Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 30;18(3):e0283664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283664

Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community of Kathmandu Valley using sewage samples

Rajindra Napit 1,2, Prajwol Manandhar 1,2, Ashok Chaudhary 1, Bishwo Shrestha 1, Ajit Poudel 1,2, Roji Raut 1, Saman Pradhan 1,2, Samita Raut 1, Pragun G Rajbhandari 1, Anupama Gurung 1, Rajesh M Rajbhandari 1,2, Sameer M Dixit 1, Jessica S Schwind 3, Christine K Johnson 4, Jonna K Mazet 4, Dibesh B Karmacharya 1,2,5,*
Editor: Basant Giri6
PMCID: PMC10062583  PMID: 36996055

Abstract

Understanding disease burden and transmission dynamics in resource-limited, low-income countries like Nepal are often challenging due to inadequate surveillance systems. These issues are exacerbated by limited access to diagnostic and research facilities throughout the country. Nepal has one of the highest COVID-19 case rates (915 cases per 100,000 people) in South Asia, with densely-populated Kathmandu experiencing the highest number of cases. Swiftly identifying case clusters (hotspots) and introducing effective intervention programs is crucial to mounting an effective containment strategy. The rapid identification of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants can also provide important information on viral evolution and epidemiology. Genomic-based environmental surveillance can help in the early detection of outbreaks before clinical cases are recognized and identify viral micro-diversity that can be used for designing real-time risk-based interventions. This research aimed to develop a genomic-based environmental surveillance system by detecting and characterizing SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples of Kathmandu using portable next-generation DNA sequencing devices. Out of 22 sites in the Kathmandu Valley from June to August 2020, sewage samples from 16 (80%) sites had detectable SARS-CoV-2. A heatmap was created to visualize the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community based on viral load intensity and corresponding geospatial data. Further, 47 mutations were observed in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Some detected mutations (n = 9, 22%) were novel at the time of data analysis and yet to be reported in the global database, with one indicating a frameshift deletion in the spike gene. SNP analysis revealed possibility of assessing circulating major/minor variant diversity on environmental samples based on key mutations. Our study demonstrated the feasibility of rapidly obtaining vital information on community transmission and disease dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 using genomic-based environmental surveillance.

Introduction

In the past twenty years, several diseases caused by coronavirus have posed significant global health challenges- including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS, 2002), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS, 2012), as well as the current pandemic of COVID-19 [1, 2]. COVID-19 is caused by a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA virus (SARS-CoV-2) that belongs to the Coronaviridae family [2]. The outbreak, first detected in Wuhan (China), was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020, as it rapidly spread globally [3]. As of 14 January 2021, over 108 million cases were reported worldwide, claiming over 2.3 million deaths [4]. There were 272,840 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Nepal and 2055 deaths [5].

Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are often common in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, with one hospital in the US reporting 70% of GI patients testing positive for coronavirus [69]. Although the primary transmission source is through respiratory aerosol, studies confirmed fecal shedding [10, 11] and potential fecal-oral transmission of coronavirus [12, 13]. Since SARS-CoV-2 is shed through feces, it has also been detected in wastewater [14, 15]. Therefore, detecting the virus in sewage and wastewater can serve as an early detection method for identifying communities with circulating viruses in densely populated cities.

Environmental surveillance (ES) offers a complementary and more feasible approach to clinical disease surveillance. This approach yields population-level information and detects viral shedding by both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients [1, 16], thus providing a snapshot of the outbreak over an entire sewage catchment area and an early indication of clinical cases in the area [17]. Because not all symptomatic patients get tested due to reluctance or lack of access to tests, clinical samples may not be a sensitive indicator of cases in a given area [18, 19]. As experienced by many countries, clinical and community-based COVID-19 surveillance is expensive, technically challenging, and time-consuming, and therefore hard to implement in the manner needed to rapidly inform public health measures to contain the outbreak [10, 20, 21]. A longitudinal study conducted in Boston (USA) between March-April in 2020 showed a high correlation between environmental samples testing positive for the virus 4–10 days before symptoms presented in people in the sampled areas [22]. Additionally, wastewater sampling was found to be as sensitive as stool sampling for viral detection during vaccine-derived poliovirus outbreaks in Cuba [23]. As such, the versatility of environmental samples combined with the implementation of cheaper, user-friendly, and short turnaround sequencing tools such as MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK) [23] may be invaluable tools used to rapidly identify viral strains and detect clusters of infection going forward.

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of viral pathogens is frequently used in disease surveillance and monitoring. The importance of genomic surveillance has been widely recognized as an important method of understanding viral evolution [24]. Portable and reliable sequencing tools such as MinION can play a crucial role in conducting genomic surveillance in a low-income country like Nepal, where there is limited access to high throughput DNA sequencing machines. The pocket-sized, field-deployable next-generation sequencer has enabled real-time outbreak surveillance of several recent outbreaks of Zika, Ebola, and Lassa viruses [1]. Obtaining whole or partial genome sequences of the virus during an outbreak is critical in understanding viral evolution and disease epidemiology and can help design accurate diagnostic tests for rapidly evolving RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 [25]. RNA metabarcoding can also be utilized for the samples as it can overcome the limitations of conventional methods by targeting a variety of species and providing greater resolution of their taxonomies [26].

This study was conducted in selected areas of Kathmandu (Nepal) to evaluate the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 detection and characterization from environmental samples using portable DNA sequencing technology (MinION). Studies in other countries have detected SARS-CoV-2 in environment samples collected from wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) [2, 16, 2730]. However, Kathmandu has only one functional WWTP (out of five), and therefore, collecting all representative citywide sampling from WWTP is not possible. Since sewage lines were mapped in parts of the city for ongoing typhoid surveillance, the same sampling sites were used to conduct SARS-CoV-2 environmental surveillance. This cross-sectional study successfully detected, quantified, and characterized the SARS-CoV-2 virus from environment samples collected from the wastewater outlets and utility holes within catchment areas, providing vital information on the circulating strains of the virus in communities across Kathmandu.

Materials and methods

Study design and sewage sample collection

For initial feasibility and protocol validation, we carried out sewage sampling in three sites (TH-1, TH-2, and Te-3) in the Kathmandu district during June 2020 (Table 1). The catchment area of the three sites was chosen based on coverage and high population density.

Table 1. Sample details of initial feasibility study.

S.N. Sample ID Ward Tole RT-PCR Rdrp Metabarcoding
1 TH1   Sankhamul Not detected Detected
2 TH2   Thapathali Not detected Not detected
3 Te-3   Teku Not detected Detected

To test our protocol after the validation and optimization in the preliminary sites, we selected 22 sewage catchment points from three wards (Ward 9 or Balkumari; Ward 11 or Sankhamul; and Ward 17 or Gwarko) of the Lalitpur Metropolitan City in the Lalitpur district. The district has a population of about 500,000 people [31]. In Balkumari, there were five sites; in Sankhamul, there were ten sites; and in Gwarko, there were seven sites (Table 2).

Table 2. Sample details of environmental surveillance in LMC.

S.N. Sample ID Ward Tole RT-PCR Rdrp WGS_QC
1 BA-1 9 Balkumari Not detected Fail
2 BA-2 9 Balkumari Not detected Fail
3 BA-3 9 Balkumari Not detected Fail
4 BA-4 9 Balkumari Not detected Fail
5 BA-5 9 Balkumari Not detected Fail
6 GW7 17 Gwarko Not detected Fail
7 GW10 17 Gwarko Detected Fail
8 GW11 17 Gwarko Detected Pass
9 GW12 17 Gwarko Not detected Pass
10 GW13 17 Gwarko Detected Fail
11 GW14 17 Gwarko Detected Pass
12 GW15 17 Gwarko Detected Pass
13 CH4 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
14 KU1 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
15 SA1 11 Sankhamul Detected Fail
16 SA2 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
17 SA3 11 Sankhamul Detected Fail
18 SA4 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
19 SA5 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
20 SA6 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
21 SA7 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass
22 SA9 11 Sankhamul Detected Pass

We adapted the field sampling strategy from our ongoing research on environmental surveillance of typhoid-causing bacterial pathogen Salmonella typhi from sewage. As part of the project, we conducted field surveys to comprehensively map sewage lines and the population size for each catchment area. We collected sewage samples from 22 selected catchment areas from July 26, 2020 to December 1, 2020 for the environmental surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 (Table 1).

Sewage samples were collected using an automated robotic pump (Biobot Analytics Inc., Cambridge, USA). For the environmental surveillance, grab (50 ml) samples were preferred based on outcome of optimization [32]. The probable reason for the consistent result in grab samples compared to the composite samples could be the dilution of viral particles by sewage discharge during non-viral peak hours [32]. The grab sewage samples were collected during the morning hour (7:00AM to 9:00AM) [33] based on the assumption that toilet activity and sewage discharge would be high during that time.

The samples were transported immediately to our Kathmandu-based laboratory using a cold chain (2–8° C) for processing. Each sample was pasteurized at 60°C for 90 minutes in a water bath [12] to inactivate any virus. Pasteurized samples were then subjected to differential centrifugation for virus segregation from sewage sludge by centrifuging at 3000 rpm for 30 minutes to pellet the bacterial cells and debris. The pellet was discarded, and the supernatant was precipitated for virus recovery using 15% PEG-6000 and 2% NaCl and gently shaken for 24 to 48 hours at 4°C [32]. The viral precipitates were then pelleted at 8000 rpm for 40 minutes, and the pellet was re-suspended in 400μl of SM buffer (Tris/NaCl/MgSO4) for further processing. The samples were handled in an enhanced Biosafety Level 2 laboratory with full personal protective equipment.

SARS-CoV-2 detection using RT-PCR and estimation of prevalence rate

Initially, a diagnostic Real-Time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay (detecting envelope, nucleoprotein, and ORF1) was used to detect and quantify (sensitivity ~20 viral copies/ml) SARS-CoV-2.

RNA was extracted from the viral suspension (200μl) (abGenix viral DNA and RNA Extraction Kit, AIT Biotech, Singapore) in an automated nucleic acid extraction system (abGenix, AITBiotech, Singapore). We used Allplex™ RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Seegene Inc., Korea) to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples. The 5μl of extracted RNA was mixed with 10μl of a qPCR mix consisting of 2019-nCoV MOM (3μl), Real-time One-step Enzyme (1.2μl), 5X Real-time One-step Buffer (3μl) and Nuclease free water (2.8μl) with manufacturer recommended conditions- cDNA synthesis (50°C for 20 min); polymerase activation (95°C for 15 min); PCR (45 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 15 s, and annealing/extension at 58°C for 30 s). The viral load data obtained was converted to RNA copies per liter of sewage first.

We estimated the Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within the catchment areas (community) using the mass balance Formula (1) on the total number of viral RNA copies in the wastewater each day as described by Ahemed et.al., 2020 [34].

Personsinfected=((sewageRNA)*(waterperday))/((fecesperday)*(viralshedding)) (1)

We used 2019-nCoV_RdRp (ORF1ab) Positive Control (cat. 10006897, IDT USA) obtained from the University of California-Davis with a known virus copy number to build a standard curve for determining the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. We then converted viral load data into RNA copies per liter of sewage. By utilizing this data, we estimated SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in sewage through a Monte Carlo approach executed in Oracle Crystal Ball (Release 11.1.2.4.600). The RNA concentration in feces excreted by an individual was estimation by using gamma distribution calculation (with parameters- shape = 10.78, scale = 0.46) [19]. A mean daily stool mass per person (75g with a standard deviation of 130.2) from low to middle-income countries was assumed as reported in Rose et al., 2015 [34, 35]. Using already available data for the population size of each catchment area, the prevalence rate per 1000 persons was calculated (minimum, mean, and maximum prevalence of SARS-CoV-2). By using the Heatmap plugin in QGIS v3.16 [36], we rendered the hotspots and clusters of infection prevalence across the sampling area in Gwarko and Sankhamul wards by determining a kernel density of each sampling point weighted from the mean estimated prevalence rate as input point vector layer. The larger number of clustered points results in a larger density of the identified hotspots.

Detection and analysis of SARS-CoV-2 using metabarcoding in MinION

Only negative RT-PCR samples were screened with the modified nested PCR [37] protocol for corona viral family detection, including SARS-CoV-2, using primers sets (FWD1/RVS2 &FWD2/RVS1) and producing 328bp and 520bp PCR amplicons [38] (Fig 1). 8μl of RNA template was mixed with 1μl of random hexamers and 1 μl of dNTPs and incubated at 65°C for 5 minutes. This mixture was combined with 10μl of synthesis mix consisting of 10X RT (2μl), 25mM MgCl2 (4 μl), 0.1M DTT (2μl), RNase Out (1μl), and SSIII (1μl) (Superscript III (SSIII) cDNA synthesis kit, Invitrogen, USA). The final mixture was incubated at room temperature for 10 minutes, then incubated at 50°C for 50 minutes, and then terminated at 85°C for 5 minutes. The mixture was treated with 1μl of RNAse H and incubated at 37°C for 20 minutes to remove any remnant RNA. The PCR amplicons were purified using a Montage Gel Purification kit (EMD Millipore Corp, USA) and sequenced using a portable next-generation sequencing device (Flongle MinION, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK). Nanoplot v1.30.1 [39] was used to check the quality of the raw nanopore fastq reads, and adapter sequences were trimmed using Porechop v0.2.4 [40]. Length and quality filtering were performed using Filtlong v0.2.0 [41], with minimum length and q-score thresholds of 300bp and seven. The cleaned sequence reads were then de-novo assembled using Canu v2.0 [42] to generate contigs with an overlap parameter threshold of 100bp. The scaffolds generated were subjected to the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) [41] for taxonomic identification against the locally downloaded GenBank database (Release 240, October 15 2020).

Fig 1. Nested PCR to detect coronavirus using two sets of primers (FWD1/RVS2 & FWD2/RVS1).

Fig 1

Two PCR amplicons (328bp and 520bp) were produced, cleaned, and sequenced using Flongle MinION. The obtained sequences were BLAST analyzed in the NCBI database for viral taxonomic identification [3]. The images were created using the BioRender app.

Library preparation for whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 from sewage

Tiled amplicon sequencing was used to amplify the whole genome of SARS-CoV-2 using ARTIC PCR protocol [43]. This protocol has been widely adopted to sequence the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples. With 98 PCR primers, ARTIC PCR amplifies ~400bp amplicons spanning the SARS-CoV-2 genome with adjacent ~200bp overlaps. The sequencing library preparation is done by pooling these 98 primers in two pools and running two PCR reactions. We expected environmental samples to be highly degraded, and hence this protocol suits well for our study, as a smaller-sized amplicon increases the success of whole-genome amplification.

25μl reaction volume from each PCR pool was prepared containing 12.5μl Ampligold 360 2X MM, 3.6μl of primers, and 2μl template cDNA. The PCR conditions were: 95°C for 30 secs followed by 25–45 cycles of 95°C for 15 seconds and 60°C for 5 mins. The ARTIC PCR amplicons were further cleaned (AMPure bead, Agencourt, Beckman Coulter, USA) and quantified (Qubit 3, Invitrogen Thermofisher Scientific, USA).

Low-depth sequencing using Flongle in MinION

The PCR amplicons were pooled into a single tube at an equimolar concentration of 100fm. Native barcodes were assigned for each sample using Native barcoding expansion kit (EXP-NBD104) and ligation sequencing kit (SQK-LSK109) and run in Flongle Flowcell using MinION (Oxford Nanopore, UK). 14 samples were multiplexed in three FLO-FLG001 Flongle flow cells (R9.4.1) and sequenced on a MinION Mk1B device in three different sequencing runs. DNA library preparation had several quality control measures- ARTIC amplicons were quantified (after cleanup, barcode and adapter ligation) on agarose gel and a minimum of 200 fm DNA was used for library preparation, disqualifying all the low DNA samples. software (Oxford Nanopore, UK) was used to operate sequencing run on a Thinkpad P72 Mobile Workstation (Lenovo, USA). The raw data was generated and compiled, and real-time base calling was performed by the integrated production base caller Guppy v4.4.0 (Oxford Nanopore, UK) simultaneously during the sequencing run. Base calling was performed using high-accuracy mode (qscore threshold 7) within the operation software platform that generated fast5 and fastq reads. The RAMPART v1.2.0 [44] software package developed by the ARTIC network was used to monitor read mapping and genome coverage of SARSCoV2 in real-time.

High-depth sequencing in Illumina MiSeq

ARTIC amplicons were cleaned using AMPure beads (Agencourt, Beckman Coulter, USA) and library were prepared using the Nextera XT library preparation and the Nextera indexing kits (Illumina, USA) [45]. The indexed library was then quantified with Qubit 3 (Thermoscietific, USA). The prepared library was sequenced on a Illumina Miseq using 300 cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit V2, and the data was de-multiplexed by MiSeq Reporter.

Bioinformatics data analysis

The data was processed, and a consensus sequence was generated using a nextflow-based nfcore-viralrecon pipeline. The viralrecon bioinformatics analysis pipeline (https://github.com/nf-core/viralrecon) developed by a community-driven collaboration called nf-core was utilized to perform assembly and consensus generation of our collected SARS-CoV-2 samples. For the reads sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq, the pipeline performed adapter trimming using fastp version 0.23.2. The program, bowtie2 version 2.4.4, was then utilized to align and map the trimmed reads to a reference complete genome of SARS-CoV-2. The alignments were then sorted to remove low-quality reads using SAMtools version 1.14, and primer sequence removal from reads was performed using iVar version 1.3.1. Lastly, both BCFtools version 1.13 and Bedtools version 2.30 were used to call the consensus sequence for each sample. Similarly, the reads sequenced by the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) MinION sequencer of our samples were analyzed using the same analysis pipeline but using different programs. The pipeline performed read alignment and mapping to a reference SARS-CoV-2 genome using minimap2 version 2.24 and primer trimming and consensus building using Artic version 1.2.1 with the artic minion command, followed by the use of SAMtools version 1.14 to remove any unmapped reads.

SARS-CoV-2 mutation and SNP analysis

The SARS-CoV-2 sequences obtained from the 12 wastewater samples were submitted for analysis in CoV-GLUE version 0.1.18 [46] to detect nucleotide mutations and coding region indels. This tool is based on a GLUE data-centric bioinformatics environment that analyzes nucleotide variations in user-submitted sequences of SARS-CoV-2, enabled by data from EpiCoV of the GISAID database. The tool compares and analyses the sequences against the reference sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and generates lists of amino acid replacements and coding region indels. Geneious Prime 2020.2.3 and the bam-readcount tool v1.0.1 [47] were used to obtain the nucleotide frequency of the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and deletions at the nucleotide positions reported in CoV-GLUE to validate the occurrence of the mutations or deletions and check for the possibility of multiple variants being found in a single sample. The variants across genomes of sequenced samples were visualized as bar plots generated using the R package ggplot2, with further annotation with Inkscape version 1.0.2–2.

Results

Detection of SARS-CoV2 in sewage and its prevalence estimation in the community

All the three preliminary sites had undetectable SARS-CoV-2. However, using metabarcoding approach, we detected SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses, including Human coronavirus 229E, Human coronavirus NL63, duck-dominant coronavirus and rat coronavirus, in these four sites (S1 Table in S1 File).

Of 22 sewage samples collected during the environmental surveillance phase, we detected significant SARS-CoV-2 and determined viral load from 15 sites using the RT-qPCR test (S2 Table in S1 File). We did not detect the virus in all five sites of Ward 9/Balkumari and two sites of Ward 17/Gwarko. From the remaining 15 sites (5 in Gwarko and 10 in Sankhamul), we calculated an average of 40,613.83 per ml (range: 295 to 242,000) viral load. Among five sites in Gwarko, we calculated an average 72,712.5 per ml viral load. Similarly, among ten sites in Sankhamul, we calculated an average 24,564.5 per ml viral load (S2 Table in S1 File).

In case of the estimated mean SARS-CoV2 infection rate through sewage viral load, the catchment sites of Sankhamul with about 4,632 residents had an estimated prevalence of 3.5 (range: 0.19–30.96) per 1000 persons, while the catchment sites of Gwarko with 13,399 persons had estimated prevalence of 0.6 (SD: 0.04–5.09) per 1000 persons (S2 Table in S1 File and Figs 2 and 3). A site in Sankhamul, SA2, had the highest estimated prevalence of 11.36 (range: 062–100.49) per 1000 persons, while a site, GW15, in Gwarko had the lowest estimated prevalence of 0.11 (range: 0.01 to 0.97) per 1000 persons.

Fig 2. Mean prevalence (in log scale) of Covid-19 per 1000 persons in various catchment areas of Sankhamul and Gwarko.

Fig 2

It also highlights the maximum and minimum prevalence (line graph) in the catchment areas. Conversion of the log values as per the prevalences of Covid-19 per 1000 persons is shown in the legend.

Fig 3. SARS-CoV-2 infection heat-map of three sampled wards (11, 9, and 17) of the Lalitpur Metropolitan City (Kathmandu valley) with predicted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence per 1000 people in sewage samples.

Fig 3

The map was created using QGIS v3.16 s [36]]with a base map from the OpenStreetMap contributors. The QGIS heat map plugin assigned the gradient with a max score of one and a minimum of 0.

Genome recovery of SARS-CoV-2 from sewage

14 samples passed initial QC in library preparation steps, of which only 12 yielded enough quantifiable PCR amplicons after ARTIC PCR. These amplicons were further processed for DNA sequencing on two platforms- Oxford Nanopore MinION and Illumina MiSeq. An average depth of 16.9x and breadth from 34.7% to 86.2% genome coverage were obtained in 12 samples using Flongle in MinION. Similarly, through Illumina MiSeq, we obtained the consensus genomes at an average depth of 240x and breadth from 29% to 99% genome coverage. A pairwise comparison of the consensus genome sequences generated from two sequencing platforms showed they were highly identical (99.96% to 100% identity) (S8 Table in S1 File).

All of the consensus sequences obtained from MinION were compared against the reference sequence (accession no. MN908947.3) using the CovGlue web application. B.1 (16.7%), B.1.36 (33.3%) and B.1.1 (50.0%) were identified as circulating lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in the environmental (sewage) samples (Table 3).

Table 3. SARS-CoV-2 Pangolin lineages of consensus sequence generated from the environmental samples from CovGlue submission.

S.N SAMPLING SITE PANGOLIN LINEAGE S.N SAMPLING SITE PANGOLIN LINEAGE
1 SA2 B.1.36 9 GW11 B.1.1
2 SA7 B.1.1 10 GW12 B.1.36
3 CH4 B.1.36 11 GW14 B.1.1
4 KU1 B.1 12 GW15 B.1
5 SA6 B.1.36 13 GW13 NA
6 SA5 B.1.1 14 SA3 NA
7 SA4 B.1.1 15 GW10 NA
8 SA9 B.1.1 16 SA1 NA

Mutation analysis and SNP frequency detected in SARS-CoV-2 genomes

We detected a total of 47 unique nucleotide mutations across 12 sequenced samples, out of which more than half were non-synonymous (n = 23) and deletions (n = 10), and 14 were silent mutations using Nanopore MinION (S3 Table in S1 File). The spike D614G was the most frequent mutation observed in all samples, while we observed other missense mutations such as S477N, A570S, and K1073N in the spike gene of one sample from Sankhamul. A frameshift deletion in the spike gene of a sample, SA6, from Sankhamul was also detected. Another gene, ORF3a, adjacent to the spike also had major missense and deletion mutations altering the protein sequence or structure across ten samples. Other frequent missense mutations detected were V381A in NSP2, M86I in NSP6, P314L in NSP12b, Q57H, and V77I in ORF3a genes. Overall, we observed an average of 7.8 mutations per sample with a maximum of 14 and a minimum of 3 mutations in a sample.

Using Illumina MiSeq, we detected 211 unique nucleotide mutations across ten sequenced samples. Almost 60% of the mutations were non-synonymous (n = 126), while we detected two nonsense and 13 deletion mutations. Out of the total mutations, 70 (33%) were synonymous and did not alter amino acids in a protein sequence. We detected spike D614G in seven samples, while three samples did not have any reads in the corresponding region of the genome. We also observed other missense mutations (S477N, A570S, and K1073N) in the spike gene from MinION. In addition to the mutations observed in the ORF3a gene from MinION, we detected additional mutations in V55G, T223I, and P267L that would alter its protein sequence and structure. Most of the mutations observed from the MinION were also observed using MiSeq, albeit in much higher depth and coverage (S7 Table in S1 File).

An average of 142,692 reads per sample were produced using MiSeq compared to 1806 in MinION. Sequence quality of high depth Illumina Miseq is greater and extensive than that of MinION. However, sequencing from both platforms yielded the detection of mutations of interest, including D614G, P314L, and S477N.

The SNP frequency analysis (from both platforms) showed varying nucleotide frequencies on the SNP positions highlighted by the CoVGlue. For example, the frequency analysis of the mutation V381A, on the NSP1 gene of the MinION sequenced SA2 sample showed 42.60% cytosine (C) and a 50.80% thymine (T)- indicating almost a 50–50% chance of amino acid changing nucleotide mutation. Other mutations were observed to show similar nucleotide frequency patterns (S1a, S1b Fig and S3 and S9 Tables in S1 File). With different variant having main characterizing mutations that defines the variant (mostly focused on S-gene- S1 Fig in S1 File) different variant could be classified. A wide distribution of SNPs with varying abundance were observed in the vcf file generated by the ARTIC pipeline. The SNP-based analysis, where important mutations of concern (such as mutations in the S gene) provided genetic/variant diversity status of the virus (S1 Fig in S1 File).

Discussion

As demonstrated by its successful application in the global efforts to eradicate poliovirus [24], ES can be an important supplement to clinical surveillance. In particular, ES can contribute to several critical areas, such as characterizing regional diversity in areas without clinical surveillance, mapping geographic micro-diversity to inform risk-based interventions, early detection of outbreaks before clinical presentation, and advancing real-time assessment of interventions to inform the need for additional public health measures [24]. ES can be inexpensive and fast [48] and like clinical surveillance, it can offer multiple sources for samples collection apart from sewage, like river system, [49], air [50], or even screening for evidences of other indicator pathogens [48]. During an outbreak of typhoid fever in Nepal, water isolates had over 96% analytical similarity to blood culture results [51].

We found only one additional study conducted in Nepal pertaining to detection of SARS-CoV-2 via environmental sampling. [52]. The study reported presence of the coronavirus from multiple sources of environmental sampling: wastewater treatment plants, hospital wastewater, river water, and sewage. Although, only two sewage samples were analyzed in the study, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in all four qPCR assays that were tested confirming viability of environmental (sewage) sampling. Only hospital wastewater had similar success rate and other sources of the samples did not.

Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 in environmental samples (such as sewage) and viral strain characterization using portable genomic tools provide important information on disease distribution at a community level [22, 24]. Such data can help identify transmission hotspots in urban and rural communities and provide information on circulating strains of viruses, as evident in S1 Table in S1 File. Similarities in estimated prevalence per 1000 capita obtained from our sampling in Gwarko and reported average within the same period highlight an accurate depiction of infection rate within the community. Alternatively, a higher mean prevalence rate in Shankhamul sites compared to the reported average within the same period can allude to the identification of an infection hotspot in that region. It must be noted that in our study, SARS-CoV-2 was detected from grab samples only. The other study conducted in Nepal suggested using 24-hour composite samples to understand variability of the viral RNA concentration [52] but our efforts to do the same yielded in highly diluted samples with very negligent amount of viral RNA present in those samples.

In this study, we implemented and optimized a system of detecting the virus from sewage samples and, based on viral load, predicted the prevalence rate using Monte Carlo simulation from which a heat map of SARS-CoV-2 in the selected areas of the Kathmandu valley was constructed. This was a novel approach to estimate prevalence of cases in a possible hotspot scenario using only real-time PCR data (including viral load calculations). In resource-limited, low-income countries like Nepal, access to tools and technologies required to perform genomic-based detection and surveillance can be limited. This feasibility study has demonstrated that ES based on sewage samples using highly sensitive nested PCR combined with portable next-generation sequencing technology can provide adequate sensitivity, specificity, and sequencing depth to detect, quantify, and characterize SARS-CoV-2 in the community.

Whole-genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 was obtained using ARTIC primers in MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK). By using a meta-barcoding approach on RT-qPCR negative samples along with SARS-CoV-2 [26], we were able to detect other coronaviruses, such as human coronavirus 229E, a known cause of the common cold with global distribution [24, 53]. The presence of duck-dominant coronavirus and rodent coronavirus in sewage suggested an abundant mixture of various coronaviruses originating from other species. Detection of various coronaviruses in sewage samples using this approach demonstrated the potential of using this technique to detect and characterize new and emerging coronaviruses among species in close proximity, especially given the propensity for coronaviruses to recombine [54].

Out of 22 sampled sites, 16 had SARS-CoV-2 present. The heat-map showed potential hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. Analyzing enough sampling points can provide a good picture of circulating viruses and predict hotspots in a community with greater resolution and accuracy. Further studies can be designed to look into prevalence estimation in communities and correlate that with available clinical data.

SARS-CoV-2 extracted from wastewater samples was successfully sequenced with just enough depth and coverage with the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) MinION long-read sequencer. Our results support the use of the MinION device as a cost-effective, rapid, and accurate sequencing tool to provide sequencing opportunities to personnel and researchers in remote areas or institutions that may not have access to the funds to purchase short-read NGS platforms (e.g., Illumina, Ion Torrent), with the low-priced MinION device able to sequence the SARS-CoV-2 genome with accuracy (S8 Table in S1 File), albeit with lower depth compared to the sequences generated by the Illumina MiSeq device (S7 Table in S1 File). Therefore, we suggest using the MinION device as an effective preliminary sequencing tool to obtain accurate, low-depth sequences quickly in pandemic condition, followed by the use of short-read sequencers such as the Illumina MiSeq to produce sequences with high depth as a form of verification, as adapted by our study (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Key Distribution of mutations, both synonymous and nonsynonymous, including nucleotide deletions across the full-length genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from wastewater samples collected in this study.

Fig 4

Nucleotide frequencies at each nucleotide position of the mutations are indicated with different colors (shown in key) to show nucleotide variation in the reads generated during sequencing, obtained using Geneious Prime 2020.2.3. (A, B) indicates nucleotide frequency of mutations, generated during Nanopore MinION sequencing of the 12 wastewater samples collected in the study. (C, D) indicates nucleotide frequency of mutations, generated during Illumina MiSeq sequencing of 10 of the wastewater samples. The SARS-CoV-2 genome organization is schematically represented on the bottom of the plots. Amino acid mutations, SNPs and deletions have been annotated on the plot according to the presence of significant nucleotide frequency changes on each position, with the exclusion of labels for synonymous nucleotide mutations.

The obtained consensus genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 from the sewage samples identified B.1, B.1.36, and B1.1 as the most probable major circulating lineages (Table 3, S2 Table in S1 File). Whole-genome data of SARS-CoV-2 from 14 clinical samples were sequenced at our facility for the Nepal Health Research Council (Government of Nepal) inferred from the GISAID database. Three samples originate from the Kathmandu valley, and identified lineages include B.1.36 and B.1.130. The detected SARS-CoV-2 lineages (B.1, B.1.1, B.1.36) and key mutations such as D614G in the clinical samples were also circulating in the sewage samples. Some samples with low genomic coverage failed to assign lineage beyond B.1.

Novel mutations with possible clinical significance were also detected- such as frameshift and silent deletion mutations in the S, NSP13, ORF3a, and NSP2 genes. These novel mutations during data analysis were yet to be reported in the global database. Additionally, a determination regarding their functional characterization is needed. For example, a frameshift deletion in the S gene could have important clinical and epidemiological significance. The D614G (in the S gene) was spontaneously detected in almost every sample, a defining mutation for the G clade [55]. This particular mutation was associated with increased infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. Another detected mutation, S477N (in the S gene), was reported to increase the binding affinity of the virus to the host’s angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor giving higher transmission capability [56, 57]. Similarly, novel missense mutations detected in NSP12, NSP2, and N genes from sites in the same ward indicated probable ongoing viral evolution in the community. This finding also highlighted the need for genomic surveillance to track viral evolution and emerging variants. Though the environmental samples might have more than one variant circulating, which could be detected as SNP in genomic analysis. SNP analysis revealed possibility of assessing circulating major/minor variant diversity on environmental samples based on key mutations. (S3 Table in S1 File).

The detection and assessment of circulating viral variants (SARS-CoV-2) using genomic surveillance can help evaluate the effectiveness of vaccination (immunization) efforts- something high-income countries like the United Kingdom has realized from the early onset of COVID19, and hence was actively contributing information to the global genomic database for SARS-CoV-2 [58]. In contrast, low-income countries like Nepal struggled to understand COVID-19 prevalence and transmission due to a lack of genomic laboratory capabilities [59]. Genomic surveillance using environmental samples as presented in this study could be a possible solution for resource-strapped countries to estimate SARS-CoV-2 presence at the community level and determine the circulating strains of the virus that could be used to devise the most appropriate interventions. Clinical surveillance coupled with environmental surveillance could be the most effective way to prevent and manage outbreaks.

Supporting information

S1 File. All supplementary figures and tables.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Mayor’s Office of the Lalitpur Metropolitan City for providing the permit and encouraging us to conduct this research. We would like to thank Professor Eric Alm and Dr. Noriko Endo of BIOBOT (USA) for providing composite sampling robots. Finally, we would like to thank everyone at Intrepid Nepal Pvt Ltd, Center for Molecular Dynamics Nepal, and BIOVAC Nepal for their tireless work even during the nationally enforced lockdown in Nepal.

Data Availability

All the sequence data are available in NCBI GenBank with accession number OM772935 to OM772942. All the data were not accepted to NCBI due to low genome coverage (>50% n) those data are available in Github repository (https://github.com/INPLlab/sarscov2-wgs-sewage).

Funding Statement

University of California-Davis and the USAID-funded PREDICT project for providing us with laboratory resources. Whole-genome sequencing was done at the Intrepid Nepal Genomic Center. Some of our work was partially funded by the Australian Development Agency and PSI grant (the Netherlands). Composite sampling robots were provided by Professor Eric Alm and Dr. Noriko Endo of BIOBOT (USA).

References

  • 1.Hourdel V, Kwasiborski A, Balière C, Matheus S, Batéjat CF, Manuguerra J-C, et al. Rapid Genomic Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 by Direct Amplicon-Based Sequencing Through Comparison of MinION and Illumina iSeq100TM System. Frontiers in microbiology. 2020;11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Venugopal A, Ganesan H, Raja SSS, Govindasamy V, Arunachalam M, Narayanasamy A, et al. Novel Wastewater Surveillance Strategy for Early Detection of COVID–19 Hotspots. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Medema G, Been F, Heijnen L, Petterson S. Implementation of environmental surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 virus to support public health decisions: Opportunities and challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2020.09.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.John Hopkins University. COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University 2021. [31 Jan 2021]. Available from: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Government of Nepal. Situation Update #44- Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) WHO Country Office for Nepal 2021. [cited 2021 16 Feb 2021]. Available from: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/nepal-documents/novel-coronavirus/who-nepal-sitrep/-44_weekly-who-nepal-situation-updates.pdf?sfvrsn=f2d844f4_13. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bolia R, Ranjan R, Bhat NK. Recognising the Gastrointestinal Manifestation of Pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics. 2020:1–2. doi: 10.1007/s12098-020-03481-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gao QY, Chen YX, Fang JY. 2019 novel coronavirus infection and gastrointestinal tract. Journal of digestive diseases. 2020;21(3):125–6. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nobel YR, Phipps M, Zucker J, Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Sobieszczyk ME, et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms and coronavirus disease 2019: a case-control study from the United States. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(1):373–5. e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Papa A, Covino M, Pizzolante F, Miele L, Lopetuso L, Bove V, et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms and digestive comorbidities in an Italian cohort of patients with COVID-19. European review for medical and pharmacological sciences. 2020;24(13):7506–11. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202007_21923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang X-W, Li J-S, Guo T-K, Zhen B, Kong Q-X, Yi B, et al. Concentration and detection of SARS coronavirus in sewage from Xiao Tang Shan Hospital and the 309th Hospital. Journal of virological methods. 2005;128(1–2):156–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.03.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yam W, Chan K, Poon L, Guan Y, Yuen K, Seto W, et al. Evaluation of reverse transcription-PCR assays for rapid diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome associated with a novel coronavirus. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2003;41(10):4521–4. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.10.4521-4524.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yeo C, Kaushal S, Yeo D. Enteric involvement of coronaviruses: is faecal–oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 possible? The lancet Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2020;5(4):335–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang J, Wang S, Xue Y. Fecal specimen diagnosis 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. Journal of medical virology. 2020;92(6):680–2. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang X-W, Li J-S, Jin M, Zhen B, Kong Q-X, Song N, et al. Study on the resistance of severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus. Journal of virological methods. 2005;126(1–2):171–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ye Y, Ellenberg RM, Graham KE, Wigginton KR. Survivability, partitioning, and recovery of enveloped viruses in untreated municipal wastewater. Environmental science & technology. 2016;50(10):5077–85. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wu F, Zhang J, Xiao A, Gu X, Lee WL, Armas F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 titers in wastewater are higher than expected from clinically confirmed cases. Msystems. 2020;5(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hata A, Honda R. Potential Sensitivity of Wastewater Monitoring for SARS-CoV-2: Comparison with Norovirus Cases. Environmental Science & Technology. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ibrahim NK. Epidemiologic surveillance for controlling Covid-19 pandemic: types, challenges and implications. Journal of infection and public health. 2020;13(11):1630–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Medema G, Heijnen L, Elsinga G, Italiaander R, Brouwer A. Presence of SARS-Coronavirus-2 in sewage. MedRxiv. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bibby K, Peccia J. Identification of viral pathogen diversity in sewage sludge by metagenome analysis. Environmental science & technology. 2013;47(4):1945–51. doi: 10.1021/es305181x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gundy PM, Gerba CP, Pepper IL. Survival of coronaviruses in water and wastewater. Food and Environmental Virology. 2009;1(1):10. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wu F, Xiao A, Zhang J, Moniz K, Endo N, Armas F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 titers in wastewater foreshadow dynamics and clinical presentation of new COVID-19 cases. Medrxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.15.20117747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lago PM, Gary HE Jr, Pérez LS, Cáceres V, Olivera JB, Puentes RP, et al. Poliovirus detection in wastewater and stools following an immunization campaign in Havana, Cuba. International journal of epidemiology. 2003;32(5):772–7. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Quick J, Grubaugh ND, Pullan ST, Claro IM, Smith AD, Gangavarapu K, et al. Multiplex PCR method for MinION and Illumina sequencing of Zika and other virus genomes directly from clinical samples. Nature protocols. 2017;12(6):1261–76. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hoenen T, Groseth A, Rosenke K, Fischer RJ, Hoenen A, Judson SD, et al. Nanopore sequencing as a rapidly deployable Ebola outbreak tool. Emerging infectious diseases. 2016;22(2):331. doi: 10.3201/eid2202.151796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Deiner K, Bik HM, Mächler E, Seymour M, Lacoursière‐Roussel A, Altermatt F, et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular ecology. 2017;26(21):5872–95. doi: 10.1111/mec.14350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bivins A, Greaves J, Fischer R, Yinda KC, Ahmed W, Kitajima M, et al. Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in water and wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Corpuz MVA, Buonerba A, Vigliotta G, Zarra T, Ballesteros F Jr, Campiglia P, et al. Viruses in wastewater: occurrence, abundance and detection methods. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;745:140910. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Naddeo V, Liu H. Editorial Perspectives: 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2): what is its fate in urban water cycle and how can the water research community respond? Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2020;6(5):1213–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sharif S, Ikram A, Khurshid A, Salman M, Mehmood N, Arshad Y, et al. Detection of SARS-Coronavirus-2 in wastewater, using the existing environmental surveillance network: An epidemiological gateway to an early warning for COVID-19 in communities. MedRxiv. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Singer J, Gifford R, Cotten M, Robertson D. CoV-GLUE: a web application for tracking SARS-CoV-2 genomic variation. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Boni MF, Lemey P, Jiang X, Lam TT-Y, Perry BW, Castoe TA, et al. Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Microbiology. 2020;5(11):1408–17. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0771-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Skidmore ZL, Wagner AH, Lesurf R, Campbell KM, Kunisaki J, Griffith OL, et al. GenVisR: genomic visualizations in R. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(19):3012–4. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ahmed W, Angel N, Edson J, Bibby K, Bivins A, O’Brien JW, et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Science of The Total Environment. 2020:138764. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rose C, Parker A, Jefferson B, Cartmell E. The characterization of feces and urine: a review of the literature to inform advanced treatment technology. Critical reviews in environmental science and technology. 2015;45(17):1827–79. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Open Street Map. Planet Dump [cited 2021 3 Mar 2021]. Available from: https://planet.osm.org.
  • 37.Quan P-L, Firth C, Street C, Henriquez JA, Petrosov A, Tashmukhamedova A, et al. Identification of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-like virus in a leaf-nosed bat in Nigeria. MBio. 2010;1(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Douglas T, Young M. Virus particles as templates for materials synthesis. Advanced Materials. 1999;11(8):679–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chen J, Wang R, Wang M, Wei G-W. Mutations strengthened SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Journal of molecular biology. 2020;432(19):5212–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2020.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Singh A, Steinkellner G, Köchl K, Gruber K, Gruber CC. Serine 477 plays a crucial role in the interaction of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein with the human receptor ACE2. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.COVID T. An integrated national scale SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance network. The Lancet Microbe. 2020. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30054-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mahase E. Covid-19: What do we know about the late stage vaccine candidates?: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2020. 2020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Michael-Kordatou I, Karaolia P, Fatta-Kassinos D. Sewage analysis as a tool for the COVID-19 pandemic response and management: the urgent need for optimised protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection and quantification. Journal of environmental chemical engineering. 2020;8(5):104306. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.GitHub. ARTIC: a bioinformatics pipeline for working with virus sequencing data sequenced with nanopore. 2021. [31 Jan 2021]. Available from: https://github.com/artic-network/fieldbioinformatics. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Quick J. nCoV-2019 sequencing protocol v3 (LoCost) V. 3 (2020).
  • 46.GISAID. CoV-GLUE 2021 [01 Feb 2021]. Available from: http://cov-glue.cvr.gla.ac.uk.
  • 47.GitHub. bam-readcount 2021 [cited 2021 02 Feb 2021]. Available from: https://github.com/genome/bam-readcount.
  • 48.Andrews JR, Yu AT, Saha S, Shakya J, Aiemjoy K, Horng L, et al. Environmental Surveillance as a Tool for Identifying High-risk Settings for Typhoid Transmission. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2020;71(Supplement_2):S71–S8. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Haramoto E, Malla B, Thakali O, Kitajima M. First environmental surveillance for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater and river water in Japan. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;737:140405. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Barcelo D. An environmental and health perspective for COVID-19 outbreak: meteorology and air quality influence, sewage epidemiology indicator, hospitals disinfection, drug therapies and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2020;8(4):104006. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Matrajt G, Lillis L, Meschke JS. Review of Methods Suitable for Environmental Surveillance of Salmonella Typhi and Paratyphi. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2020;71(Supplement_2):S79–S83. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tandukar S, Sthapit N, Thakali O, Malla B, Sherchan SP, Shakya BM, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater, river water, and hospital wastewater of Nepal. Science of the Total Environment. 2022;824:153816. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Loman N, Rowe W, Rambaut A. nCoV-2019 novel coronavirus bioinformatics protocol. Artic Network. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(18):3094–100. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of molecular biology. 1990;215(3):403–10. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.GitHub. SC2-Illumina Pipeline 2021 [05 Mar 2021]. Available from: https://github.com/czbiohub/sc2-illumina-pipeline.
  • 57.Li H. Handsaker. B, Wysoker, A, Fennell T, Ruan, J, Homer, N, Marth, G, Abecasis, G, and Durbin.2078-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 58.Cyranoski D. Alarming COVID variants show vital role of genomic surveillance. Nature. 2021;589(7842):337–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Samlali K, Stern J, Nduhuura E. Towards Responsible Genomic Surveillance. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nadim Sharif

26 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-13706Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community using environmental (sewage) samplesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nadim Sharif, M.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We would like to thank the Mayor’s Office of the Lalitpur Metropolitan City for providing the permit and encouraging us to conduct this research. We would like to thank Professor Eric Alm and Dr. Noriko Endo of BIOBOT (USA) for providing composite sampling robots. We would also like to express our gratitude to the One Health Institute of the University of California-Davis and the USAID-funded PREDICT project for providing us with laboratory resources. Whole-genome sequencing was done at the Intrepid Nepal Genomic Center. Some of our work was partially funded by the Australian Development Agency and PSI grant (the Netherlands). We would like to thank all these agencies for their support. And finally, we would like to thank everyone at Intrepid Nepal Pvt Ltd, Center for Molecular Dynamics Nepal, and BIOVAC Nepal for their tireless work even during the nationally enforced lockdown in Nepal.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“University of California-Davis and the USAID-funded PREDICT project for providing us with laboratory resources. Whole-genome sequencing was done at the Intrepid Nepal Genomic Center. Some of our work was partially funded by the Australian Development Agency and PSI grant (the Netherlands)”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figures 1 & 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

 a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 & 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Remove figures 1-3 from result section to method section.

2. Revise the supplementary document and represent the mutation in more acceptable way example, T358C

3. Follow the author guidelines of PLOS ONE to format the article. Make sure the references are used in the required styles.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the present manuscript PONE-D-22-13706 "Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community using environmental (sewage) samples", the authors have studied/presented the genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater samples Kathmandu, Nepal, by two different procedures, MiSeq (Illumina) and MinION (ONT). This is a well-written manuscript, the scope of which is really important in the current pandemic, and more important in countries like Nepal, as stated by the authors.

As I can see, 4 reviewers have also evaluated the manuscript, and this is a revised or resubmitted manuscript. Although, I have not seen the initial submission, the authors have tried to address the comments/critishisms of the reviewers to some extent.

Major comments

1. The results of the study are not well presented, not really validated and moreover not novel for the readers.

2. In this regard, the fig. 1-3 does not include any results but describing the sample sites/plan and the basic analytical procedures.

3. Fig. 6, including the mutations/SNPs detected is poor, given the fact that WGS was performed.

4. The authors must present the %percentage of the mutations/SNPs detected and moreover to translate them to specific SARS-CoV-2 variants.

5. Several discrepancies between MiSeq and MinION are presented. This is very important, and the authors should discuss it in detail.

6. The authors should describe in detail the quality control of the NGS libraries and the final sequencing output.

7. The quantification of viral load in WW samples and the "persons infected" formula are not clearly presented and described.

8. The authors should pre

9. And most importantly, I cannot draw any specific and major conclusions from the results and discussion presented.

Reviewer #2: Napit et al. studied the genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage from Kathmandu, Nepal. The authors aimed to establish a genomic-based environmental surveillance system by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples via PCR and WGS approaches. Although the experiments in the manuscript are well-organized and the manuscript itself is also written in a good way, this reviewer can see right away the shortages of this study. The following are listed some major issues for the authors' consideration.

1) One of the main issues is the data quality of the sequencing. I looked into some of the raw reads the authors deposited on GitHub. Since those data are directly related to the conclusions, it will not stand if such bad quality data was used. The author should consider toning down some of the conclusions from Fig. 6.

2) Considering the environmental variants which might cause damage to lots of biological samples, the mutations the authors found has simply after the virus particles expose to sewage. It is essential to show some correlation to some clinical results to see if the mutations were presented in society.

3) This reviewer really appreciates this kind of excellent effort in studying SARS-CoV-2 in developing countries like Nepal. The authors can discuss the significance of this study extensively since the novelty of this study is not apparent, especially in the methodology and results. One possible direction is to mention that sewage might become one of the possible infection routes for SARS-CoV-2, and we should be cautious since some mutations were found in environmental samples, such as sewage, in this study.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 30;18(3):e0283664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283664.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Dec 2022

Reviewer 1

In the present manuscript PONE-D-22-13706 "Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community using environmental (sewage) samples", the authors have studied/presented the genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater samples Kathmandu, Nepal, by two different procedures, MiSeq (Illumina) and MinION (ONT). This is a well-written manuscript, the scope of which is really important in the current pandemic, and more important in countries like Nepal, as stated by the authors.

SNo Comment Response

1 The results of the study are not well presented, not really validated and moreover not novel for the readers.

The result section has been updated with more elaborate figure from supplementary data (figure 6) and table no. 3 has been added to make it more effective.

2 In this regard, the fig. 1-3 does not include any results but describing the sample sites/plan and the basic analytical procedures. These figures are intended to elaborate the procedures/methodology and not the results- they are in methodology section.

3 Fig. 6, including the mutations/SNPs detected is poor, given the fact that WGS was performed.

The figure has been removed with the supplementary figure S1 which is more elaborate and depicts all the SNP with its relative abundance in y-axis while SNP position in x-axis.

4 The authors must present the % percentage of the mutations/SNPs detected and moreover to translate them to specific SARS-CoV-2 variants. The mutation % has been added in supplementary table S3 and S9, Major circulating variant has been added in line 266-269 and table 3. The result is more specifically highlighted in the result section as well (line 301-304, 359-364 and 296-300). At the time of this study, variant of concerns was not classified and tools like Frejya that uses similar SNPs frequency-based algorithm and database containing all variant of concerns can actually predict circulation variant fractions (https://github.com/andersen-lab/Freyja) was not available.

5 Several discrepancies between MiSeq and MinION are presented. This is very important, and the authors should discuss it in detail. The discrepancies has been highlighted both in result section line 292-293 Supplementary table S7.

6 The authors should describe in detail the quality control of the NGS libraries and the final sequencing output The quality control has been added in line 190-193 and 202-206.

7 The quantification of viral load in WW samples and the "persons infected" formula are not clearly presented and described. The formula was taken from the previous similar research paper; all the procedure was already described in those literature so was not mentioned earlier. The explanation has been added in line 135-137.

8 And most importantly, I cannot draw any specific and major conclusions from the results and discussion presented.

The discussion has been updated to add some clarity, we intended to demonstrate and highlight importance of genomic surveillance for disease like SARS-CoV-2. However, it is not feasible always for country like Nepal where fundings are not readily available, in such condition using low-cost sequencing to assess the situation and then if something important comes up then go for Miseq or clinical genomic surveillance of the community would be better option. Described in line 354-370, 380-392.

Reviewer 2 Napit et al. studied the genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage from Kathmandu, Nepal. The authors aimed to establish a genomic-based environmental surveillance system by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples via PCR and WGS approaches. Although the experiments in the manuscript are well-organized and the manuscript itself is also written in a good way, this reviewer can see right away the shortages of this study. The following are listed some major issues for the authors' consideration.

SNo Comment Response

1 One of the main issues is the data quality of the sequencing. I looked into some of the raw reads the authors deposited on GitHub. Since those data are directly related to the conclusions, it will not stand if such bad quality data was used. The author should consider toning down some of the conclusions from Fig. 6. All the data was not of bad quality, few had low sequencing coverage, which is common in environmental samples as they do not have high viral load to that of clinical samples that has been acknowledged with all the table on coverage and depths in supplementary table and also in the manuscripts. The figure 6 has also been replaced with the Supplementary figure S1. Those low coverage samples had failed to distinguish lineage to high resolution (table no 3 has been added) for clarity. A line has been added in discussion highlighting the same (line 370-371)

2 Considering the environmental variants which might cause damage to lots of biological samples, the mutations the authors found has simply after the virus particles expose to sewage. It is essential to show some correlation to some clinical results to see if the mutations were presented in society.

The comparison with clinical samples were in discussion section but result was updated to contain variant calling data from consensus sequences in result section and table no. 3.

3 This reviewer really appreciates this kind of excellent effort in studying SARS-CoV-2 in developing countries like Nepal. The authors can discuss the significance of this study extensively since the novelty of this study is not apparent, especially in the methodology and results. One possible direction is to mention that sewage might become one of the possible infection routes for SARS-CoV-2, and we should be cautious since some mutations were found in environmental samples, such as sewage, in this study.

The discussion (line 385-390 and 392-395) has been updated to highlight the effort needed to track pandemic in country like Nepal cheaply and quickly in time.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nadim Sharif

4 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-13706R1Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community using environmental (sewage) samplesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nadim Sharif, M.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Figure 1, 2 and 5 are not necessary for the main documents. Actually these figures reduced the quality of the manuscript.

For the map figures, the authors should use high resolution and detailed maps of the study regions. It seems the maps are copied from google map or similar application. It is totally unacceptable. Use your originally created figures to use in the manuscript. Figure 2 is not necessary in this manuscript. Remove figure 2 and improve figures 1 and 5.

Specify the reference genome sequence accession number against which you aligned your sequences and compared form mutational analysis.

The discussion section requires major improvement. Compare your findings with similar studies in your country and other countries and describe the similarities and differences with appropriate reasoning.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 30;18(3):e0283664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283664.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Dec 2022

Reviewer 1

In the present manuscript PONE-D-22-13706 "Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community using environmental (sewage) samples", the authors have studied/presented the genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater samples Kathmandu, Nepal, by two different procedures, MiSeq (Illumina) and MinION (ONT). This is a well-written manuscript, the scope of which is really important in the current pandemic, and more important in countries like Nepal, as stated by the authors.

SNo Comment Response

1 The results of the study are not well presented, not really validated and moreover not novel for the readers.

The result section has been updated with more elaborate figure from supplementary data (figure 6- now figure 4) and table no. 3 has been added to make it more effective.

2 In this regard, the fig. 1-3 does not include any results but describing the sample sites/plan and the basic analytical procedures. These figures are intended to elaborate the procedures/methodology and not the results- they are in methodology section. Still figure 1 and 2 has been removed.

3 Fig. 6, including the mutations/SNPs detected is poor, given the fact that WGS was performed.

The figure has been removed with the supplementary figure S1 which is more elaborate and depicts all the SNP with its relative abundance in y-axis while SNP position in x-axis.

4 The authors must present the % percentage of the mutations/SNPs detected and moreover to translate them to specific SARS-CoV-2 variants. The mutation % has been added in supplementary table S3 and S9, Major circulating variant has been added in line 266-269 and table 3. The result is more specifically highlighted in the result section as well (line 301-304, 359-364 and 296-300). At the time of this study, variant of concerns was not classified and tools like Frejya that uses similar SNPs frequency-based algorithm and database containing all variant of concerns can actually predict circulation variant fractions (https://github.com/andersen-lab/Freyja) was not available.

5 Several discrepancies between MiSeq and MinION are presented. This is very important, and the authors should discuss it in detail. The discrepancies has been highlighted both in result section line 292-293 Supplementary table S7.

6 The authors should describe in detail the quality control of the NGS libraries and the final sequencing output The quality control has been added in line 190-193 and 202-206.

7 The quantification of viral load in WW samples and the "persons infected" formula are not clearly presented and described. The formula was taken from the previous similar research paper; all the procedure was already described in those literature so was not mentioned earlier. The explanation has been added in line 135-137.

8 And most importantly, I cannot draw any specific and major conclusions from the results and discussion presented.

The discussion has been updated to add some clarity, we intended to demonstrate and highlight importance of genomic surveillance for disease like SARS-CoV-2. However, it is not feasible always for country like Nepal where fundings are not readily available, in such condition using low-cost sequencing to assess the situation and then if something important comes up then go for Miseq or clinical genomic surveillance of the community would be better option.

Reviewer 2 Napit et al. studied the genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage from Kathmandu, Nepal. The authors aimed to establish a genomic-based environmental surveillance system by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples via PCR and WGS approaches. Although the experiments in the manuscript are well-organized and the manuscript itself is also written in a good way, this reviewer can see right away the shortages of this study. The following are listed some major issues for the authors' consideration.

SNo Comment Response

1 One of the main issues is the data quality of the sequencing. I looked into some of the raw reads the authors deposited on GitHub. Since those data are directly related to the conclusions, it will not stand if such bad quality data was used. The author should consider toning down some of the conclusions from Fig. 6. All the data was not of bad quality, few had low sequencing coverage, which is common in environmental samples as they do not have high viral load to that of clinical samples that has been acknowledged with all the table on coverage and depths in supplementary table and also in the manuscripts. The figure 6 (now figure 4) has also been replaced with the Supplementary figure S1. Those low coverage samples had failed to distinguish lineage to high resolution (table no 3 has been added) for clarity. A line has been added in discussion highlighting the same (line 370-371)

2 Considering the environmental variants which might cause damage to lots of biological samples, the mutations the authors found has simply after the virus particles expose to sewage. It is essential to show some correlation to some clinical results to see if the mutations were presented in society.

The comparison with clinical samples were in discussion section but result was updated to contain variant calling data from consensus sequences in result section and table no. 3.

3 This reviewer really appreciates this kind of excellent effort in studying SARS-CoV-2 in developing countries like Nepal. The authors can discuss the significance of this study extensively since the novelty of this study is not apparent, especially in the methodology and results. One possible direction is to mention that sewage might become one of the possible infection routes for SARS-CoV-2, and we should be cautious since some mutations were found in environmental samples, such as sewage, in this study.

The discussion (line 400-409) has been updated to highlight the effort needed to track pandemic in country like Nepal cheaply and quickly in time.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

Decision Letter 2

Basant Giri

14 Mar 2023

Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community using environmental (sewage) samples

PONE-D-22-13706R2

Dear Dr. Karmacharya,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. However, I suggest to re-phrase the title as follows: Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community of Kathmandu valley using sewage samples.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Basant Giri, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I have no further comments on this revised manuscript and the updated version should be acceptable for Plos ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Basant Giri

21 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-13706R2

Rapid genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in a dense urban community of Kathmandu Valley using sewage samples

Dear Dr. Karmacharya:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Basant Giri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. All supplementary figures and tables.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ES Paper Reviewers comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal_letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the sequence data are available in NCBI GenBank with accession number OM772935 to OM772942. All the data were not accepted to NCBI due to low genome coverage (>50% n) those data are available in Github repository (https://github.com/INPLlab/sarscov2-wgs-sewage).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES