Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Reviews of "Clade I Mpox Virus Genomic Diversity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018 - 2024: Predominance of Zoonotic Transmission"

Reviewers: J Shang (Suzhou Inst. of Systems Medicine) |πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜ β€’ C Vogles (Yale) |πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜ β€’ J Lu (Peking University) |πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—β—»οΈ β€’ R Kumar (Magadh University) |πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—β—»οΈ β€’ U Tatu & A Kumar (Indian Institute of Science) |πŸ“’πŸ“’πŸ“’ ◻️◻️ β€’ S Ali (Aliah University) |πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜

Published onSep 29, 2024
Reviews of "Clade I Mpox Virus Genomic Diversity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018 - 2024: Predominance of Zoonotic Transmission"
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Clade I Mpox virus genomic diversity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018 - 2024: Predominance of Zoonotic Transmission
Clade I Mpox virus genomic diversity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018 - 2024: Predominance of Zoonotic Transmission
Description

Background: Recent reports raise concerns on the changing epidemiology of mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with increasing case counts, sexual contact-mediated clusters, and sustained human-to-human transmission driven by a novel monkeypox virus (MPXV) subclade, clade Ib. However, only a limited number of clade I MPXV genomes have been characterized so far, from a limited number of regions. Methods: We conducted whole genome sequencing of 603 mpox-positive samples that were collected from 581 patients between 2018-2024 in 17 of the 26 provinces of the DRC. Results: Genome coverage was at least 70% for 429/603 (71.1%) samples and near full-length MPXV genomes (>90% coverage) were obtained for 348/603 (57.7%) samples from 337 patients. All newly generated MPXV sequences belonged to clade I, among which 17 were clade Ib strains, all from patients infected in 2024 in the South-Kivu province. The large majority (>95%) of the new strains fall within previously described clade Ia groups and potential new groups have also been observed. The low number of APOBEC3 mutations found among clade Ia suggests that most human mpox cases are probably linked to zoonotic transmissions. Genetically diverse MPXV lineages co-circulate in small geographic areas during the same outbreak suggesting multiple zoonotic introductions over a short period from one or multiple reservoir species. Recent identification of mpox cases in Kinshasa shows that multiple lineages circulate in a large urban center, indicating separate introduction events. Conclusion: The mpox epidemic in the DRC exhibits two distinct patterns. In traditional endemic regions, the epidemic is predominated by zoonotic spill-over events involving clade Ia. Conversely, in the eastern part of the country, the clade Ib outbreak is driven by human-to-human transmission highlighting the need for a coordinated response effort at the national, regional and international levels.

To read the original manuscript, click the link above.

Summary of Reviews: This preprint is a genomic sequencing study of positive mpox samples in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The reviewers agree that the study was well-designed with strong evidence to support their claims. However, there were several key areas for improvement. They suggested consolidating figures for clarity, incorporating data on human mobility to better understand transmission pathways, and strengthening the phylogenetic analysis with tools like de novo assembly and SNP-based clustering. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of adding clinical outcomes data andΒ addressing the high genetic diversity in clade Ia using quantitative tools. They also suggested including recent data on clade Ib to make the manuscript more relevant and provide further context on APOBEC3 mutations. Overall, the reviewers appreciated the authors' candid acknowledgment of the study's limitations, including potential sampling biases, and recognized the urgent need for enhanced genomic surveillance to mitigate the mpox epidemic in the DRC.Β 

Reviewer 1 (Jingzhe S…) | πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜

Reviewer 2 (Chantal V…) | πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜

Reviewer 3 (Jian L…) | πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—β—»οΈ

Reviewer 4 (Roshan K…) | πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—β—»οΈ

Reviewer 5 (Utpal T… & Ankeet K…) | πŸ“’πŸ“’πŸ“’ ◻️◻️

Reviewer 6 (Safdar A…) | πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜

RR\ID Strength of Evidence Scale Key

πŸ“• ◻️◻️◻️◻️ = Misleading

πŸ“™πŸ“™ ◻️◻️◻️ = Not Informative

πŸ“’πŸ“’πŸ“’ ◻️◻️ = Potentially Informative

πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—πŸ“—β—»οΈ = Reliable

πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜πŸ“˜ = Strong

To read the reviews, click the links below.Β 

Connections
1 of 6
Comments
1