCA of transmission lineages as the epidemic progressed (Figure 1D).

As with the introduction and spread of previous variants in England (17, 27), we find overdispersion in transmission lineage sizes (Figure S2), with most sampled genomes belonging to a small number of large transmission lineages: the 8 largest transmission lineages identified (each comprising >700 genomes) combined accounts for >60% of English genomes in our dataset (Figure 1B). Six out of the 8 largest transmission lineages are inferred to have been imported before the travel restrictions were introduced (Figure 1B). Additionally, we observe a strong size-dependency on the time of importation of transmission lineages, with most large transmission lineages attributed to early seeding events detected between 5 and 13 November 2021 (Figure 1A). This characteristic can be recapitulated using a simple mathematical model under the assumption that all lineages share the same transmission characteristics except the timing of introduction (Materials and Methods), suggesting that timing of introduction is indeed the main determinant of transmission lineage size.

We infer that 399 transmission lineages (including the aforementioned 8 largest lineages) resulted from importations that occurred before the end of the travel restrictions on incoming flights from southern Africa (15 December 2021); 29 of these lineages were introduced before the travel restrictions were implemented (from 26 November 2021). Although these early importations account for only a small proportion (∼6%) of the estimated total number of introductions, they are responsible collectively for ∼80% of Omicron BA.1 infections reported in England, up to the end of January 2022. Further, early travel restrictions targeted at southern African countries were largely ineffective at reducing the overall intensity of importations,with continued exponential growth of importations through mid-December, partly due to a shift in source of importations of BA.1 away from South Africa to the US as shown using air passenger data (Figure 1B; Figure 2). Whilst the local epidemic may have been delayed had the travel restrictions been implemented earlier, importations from secondary hubs with unrestricted air traffic would have likely been responsible for the majority of local Omicron BA.1 infections.

Some transmission lineages from early importations were only detected several weeks after their inferred time of importation. However, caution is required when interpreting this result, as we cannot exclude the possibility that these transmission clusters represent the aggregation of multiple independent transmission lineages as a result of unsampled genetic diversity outside of England. Such aggregation of multiple transmission lineages would have resulted in earlier estimated dates of importation, potentially explaining the smaller than expected size (compared to predictions from simulations; Figure S3) of these transmission lineages with unusually long importation lag (27). Analyses incorporating detailed metadata on travel history could explore this question further (28, 29).

Human mobility drives spatial expansion and heterogeneities in Omicron BA.1 growth

The rapid increase in Omicron importations between the beginning of November and mid-December 2021 led to the establishment of local transmission chains, initially concentrated in Greater London and neighbouring LTLAs in the South West region and East of England. This coincided with early increases in Omicron BA.1 prevalence in the corresponding regions, as observed from S-gene target failure (SGTF, a proxy for Omicron BA.1) data and other epidemiological studies (15). To further investigate the spatiotemporal dynamics of Omicron transmission lineages in England, we reconstructed the dispersal history of all identified transmission lineages (with >5 genomes) using spatially explicit phylogeographic techniques. Sampling of English genomes is highly representative of the estimated number of Omicron BA.1 cases at the UTLA level (Figure S4), therefore allowing unbiased reconstruction of the viral lineage movements across space.

We observe multiple distinct stages to the spread of BA.1 across England, with the 8 largest identified transmission lineages sharing broadly similar patterns of spatial dispersal. Unlike with other variants, we find a fairly even regional spread in the numbers of transmission lineages first detected in each region, with only ∼20% in Greater London (followed by 15.4% in South East and 13.3% in North West; and if only introductions prior to December 2021 are considered, the value for Greater London is 27.3%). However, most of the early cases outside of Greater London resulted in only limited local diffusion; widespread transmission developed concurrently with the rapid expansion centred in Greater London and surrounding areas by the end of November 2021 (Figure 3; Figure S5 and S6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Spatiotemporal dynamics of Omicron BA.1 transmission lineages in England.

(A and C) Continuous phylogeographic reconstruction of the dispersal history of the largest detected BA.1 transmission lineages in England (Transmission Lineage-A) across multiple time-points. Nodes are coloured according to inferred date of occurrence and the direction of viral lineage movement is indicated by edge curvature (anti-clockwise). (B) Geographical distribution of intensity of inflow and outflow of BA.1 viral lineages for transmission lineage Transmission Lineage-A. Blue colours indicate areas with high intensity of domestic exportation of viral lineages; red colours, high intensity of importation. Red circles indicate areas with high densities of local viral movements over distances <15 km, with larger radii representing higher densities. (D) Continuous phylogeographic reconstruction of Transmission Lineage-C, E, and G with corresponding maps showing the geographical distribution of intensity of domestic lineage movements (Transmission Lineages-B, D, F and H are shown in Figure S6). (E) Plots in each row correspond to viral lineage movements across different spatial scales (top: <50 km, middle: 50 to 300 km, bottom: >300 km). (Left) The histograms show the daily frequency of viral lineage movements across the different spatial scales. Colours indicate whether the origin and/or destination of the viral lineage movements are inferred to have occurred in Greater London. (Middle/Right) Solid black lines represent the daily frequency of between-region viral lineage movements across the different spatial scales. Vertical bars indicate the proportions of viral lineage movements (aggregated at 2-day intervals) with origin/destination in different regions as indicated by their corresponding colours. Shaded grey areas indicate periods when there were fewer than 9 inferred viral lineage movements per day at the corresponding spatial scale.

The frequency of long-distance (>300 km) viral lineage movements increased substantially during the first week of December, predominantly from Greater London to LTLAs across East/West Midlands and North West England. This pattern of strongly directional movement is most notable in the two largest transmission lineages (Transmission Lineage-A and Transmission Lineage-B), in which BA.1 genomes were first sampled in multiple urban conurbations including Nottingham, Leeds and Birmingham in early/mid-December 2021 (Figure 3A). However, local transmission was not established immediately in these cities and the ratio of local (within-city) versus all viral movements remained between 25% and 50% from December 2021 to January 2022, before climbing again when local mobility levels recovered after the holidays (30–33). In contrast, local viral movements in Greater London and Greater Manchester comprised about 90% and 60% of all movements between November and December 2021, respectively (Figure S5). The intensity of viral lineage movements from Greater London (with contributions from South East and East of England) continued to increase before plateauing in mid-December. This observation coincided with the early peak in Omicron BA.1 cases in some LTLAs in Greater London and other southern England regions discussed later in this manuscript (Figure 5A). Further, we observe a limited number of bidirectional long-distance viral movements between North West England and Greater London, with North West England acting primarily as a sink throughout the BA.1 wave (e.g. Transmission Lineage-A and Transmission Lineage-B); similar dynamics are also seen for the South West (Figure 3E).

We inferred a gradual but consistent decline through time in the frequency of short-range (<50 km) viral lineage movements, with Greater London acting as the predominant source of (cross-region) local diffusion for most of the epidemic (Figure 3E). Interestingly, we identify a second phase during which there was a notable increase in the frequency of mid-to-long range (50 to 300 km) viral movements (during the 2021/22 New Year period; Figure 3E, left). This period is also characterised by more frequent outward viral lineage movement from East Midlands, West Midlands and East of England, and more frequent inward movements in North East and North West England, whilst the relative contribution of Greater London to the onward propagation of BA.1 across England continued to diminish (Figure 3E, middle and right). This observation is consistent with epidemiological data, which show most areas outside of southern England experiencing a peak in Omicron BA.1 case incidence only by the first week of January 2022 (Figure 5B and C).

To assess and quantify the contribution of various demographic, epidemiological and mobility-related factors in shaping the dissemination of Omicron BA.1 in England, we use a discrete phylogeographic generalised linear model (GLM) approach to test their association with viral lineage movements among LTLAs (Materials and Methods). We fit this high-dimensional phylogeographic model to the three largest transmission lineages independently and jointly to the next five largest transmission lineages together comprising 61.9% of all English genomes (Materials and Methods). We allow the predictor support and effect size to vary temporally between the expansion phase (before 26 December 2021) and the post-expansion phase (26 December 2021 up to the end of January 2022) (31, 32, 34). This time-inhomogeneous model provides evidence for a dynamic spatial transmission process through time, with substantial changes in the effect size estimate for most of the predictors across the two phases (Figure 4B). We observe consistently strong support in the expansion phase for the gravity model - a spatial interaction model in which the intensity of travel between regions increases with population size at the origin and destination but decreases with distance between them, likely shaping early viral transmission in and around population centres. Consistent with results from continuous phylogeography, the early expansion is also characterised by strongly directional viral dissemination as indicated by the predictor support for a Greater London LTLA as origin as well as higher dissemination out of LTLAs with earlier peak times in three out of four analyses (Figure 4B; Figure S7). The effect size for a Greater London origin is particularly pronounced for smaller transmission lineages, again consistent with continuous phylogeography which shows smaller transmission lineages to be more localised near Greater London compared to their larger counterparts (Figure 3; Figure S6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Predictors of Omicron BA.1 viral lineage movements in England.

(A) Map at LTLA level of predictors considered in the discrete phylogeographic GLM analysis, for the largest detected BA.1 transmission lineages in England (Transmission Lineage-A). (B) Posterior distributions of the product of the log predictor coefficient and the predictor inclusion probability for each predictor. Estimates are plotted for the two largest transmission lineages: Transmission Lineage-A (top) and Transmission Lineage-B (bottom). For each predictor, the left hand value represents the expansion phase, the right hand value the post-expansion phase. Posterior distributions are coloured according to predictor type. Predictors include geographic distances (geo distance, red), population sizes at the origin and destination (pop size ori & pop size dest, yellow), aggregated mobility (mobility mat, dark blue), mobility-based community membership level 1 and level 2 (comm overlap l1 & l2, light blue), Greater London origin and destination (gr LDN ori & gr LDN dest, green), peak time at the origin and destination (peak time ori & peak time dest, yellow) and the residual of a regression of sample size against case count regression at either the origin and destination (sample res ori & sample res dest, grey).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5: Spatiotemporal distribution of Omicron BA.1 infections and potential links with human mobility.

(A) Estimated daily number of Omicron BA.1 cases per 1000 people at the LTLA level, coloured according to their timing of peak in case incidence (specifically, whether the interval during which the daily number of Omicron BA.1 cases exceeded 85% of the peak incidence lies entirely before (red), after (dark-grey), or includes (yellow) 2021 Christmas (25 December 2021). Inset shows the spatial distribution of LTLAs with different timing of peak in Omicron BA.1 case incidence. (B) Trend in human mobility in the UK across multiple spatial scales (red: <30 km, yellow: 30 - 60 km, green: 60 - 100 km, black: >100 km); arrow in inset indicates the time of first reported Omicron BA.1 infection in England on 27 November 2021. (C) Map showing the spatial distribution of LTLAs that are classified as one of 6 types of population settlement according to the City & Town Classification of Constituencies & Local Authorities, developed by the House of Common Library in the United Kingdom. (D) Schematic showing a mobility network with two “hub” units (A, B) and two “home” units (D, C). m_XY,t denotes the mobility flux between a “hub” unit X and “home” unit Y during a given week t, and c_X,t denotes the number of reported cases at “hub” X in a given week t. Only “home” unit C would be considered in the model in this example as unit D is only connected to a single “hub”.

Because the expansion dynamics are highly anisotropic, they offer little opportunity to find consistent support for the aggregated mobility predictor, which is symmetric. In contrast, the gravity model dynamics during the post-expansion phase(Figure 4B; Figure S7) are somewhat less pronounced, as suggested by consistently lower contribution from the population size predictor. Consequently, the aggregated mobility matrix is now consistently supported. For some transmission lineages, the model still suggests substantial viral lineage outflow from Greater London (i.e., support for Greater London predictors). In contrast to the initial expansion phase, the post-expansion phase exhibits consistently positive coefficients for the destination peak time predictor, reflecting higher dissemination to LTLAs with later peak times. Overall, these results are consistent with observations from continuous phylogeography (Figure 3) and epidemiological data from previous studies (14, 15). We further verify these results by performing a similar analysis using a time-homogeneous model, from which we find broadly consistent coefficient estimates for all predictors as those from the time-inhomogeneous model (Figure S8).

Discussion

Our results show that a substantial proportion of local SARS-CoV-2 infections during the Omicron BA.1 epidemic wave in England can be traced back to a small number of introductions inferred to have occurred before or during the early travel restrictions (26 November to 15 December 2021 for incoming passengers from southern Africa). Although the rate of international imports continued to increase after mid-December, local onward transmission was observed only for a small proportion (∼25%) of imported cases that arrived in England after Christmas 2021. These results are consistent with previous investigations of VOCs in England and other countries (27, 35), highlighting the ineffectiveness of international travel restrictions when applied after the detection of local transmission, when they are applied to too few countries, and not in combination with local control measures. This is especially true when countries outside the presumed origin location have rapidly growing epidemics and become major exporters of the VOC, as highlighted by the epidemic of BA.1 in NYC and continued exponential growth of importations into England in early December 2021 (36). More generally, the practical value of targeted travel restrictions is further limited by the fact that there are often multiple pathways connecting any two countries in the global transportation network (37).

Omicron BA.1 spread rapidly across England, with Greater London playing a central role in the initial spatial expansion due to its unique position as a central travel hub in England’s mobility network. In contrast, Greater London played a smaller role during the spread of Delta in Spring 2021 when most early transmission clusters were in the North West region, likely as a result of specific mobility patterns associated with incoming travellers (17). Similar spatial expansion patterns centred on Greater London were also observed in invasion of the Alpha variant in winter 2020 (16); future comparative studies of the dispersal patterns of local transmission lineages across these previous waves could potentially yield insights into the impact of NPIs and the effects of resulting changes of local mobility patterns on the spatial heterogeneity in the spread of VOCs and future infectious diseases.

Findings from our phylodynamic analysis should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. The number of seeding events identified is likely to be an underestimate of the true number of independent introductions due to unsampled genetic diversity outside of England as well as uneven sequencing coverage among countries (38). Some transmission lineages may have been aggregated, as indicated by extended periods of unobserved local transmission after the inferred importation. Nevertheless, we were able to cross-validate our phylogenetic results using independent epidemiological data from the VAM line list (Figure S6).

To remove potential sampling bias in the phylogeographic reconstruction of local transmission lineages, we downsampled the available English SARS-CoV-2 genomes from COG-UK whilst accounting for geographical variations in sequencing coverage and COVID-19 prevalence. Despite this subsampling procedure, we note that some sampling biases still remained both spatially (Figure 4A) and temporally (Figure S4). This could be due to geographical variations in case reporting rate or because the maximum sequencing capacity was exceeded in regions with exceptionally high case incidence. Our results indicate evidence of voluntary adjustments in human mobility patterns in response to changes in the number of Omicron BA.1 cases reported locally and at major local travel hubs.

Future work should focus on evaluating how the level of coupling between intensity of transmission and human behaviours varies depending on socio-economic factors and on levels of NPIs or risk communication. For example, regions or countries where most of the workforce is employed in manual labour are unlikely to exhibit the same voluntary behavioural response as those where more jobs can be performed from home (39, 40), thus allowing employees more freedom to respond to local changes in prevalence. Similarly, individuals with different socio-economic status are likely to display varying degrees of behaviours due to differences in exposure to health information (41, 42).

Understanding the bi-directional relationships between human behaviours and perceived level of transmission risk is crucial for the design of future intervention strategies and modelling for COVID-19 and other respiratory infections. Additionally, they should also explore how spatial heterogeneities in population immunity may impact SARS-CoV-2 spread.

Our findings highlight the need to better characterise the interplay between perceived risk and intensity of transmission and changes in human behaviour. Their interaction dynamics and the resulting impact on transmission could be relevant to the way in which many countries, including the UK, move toward managing endemic COVID-19. Omicron BA.1 was replaced by the BA.2 sub-variant in February 2022 and later by the BA.5 sub-variant in June 2022 (20, 21). Whilst the public health burden of COVID-19 has remained lower due to reduced average disease severity and increased population immunity, the continued antigenic evolution of SARS-CoV-2 means that the possibility of future variants with increased virulence cannot be dismissed. One priority in preparing for the next SARS-CoV-2 variant or pathogen emergence is developing robust and scalable pipelines for large-scale genomic and epidemiological analyses supported by globally coordinated and unified data infrastructures (43, 44). The implementation of analytical systems which draw on multiple data streams comes with myriad technical and logistical challenges and can be realised only through the collective efforts of public health stakeholders worldwide.

Data Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), members of the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium, NHS labs, GISAID contributors (acknowledgment table of genomes used is provided on our GitHub repository) for sharing of genomic data of Omicron BA.1.

Author contributions

JT, OGP, MUGK conceived and planned the research. JT, SB, BL,VH, JTM, PB, REP, JR, PL, SD analysed the data. AEZ, TPP, BJ, RC, AO’T, AD, JTM, BL, SC, SD, JR, XJ, MAS, MUGK, OGP, AR advised on methodologies. IIB, KK, MD contributed international flight passenger data. JT, OGP, MUGK wrote the initial manuscript draft. All authors edited, read and approved the manuscript.

Declaration of interests

K.K. is the founder of BlueDot, a social enterprise that develops digital technologies for public health. M.D. is employed at BlueDot. All other authors declare no competing interests. L.L. and N.W. are employed by Google and own equity in Alphabet.

Materials and Methods

Data and code availability

UK genome sequences used were generated by the COVID-19 Genomics UK consortium (COG-UK, https://www.cogconsortium.uk/). Data linking COG-IDs to location have been removed to protect privacy, however if you require this data please visit https://www.cogconsortium.uk/contact/ for information on accessing consortium-only data. The Google COVID-19 Aggregated Mobility Research Dataset used for this study is available with permission from Google LLC. Code to reproduce the analyses will be made available on our GitHub repository before publication.

Supplementary Information

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S1: Comparison of Omicron BA.1 importation intensity as observed empirically from Variant Mutation (VAM) line list versus estimates from phylodynamic analysis. Related to Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Histogram (grey bars) shows the daily number of incoming travellers who were later tested positive for Omicron BA.1 under the UKHSA mass testing programme (by specimen date). Solid lines represent the daily frequency of importations (7-day rolling average) as inferred from the phylodynamic analysis, coloured according to the size of resulting local transmission lineages (with the black dashed line representing the total numbers irrespective of size); shading denotes the 95% HPD across the posterior tree distribution.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S2. Distribution of local transmission lineage sizes from phylodynamic analysis. Related to Figure 1.

Grey bars show the number of transmission lineages of different sizes; red error bars denote the 95% HPDs across the posterior tree distribution. Blue solid line represents the cumulative proportion of English Omicron BA.1 genomes in our dataset accounted for by transmission lineages up to a certain size; shading denotes the 95% HPD across the posterior tree distribution.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S3. Comparison of transmission lineage size distribution from phylodynamic analysis versus simulated results from a branching process model. Related to Figure 1.

(A) Black and red solid lines represent the estimated daily and 7-day rolling average daily number of Omicron BA.1 cases in England. Blue solid line represents the estimated daily growth rate, with the initial values imputed using an estimate of the growth rate on 13 December 2021. (B and C) Weekly proportion of local Omicron BA.1 infections resulting from importations at different times throughout the epidemic, with comparison between empirical observations from the phylodynamic analysis (C, top) and predictions from the branching process model (C, bottom).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S4. Correlation between estimated number of Omicron BA.1 cases and number of Omicron BA.1 genomes sampled across UTLAs in England. Related to Figure 3.

Circles are coloured by week commencing date. Solid black line represents the line of best-fit; shaded region represents the 95% CI. We note in particular the clustering of circles corresponding to the same week along the line of best-fit, indicating small changes in sequencing coverage across time but not across UTLAs.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S5. Within-location versus all viral lineage movements for major cities in England. Related to Figure 3 and 4.

Each solid line represents the ratio between the frequency of within-location and all viral lineage movements per week, as inferred from continuous phylogeography for 6 major cities in England. For Greater Manchester and Greater London, viral lineages associated with multiple lower tier local authorities were aggregated in the calculation of these ratios. The timing of each viral lineage movement was assumed to be half-way between the inferred time of the nodes corresponding to the origin and destination.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S6. Spatiotemporal dynamics of Omicron BA.1 transmission lineages in England. Related to Figure 3.

Maps showing viral lineage movements inferred from continuous phylogeography for Transmission Lineage-B, D, F and H. Nodes are coloured according to inferred date of occurrence and the direction of viral lineage movement is indicated by edge curvature (anti-clockwise).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S7. Predictors of viral lineage movements in England considered in the time-inhomogeneous discrete-phylogeography with GLM model. Related to Figure 4.

Posterior distributions of the product of the log predictor coefficient and the predictor inclusion probability for each predictor. Estimates are plotted for Transmission Lineage-C (top) and Transmission Lineage-D, E, F, G and H (bottom) which were analysed together in a joint model. For each predictor, the left hand value represents the expansion phase, the right hand value the post-expansion phase. Posterior distributions are colored according to predictor type. Predictors include geographic distances (geo distance, red), population sizes at the origin and destination (pop size ori & pop size dest, yellow), aggregated mobility (mobility mat, dark blue), mobility-based community membership level 1 and level 2 (comm overlap l1 & l2, light blue), Greater London origin and destination (gr LDN ori & gr LDN dest, green), peak time at the origin and destination (peak time ori & peak time dest, yellow) and the residual of a regression of sample size against case count regression at either the origin and destination (sample res ori & sample res dest, grey).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S8. Predictors of viral lineage movements in England considered in the time-homogeneous discrete-phylogeography with GLM model. Related to Figure 4.

Posterior distributions of the product of the log predictor coefficient and the predictor inclusion probability for each predictor. Estimates for the 8 largest transmission lineages are plotted, with the bottom-right panel showing estimates for Transmission Lineage-D, E, F, G and H estimated from a joint model. Posterior distributions are colored according to predictor type. Predictors include geographic distances (geo distance, red), population sizes at the origin and destination (pop size ori & pop size dest, yellow), aggregated mobility (mobility mat, dark blue), mobility-based community membership level 1 and level 2 (comm overlap l1 & l2, light blue), Greater London origin and destination (gr LDN ori & gr LDN dest, green), peak time at the origin and destination (peak time ori & peak time dest, yellow) and the residual of a regression of sample size against case count regression at either the origin and destination (sample res ori & sample res dest, grey).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S9. Mobility patterns associated with “hub” units. Related to Figure 5.

(A) Weekly relative mobility to and from each of the 30 geographical units identified as “hubs” in the statistical analysis. (B) Weekly relative mobility to and from each of the 30 geographical units classified as “hubs”, normalised by the maximum observed value between November 2021 and January 2022.

Table S6. The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium, June 2021 V4

The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium FINAL (06-2021 V4)

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Samuel C Robson ^{13, 84}

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Thomas R Connor ^{11, 74} and Nicholas J Loman ⁴³

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Tanya Golubchik ⁵

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Rocio T Martinez Nunez ⁴⁶

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

David Bonsall ⁵

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Andrew Rambaut ¹⁰⁴

Funding acquisition, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Luke B Snell ¹²

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Rich Livett ¹¹⁶

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:

Catherine Ludden ^{20, 70}

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Sally Corden ⁷⁴ and Eleni Nastouli ^{96, 95, 30}

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Gaia Nebbia ¹²

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Ian Johnston ¹¹⁶

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Katrina Lythgoe ⁵, M. Estee Torok ^{19, 20} and Ian G Goodfellow ²⁴

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:

Jacqui A Prieto ^{97, 82} and Kordo Saeed ^{97, 83}

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

David K Jackson ¹¹⁶

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Catherine Houlihan ^{96, 94}

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Dan Frampton ^{94, 95}

Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

William L Hamilton ¹⁹ and Adam A Witney ⁴¹

Funding acquisition, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Giselda Bucca ¹⁰¹

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Project administration:

Cassie F Pope ^{40, 41}

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics:

Catherine Moore ⁷⁴

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis:

Emma C Thomson ⁵³

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:

Teresa Cutino-Moguel ², Ewan M Harrison ^{116, 102}

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Colin P Smith ¹⁰¹

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis:

Fiona Rogan ⁷⁷

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:

Shaun M Beckwith ⁶, Abigail Murray ⁶, Dawn Singleton ⁶, Kirstine Eastick ³⁷, Liz A Sheridan ⁹⁸, Paul Randell ⁹⁹, Leigh M Jackson ¹⁰⁵, Cristina V Ariani ¹¹⁶ and Sónia Gonçalves ¹¹⁶

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Derek J Fairley ^{3, 77}, Matthew W Loose ¹⁸ and Joanne Watkins ⁷⁴

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:

Samuel Moses ^{25, 106}

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Sam Nicholls ⁴³, Matthew Bull ⁷⁴ and Roberto Amato ¹¹⁶

Leadership and supervision, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Darren L Smith ^{36, 65, 66}

Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

David M Aanensen ^{14, 116} and Jeffrey C Barrett ¹¹⁶

Metadata curation, Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Beatrix Kele ², Dinesh Aggarwal ^{20, 116, 70}, James G Shepherd ⁵³, Martin D Curran ⁷¹ and Surendra Parmar ⁷¹

Metadata curation, Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Matthew D Parker ¹⁰⁹

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Catryn Williams ⁷⁴

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Sharon Glaysher ⁶⁸

Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Anthony P Underwood ^{14, 116}, Matthew Bashton ^{36, 65}, Nicole Pacchiarini ⁷⁴, Katie F Loveson ⁸⁴ and Matthew Byott ^{95, 96}

Project administration, Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Alessandro M Carabelli ²⁰

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Metadata curation:

Kate E Templeton ^{56, 104}

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Project administration:

Sharon J Peacock ^{20, 70}, Thushan I de Silva ¹⁰⁹, Dennis Wang ¹⁰⁹, Cordelia F Langford ¹¹⁶ and John Sillitoe ¹¹⁶

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Samples and logistics:

Rory N Gunson ⁵⁵

Funding acquisition, Leadership and supervision, and Sequencing and analysis:

Simon Cottrell ⁷⁴, Justin O’Grady ^{75, 103} and Dominic Kwiatkowski ^{116, 108}

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Project administration:

Patrick J Lillie ³⁷

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics:

Nicholas Cortes ³³, Nathan Moore ³³, Claire Thomas ³³, Phillipa J Burns ³⁷, Tabitha W Mahungu ⁸⁰ and Steven Liggett ⁸⁶

Leadership and supervision, Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis:

Angela H Beckett ^{13, 81} and Matthew TG Holden ⁷³

Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:

Lisa J Levett ³⁴, Husam Osman ^{70, 35} and Mohammed O Hassan-Ibrahim ⁹⁹

Leadership and supervision, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis:

David A Simpson ⁷⁷

Leadership and supervision, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Meera Chand ⁷², Ravi K Gupta ¹⁰², Alistair C Darby ¹⁰⁷ and Steve Paterson ¹⁰⁷

Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Oliver G Pybus ²³, Erik M Volz ³⁹, Daniela de Angelis ⁵², David L Robertson ⁵³, Andrew J Page ⁷⁵ and Inigo Martincorena ¹¹⁶

Leadership and supervision, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Louise Aigrain ¹¹⁶ and Andrew R Bassett ¹¹⁶

Metadata curation, Project administration, and Samples and logistics:

Nick Wong ⁵⁰, Yusri Taha ⁸⁹, Michelle J Erkiert ⁹⁹ and Michael H Spencer Chapman ^{116, 102}

Metadata curation, Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis:

Rebecca Dewar ⁵⁶ and Martin P McHugh ^{56, 111}

Metadata curation, Project administration, and Software and analysis tools:

Siddharth Mookerjee ^{38, 57}

Metadata curation, Project administration, and Visualisation:

Stephen Aplin ⁹⁷, Matthew Harvey ⁹⁷, Thea Sass ⁹⁷, Helen Umpleby ⁹⁷ and Helen Wheeler ⁹⁷

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

James P McKenna ³, Ben Warne ⁹, Joshua F Taylor ²², Yasmin Chaudhry ²⁴, Rhys Izuagbe ²⁴, Aminu S Jahun ²⁴, Gregory R Young ^{36, 65}, Claire McMurray ⁴³, Clare M McCann ^{65, 66}, Andrew Nelson ^{65, 66} and Scott Elliott ⁶⁸

Metadata curation, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:

Hannah Lowe ²⁵

Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Anna Price ¹¹, Matthew R Crown ⁶⁵, Sara Rey ⁷⁴, Sunando Roy ⁹⁶ and Ben Temperton ¹⁰⁵

Metadata curation, Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

Sharif Shaaban ⁷³ and Andrew R Hesketh ¹⁰¹

Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Kenneth G Laing ⁴¹, Irene M Monahan ⁴¹ and Judith Heaney ^{95, 96, 34}

Project administration, Samples and logistics, and Visualisation:

Emanuela Pelosi ⁹⁷, Siona Silviera ⁹⁷ and Eleri Wilson-Davies ⁹⁷

Samples and logistics, Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Helen Fryer ⁵

Sequencing and analysis, Software and analysis tools, and Visualization:

Helen Adams ⁴, Louis du Plessis ²³, Rob Johnson ³⁹, William T Harvey ^{53, 42}, Joseph Hughes ⁵³, Richard J Orton ⁵³, Lewis G Spurgin ⁵⁹, Yann Bourgeois ⁸¹, Chris Ruis ¹⁰², Áine O’Toole ¹⁰⁴, Marina Gourtovaia ¹¹⁶ and Theo Sanderson ¹¹⁶

Funding acquisition, and Leadership and supervision:

Christophe Fraser ⁵, Jonathan Edgeworth ¹², Judith Breuer ^{96, 29}, Stephen L Michell ¹⁰⁵ and John A Todd ¹¹⁵

Funding acquisition, and Project administration:

Michaela John ¹⁰ and David Buck ¹¹⁵

Leadership and supervision, and Metadata curation:

Kavitha Gajee ³⁷ and Gemma L Kay ⁷⁵

Leadership and supervision, and Project administration:

David Heyburn ⁷⁴

Leadership and supervision, and Samples and logistics:

Themoula Charalampous ^{12, 46}, Adela Alcolea-Medina ^{32, 112}, Katie Kitchman ³⁷, Alan McNally ^{43, 93}, David T

Pritchard ⁵⁰, Samir Dervisevic ⁵⁸, Peter Muir ⁷⁰, Esther Robinson ^{70, 35}, Barry B Vipond ⁷⁰, Newara A Ramadan ⁷⁸,

Christopher Jeanes ⁹⁰, Danni Weldon ¹¹⁶, Jana Catalan ¹¹⁸ and Neil Jones ¹¹⁸

Leadership and supervision, and Sequencing and analysis:

Ana da Silva Filipe ⁵³, Chris Williams ⁷⁴, Marc Fuchs ⁷⁷, Julia Miskelly ⁷⁷, Aaron R Jeffries ¹⁰⁵, Karen Oliver ¹¹⁶ and Naomi R Park ¹¹⁶

Metadata curation, and Samples and logistics:

Amy Ash ¹, Cherian Koshy ¹, Magdalena Barrow ⁷, Sarah L Buchan ⁷, Anna Mantzouratou ⁷, Gemma Clark ¹⁵, Christopher W Holmes ¹⁶, Sharon Campbell ¹⁷, Thomas Davis ²¹, Ngee Keong Tan ²², Julianne R Brown ²⁹, Kathryn A Harris ^{29, 2}, Stephen P Kidd ³³, Paul R Grant ³⁴, Li Xu-McCrae ³⁵, Alison Cox ^{38, 63}, Pinglawathee Madona ^{38, 63}, Marcus Pond ^{38, 63}, Paul A Randell ^{38, 63}, Karen T Withell ⁴⁸, Cheryl Williams ⁵¹, Clive Graham ⁶⁰, Rebecca Denton-Smith ⁶², Emma Swindells ⁶², Robyn Turnbull ⁶², Tim J Sloan ⁶⁷, Andrew Bosworth ^{70, 35}, Stephanie Hutchings ⁷⁰, Hannah M Pymont ⁷⁰, Anna Casey ⁷⁶, Liz Ratcliffe ⁷⁶, Christopher R Jones ^{79, 105}, Bridget A Knight ^{79, 105}, Tanzina Haque ⁸⁰, Jennifer Hart ⁸⁰, Dianne Irish-Tavares ⁸⁰, Eric Witele ⁸⁰, Craig Mower ⁸⁶, Louisa K Watson ⁸⁶, Jennifer Collins ⁸⁹, Gary Eltringham ⁸⁹, Dorian Crudgington ⁹⁸, Ben Macklin ⁹⁸, Miren Iturriza-Gomara ¹⁰⁷, Anita O Lucaci ¹⁰⁷ and Patrick C McClure ¹¹³

Metadata curation, and Sequencing and analysis:

Matthew Carlile ¹⁸, Nadine Holmes ¹⁸, Christopher Moore ¹⁸, Nathaniel Storey ²⁹, Stefan Rooke ⁷³, Gonzalo Yebra ⁷³, Noel Craine ⁷⁴, Malorie Perry ⁷⁴, Nabil-Fareed Alikhan ⁷⁵, Stephen Bridgett ⁷⁷, Kate F Cook ⁸⁴, Christopher Fearn ⁸⁴, Salman Goudarzi ⁸⁴, Ronan A Lyons ⁸⁸, Thomas Williams ¹⁰⁴, Sam T Haldenby ¹⁰⁷, Jillian Durham ¹¹⁶ and Steven Leonard ¹¹⁶

Metadata curation, and Software and analysis tools:

Robert M Davies ¹¹⁶

Project administration, and Samples and logistics:

Rahul Batra ¹², Beth Blane ²⁰, Moira J Spyer ^{30, 95, 96}, Perminder Smith ^{32, 112}, Mehmet Yavus ^{85, 109}, Rachel J Williams ⁹⁶, Adhyana IK Mahanama ⁹⁷, Buddhini Samaraweera ⁹⁷, Sophia T Girgis ¹⁰², Samantha E Hansford ¹⁰⁹, Angie Green ¹¹⁵, Charlotte Beaver ¹¹⁶, Katherine L Bellis ^{116, 102}, Matthew J Dorman ¹¹⁶, Sally Kay ¹¹⁶, Liam Prestwood ¹¹⁶ and Shavanthi Rajatileka ¹¹⁶

Project administration, and Sequencing and analysis:

Joshua Quick ⁴³

Project administration, and Software and analysis tools:

Radoslaw Poplawski ⁴³

Samples and logistics, and Sequencing and analysis:

Nicola Reynolds ⁸, Andrew Mack ¹¹, Arthur Morriss ¹¹, Thomas Whalley ¹¹, Bindi Patel ¹², Iliana Georgana ²⁴, Myra Hosmillo ²⁴, Malte L Pinckert ²⁴, Joanne Stockton ⁴³, John H Henderson ⁶⁵, Amy Hollis ⁶⁵, William Stanley ⁶⁵, Wen C Yew ⁶⁵, Richard Myers ⁷², Alicia Thornton ⁷², Alexander Adams ⁷⁴, Tara Annett ⁷⁴, Hibo Asad ⁷⁴, Alec Birchley ⁷⁴, Jason Coombes ⁷⁴, Johnathan M Evans ⁷⁴, Laia Fina ⁷⁴, Bree Gatica-Wilcox ⁷⁴, Lauren Gilbert ⁷⁴, Lee Graham ⁷⁴, Jessica Hey ⁷⁴, Ember Hilvers ⁷⁴, Sophie Jones ⁷⁴, Hannah Jones ⁷⁴, Sara Kumziene-Summerhayes ⁷⁴, Caoimhe McKerr ⁷⁴, Jessica Powell ⁷⁴, Georgia Pugh ⁷⁴, Sarah Taylor ⁷⁴, Alexander J Trotter ⁷⁵, Charlotte A Williams ⁹⁶, Leanne M Kermack ¹⁰², Benjamin H Foulkes ¹⁰⁹, Marta Gallis ¹⁰⁹, Hailey R Hornsby ¹⁰⁹, Stavroula F Louka ¹⁰⁹, Manoj Pohare ¹⁰⁹, Paige Wolverson ¹⁰⁹, Peijun Zhang ¹⁰⁹, George MacIntyre-Cockett ¹¹⁵, Amy Trebes ¹¹⁵, Robin J Moll ¹¹⁶, Lynne Ferguson ¹¹⁷, Emily J Goldstein ¹¹⁷, Alasdair Maclean ¹¹⁷ and Rachael Tomb ¹¹⁷

Samples and logistics, and Software and analysis tools:

Igor Starinskij ⁵³

Sequencing and analysis, and Software and analysis tools:

Laura Thomson ⁵, Joel Southgate ^{11, 74}, Moritz UG Kraemer ²³, Jayna Raghwani ²³, Alex E Zarebski ²³, Olivia Boyd ³⁹, Lily Geidelberg ³⁹, Chris J Illingworth ⁵², Chris Jackson ⁵², David Pascall ⁵², Sreenu Vattipally ⁵³, Timothy M Freeman ¹⁰⁹, Sharon N Hsu ¹⁰⁹, Benjamin B Lindsey ¹⁰⁹, Keith James ¹¹⁶, Kevin Lewis ¹¹⁶, Gerry Tonkin-Hill ¹¹⁶ and Jaime M Tovar-Corona ¹¹⁶

Sequencing and analysis, and Visualisation:

MacGregor Cox ²⁰

Software and analysis tools, and Visualisation:

Khalil Abudahab ^{14, 116}, Mirko Menegazzo ¹⁴, Ben EW Taylor MEng ^{14, 116}, Corin A Yeats ¹⁴, Afrida Mukaddas ⁵³, Derek W Wright ⁵³, Leonardo de Oliveira Martins ⁷⁵, Rachel Colquhoun ¹⁰⁴, Verity Hill ¹⁰⁴, Ben Jackson ¹⁰⁴, JT McCrone ¹⁰⁴, Nathan Medd ¹⁰⁴, Emily Scher ¹⁰⁴ and Jon-Paul Keatley ¹¹⁶

Leadership and supervision:

Tanya Curran ³, Sian Morgan ¹⁰, Patrick Maxwell ²⁰, Ken Smith ²⁰, Sahar Eldirdiri ²¹, Anita Kenyon ²¹, Alison H Holmes ^{38, 57}, James R Price ^{38, 57}, Tim Wyatt ⁶⁹, Alison E Mather ⁷⁵, Timofey Skvortsov ⁷⁷ and John A Hartley ⁹⁶

Metadata curation:

Martyn Guest ¹¹, Christine Kitchen ¹¹, Ian Merrick ¹¹, Robert Munn ¹¹, Beatrice Bertolusso ³³, Jessica Lynch ³³, Gabrielle Vernet ³³, Stuart Kirk ³⁴, Elizabeth Wastnedge ⁵⁶, Rachael Stanley ⁵⁸, Giles Idle ⁶⁴, Declan T Bradley ^{69, 77}, Nicholas F Killough ⁶⁹, Jennifer Poyner ⁷⁹ and Matilde Mori ¹¹⁰

Project administration:

Owen Jones ¹¹, Victoria Wright ¹⁸, Ellena Brooks ²⁰, Carol M Churcher ²⁰, Laia Delgado Callico ²⁰, Mireille Fragakis ²⁰, Katerina Galai ^{20, 70}, Andrew Jermy ²⁰, Sarah Judges ²⁰, Anna Markov ²⁰, Georgina M McManus ²⁰, Kim S Smith ²⁰, Peter M D Thomas-McEwen ²⁰, Elaine Westwick ²⁰, Stephen W Attwood ²³, Frances Bolt ^{38, 57}, Alisha Davies ⁷⁴, Elen De Lacy ⁷⁴, Fatima Downing ⁷⁴, Sue Edwards ⁷⁴, Lizzie Meadows ⁷⁵, Sarah Jeremiah ⁹⁷, Nikki Smith ¹⁰⁹ and Luke Foulser ¹¹⁶

Samples and logistics:

Amita Patel ¹², Louise Berry ¹⁵, Tim Boswell ¹⁵, Vicki M Fleming ¹⁵, Hannah C Howson-Wells ¹⁵, Amelia Joseph ¹⁵, Manjinder Khakh ¹⁵, Michelle M Lister ¹⁵, Paul W Bird ¹⁶, Karlie Fallon ¹⁶, Thomas Helmer ¹⁶, Claire L McMurray ¹⁶, Mina Odedra ¹⁶, Jessica Shaw ¹⁶, Julian W Tang ¹⁶, Nicholas J Willford ¹⁶, Victoria Blakey ¹⁷, Veena Raviprakash ¹⁷, Nicola Sheriff ¹⁷, Lesley-Anne Williams ¹⁷, Theresa Feltwell ²⁰, Luke Bedford ²⁶, James S Cargill ²⁷, Warwick Hughes ²⁷, Jonathan Moore ²⁸, Susanne Stonehouse ²⁸, Laura Atkinson ²⁹, Jack CD Lee ²⁹, Dr Divya Shah ²⁹, Natasha Ohemeng-Kumi ^{32, 112}, John Ramble ^{32, 112}, Jasveen Sehmi ^{32, 112}, Rebecca Williams ³³, Wendy Chatterton ³⁴, Monika Pusok ³⁴, William Everson ³⁷, Anibolina Castigador ⁴⁴, Emily Macnaughton ⁴⁴, Kate El Bouzidi ⁴⁵, Temi Lampejo ⁴⁵, Malur Sudhanva ⁴⁵, Cassie Breen ⁴⁷, Graciela Sluga ⁴⁸, Shazaad SY Ahmad ^{49, 70}, Ryan P George ⁴⁹, Nicholas W Machin ^{49, 70}, Debbie Binns ⁵⁰, Victoria James ⁵⁰, Rachel Blacow ⁵⁵, Lindsay Coupland ⁵⁸, Louise Smith ⁵⁹, Edward Barton ⁶⁰, Debra Padgett ⁶⁰, Garren Scott ⁶⁰, Aidan Cross ⁶¹, Mariyam Mirfenderesky ⁶¹, Jane Greenaway ⁶², Kevin Cole ⁶⁴, Phillip Clarke ⁶⁷, Nichola Duckworth ⁶⁷, Sarah Walsh ⁶⁷, Kelly Bicknell ⁶⁸, Robert Impey ⁶⁸, Sarah Wyllie ⁶⁸, Richard Hopes ⁷⁰, Chloe Bishop ⁷², Vicki Chalker ⁷², Ian Harrison ⁷², Laura Gifford ⁷⁴, Zoltan Molnar ⁷⁷, Cressida Auckland ⁷⁹, Cariad Evans ^{85, 109}, Kate Johnson ^{85, 109}, David G Partridge ^{85, 109}, Mohammad Raza ^{85, 109}, Paul Baker ⁸⁶, Stephen Bonner ⁸⁶, Sarah Essex ⁸⁶, Leanne J Murray ⁸⁶, Andrew I Lawton ⁸⁷, Shirelle Burton-Fanning ⁸⁹, Brendan AI Payne ⁸⁹, Sheila Waugh ⁸⁹, Andrea N Gomes ⁹¹, Maimuna Kimuli ⁹¹, Darren R Murray ⁹¹, Paula Ashfield ⁹², Donald Dobie ⁹², Fiona Ashford ⁹³, Angus Best ⁹³, Liam Crawford ⁹³, Nicola Cumley ⁹³, Megan Mayhew ⁹³, Oliver Megram ⁹³, Jeremy Mirza ⁹³, Emma Moles-Garcia ⁹³, Benita Percival ⁹³, Megan Driscoll ⁹⁶, Leah Ensell ⁹⁶, Helen L Lowe ⁹⁶, Laurentiu Maftei ⁹⁶, Matteo Mondani ⁹⁶, Nicola J Chaloner ⁹⁹, Benjamin J Cogger ⁹⁹, Lisa J Easton ⁹⁹, Hannah Huckson ⁹⁹, Jonathan Lewis ⁹⁹, Sarah Lowdon ⁹⁹, Cassandra S Malone ⁹⁹, Florence Munemo ⁹⁹, Manasa Mutingwende ⁹⁹, Roberto Nicodemi ⁹⁹, Olga Podplomyk ⁹⁹, Thomas Somassa ⁹⁹, Andrew Beggs ¹⁰⁰, Alex Richter ¹⁰⁰, Claire Cormie ¹⁰², Joana Dias ¹⁰², Sally Forrest ¹⁰², Ellen E Higginson ¹⁰², Mailis Maes ¹⁰², Jamie Young ¹⁰², Rose K Davidson ¹⁰³, Kathryn A Jackson ¹⁰⁷, Alexander J Keeley ¹⁰⁹, Jonathan Ball ¹¹³, Timothy Byaruhanga ¹¹³, Joseph G Chappell ¹¹³, Jayasree Dey ¹¹³, Jack D Hill ¹¹³, Emily J Park ¹¹³, Arezou Fanaie ¹¹⁴, Rachel A Hilson ¹¹⁴, Geraldine Yaze ¹¹⁴ and Stephanie Lo ¹¹⁶

Sequencing and analysis:

Safiah Afifi ¹⁰, Robert Beer ¹⁰, Joshua Maksimovic ¹⁰, Kathryn McCluggage ¹⁰, Karla Spellman ¹⁰, Catherine Bresner ¹¹, William Fuller ¹¹, Angela Marchbank ¹¹, Trudy Workman ¹¹, Ekaterina Shelest ^{13, 81}, Johnny Debebe ¹⁸, Fei Sang ¹⁸, Sarah Francois ²³, Bernardo Gutierrez ²³, Tetyana I Vasylyeva ²³, Flavia Flaviani ³¹, Manon Ragonnet-Cronin ³⁹, Katherine L Smollett ⁴², Alice Broos ⁵³, Daniel Mair ⁵³, Jenna Nichols ⁵³, Kyriaki Nomikou ⁵³, Lily Tong ⁵³, Ioulia Tsatsani ⁵³, Sarah O’Brien ⁵⁴, Steven Rushton ⁵⁴, Roy Sanderson ⁵⁴, Jon Perkins ⁵⁵, Seb Cotton ⁵⁶, Abbie Gallagher ⁵⁶, Elias Allara ^{70, 102}, Clare Pearson ^{70, 102}, David Bibby ⁷², Gavin Dabrera ⁷², Nicholas Ellaby ⁷², Eileen Gallagher ⁷², Jonathan Hubb ⁷², Angie Lackenby ⁷², David Lee ⁷², Nikos Manesis ⁷², Tamyo Mbisa ⁷², Steven Platt ⁷², Katherine A Twohig ⁷², Mari Morgan ⁷⁴, Alp Aydin ⁷⁵, David J Baker ⁷⁵, Ebenezer Foster-Nyarko ⁷⁵, Sophie J Prosolek ⁷⁵, Steven Rudder ⁷⁵, Chris Baxter ⁷⁷, Sílvia F Carvalho ⁷⁷, Deborah Lavin ⁷⁷, Arun Mariappan ⁷⁷, Clara Radulescu ⁷⁷, Aditi Singh ⁷⁷, Miao Tang ⁷⁷, Helen Morcrette ⁷⁹, Nadua Bayzid ⁹⁶, Marius Cotic ⁹⁶, Carlos E Balcazar ¹⁰⁴, Michael D Gallagher ¹⁰⁴, Daniel Maloney ¹⁰⁴, Thomas D Stanton ¹⁰⁴, Kathleen A Williamson ¹⁰⁴, Robin Manley ¹⁰⁵, Michelle L Michelsen ¹⁰⁵, Christine M Sambles ¹⁰⁵, David J Studholme ¹⁰⁵, Joanna Warwick-Dugdale ¹⁰⁵, Richard Eccles ¹⁰⁷, Matthew Gemmell ¹⁰⁷, Richard Gregory ¹⁰⁷, Margaret Hughes ¹⁰⁷, Charlotte Nelson ¹⁰⁷, Lucille Rainbow ¹⁰⁷, Edith E Vamos ¹⁰⁷, Hermione J Webster ¹⁰⁷, Mark Whitehead ¹⁰⁷, Claudia Wierzbicki ¹⁰⁷, Adrienn Angyal ¹⁰⁹, Luke R Green ¹⁰⁹, Max Whiteley ¹⁰⁹, Emma Betteridge ¹¹⁶, Iraad F Bronner ¹¹⁶, Ben W Farr ¹¹⁶, Scott Goodwin ¹¹⁶, Stefanie V Lensing ¹¹⁶, Shane A McCarthy ^{116, 102}, Michael A Quail ¹¹⁶, Diana Rajan ¹¹⁶, Nicholas M Redshaw ¹¹⁶, Carol Scott ¹¹⁶, Lesley Shirley ¹¹⁶ and Scott AJ Thurston ¹¹⁶

Software and analysis tools:

Will Rowe ⁴³, Amy Gaskin ⁷⁴, Thanh Le-Viet ⁷⁵, James Bonfield ¹¹⁶, Jennifier Liddle ¹¹⁶ and Andrew Whitwham ¹¹⁶

1 Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, 2 Barts Health NHS Trust, 3 Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, 4 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, 5 Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 6 Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 7 Bournemouth University, 8 Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, 9 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 10 Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, 11 Cardiff University, 12 Centre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, Department of Infectious Diseases, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 13 Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth, 14 Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance, University of Oxford, 15 Clinical Microbiology Department, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, 16 Clinical Microbiology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, 17 County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, 18 Deep Seq, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 19 Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 20 Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, 21 Department of Microbiology, Kettering General Hospital, 22 Department of Microbiology, South West London Pathology, 23 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 24 Division of Virology, Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, 25 East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, 26 East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, 27 East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, 28 Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, 29 Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, 30 Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (GOS ICH), University College London (UCL), 31 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Biomedical Research Centre, 32 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 33 Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 34 Health Services Laboratories, 35 Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, 36 Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment, Northumbria University, 37 Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, 38 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, 39 Imperial College London, 40 Infection Care Group, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 41 Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George’s University of London, 42 Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, 43 Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, 44 Isle of Wight NHS Trust, 45 King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 46 King’s College London, 47 Liverpool Clinical Laboratories, 48 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, 49 Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, 50 Microbiology Department, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, 51 Microbiology, Royal Oldham Hospital, 52 MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, 53 MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, 54 Newcastle University, 55 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 56 NHS Lothian, 57 NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in HCAI and AMR, Imperial College London, 58 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 59 Norfolk County Council, 60 North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, 61 North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, 62 North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, 63 North West London Pathology, 64 Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, 65 Northumbria University, 66 NU-OMICS, Northumbria University, 67 Path Links, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, 68 Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, 69 Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland, 70 Public Health England, 71 Public Health England, Cambridge, 72 Public Health England, Colindale, 73 Public Health Scotland, 74 Public Health Wales, 75 Quadram Institute Bioscience, 76 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, 77 Queen’s University Belfast, 78 Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, 79 Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, 80 Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, 81 School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, 82 School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, 83 School of Medicine, University of Southampton, 84 School of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, 85 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 86 South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 87 Southwest Pathology Services, 88 Swansea University, 89 The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 90 The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, 91 The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, 92 The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, 93 Turnkey Laboratory, University of Birmingham, 94 University College London Division of Infection and Immunity, 95 University College London Hospital Advanced Pathogen Diagnostics Unit, 96 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 97 University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, 98 University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, 99 University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, 100 University of Birmingham, 101 University of Brighton, 102 University of Cambridge, 103 University of East Anglia, 104 University of Edinburgh, 105 University of Exeter, 106 University of Kent, 107 University of Liverpool, 108 University of Oxford, 109 University of Sheffield, 110 University of Southampton, 111 University of St Andrews, 112 Viapath, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 113 Virology, School of Life Sciences, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, 114 Watford General Hospital, 115 Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, 116 Wellcome Sanger Institute, 117 West of Scotland Specialist Virology Centre, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 118 Whittington Health NHS Trust