Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 May 26;16(5):e0247626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247626

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

Tomokazu Konishi 1,*
Editor: Dong-Yan Jin2
PMCID: PMC8153470  PMID: 34038423

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 infection in minks has become a serious problem, as the virus may mutate and reinfect humans; some countries have decided to cull minks. Here, the virus sequencing data in minks were analysed and compared to those of human-virus. Although the mink-virus maintained the characteristics of human-virus, some variants rapidly mutated, adapting to minks. Some mink-derived variants infected humans, which accounted for 40% of the total SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Netherlands. These variants appear to be less lethal and infective compared to those in humans. Variants that have mutated further among minks were not found in humans. Such mink-viruses might be suitable for vaccination for humans, such as in the case of the smallpox virus, which is less infective and toxic to humans.

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), infects not only humans but also several other animal species [1]. Infection in minks has become a particularly serious problem [25]; symptoms in minks appear to be lethal in the USA and Denmark [6, 7], but are milder in Spain [8]; those in the Netherland seem to have been varied [5]. Minks are culled because of the suspicion that the mink-virus can mutate and infect humans again [3, 4]. Here, we report the results of principal component analysis [9] of the mink- and human-virus sequences. Many of the mink-viruses were identical to that of humans; however, some variants mutated rapidly. One such variant that was closer to the human-SARS-CoV-2 variant (human-virus) was prevalent in humans of the Netherlands, amounting to approximately 40% of the total cases. This variant was probably less lethal. Other variants that have mutated further among minks are unlikely to infect humans. If mink farming continues, more variants that have a low affinity to humans will become available. It is possible that such mink-SARS-CoV-2 variants (mink-viruses) could be used for vaccination in humans, such as in the case of the smallpox virus, which is less infective and toxic to humans.

Mink livestock have been farmed for a long time as their fur has a commercial value [10]. Although mink farming has been declining recently, up to 50 million animals are farmed worldwide, mainly in Europe.

Materials & methods

Principal component analysis (PCA) represents a sequence matrix, which is inherently multivariate data on multiple axes [11]. Each axis covers a certain set of base positions with specific weights. These are principal components (PCs) for the bases. A sample is given a value on each axis, PC for samples. PCs for bases and samples are inextricably linked to each other. The high-level axes, such as PC1, represent differences associated with more samples and bases; conversely, the lower axes represent a minor difference, for example, a feature that appears only in a particular country or region.

Sequence data of 1,832 human-virus in the Netherlands, 6,980 in Denmark, and mink-virus of 188 Netherlands and 63 Denmark were downloaded from GISAID [12] on December 2nd, 2020. Sequences from 17,571 European human-virus downloaded previously were also used. The list of samples and acknowledgments are available in Figshare [13]. The sequences were aligned using DECHIPER [14] then analysed using PCA [11].

The axes were identified using 103 mink-virus and 6092 human-virus that were proportionally selected from each continent. Assuming a global human population of 7.8 billion, a simple ratio calculation can be drawn by using the estimated population of minks x, 103: x = 6092:7.8E9. Hence, these data may be comparable to 130 million minks. Since the mink population is estimated as 50 million [10], the axes provide two to three times the weight in PCA toward minks, which might have enabled the identification of unique mutations in mink-viruses. Following this, the axes were applied to all data.

All calculations were performed using R [15]. All the codes used are presented in the author’s page in Figshare [13]. The number of confirmed cases and deaths were obtained from the homepage of the WHO [16]. The rate of fatality was estimated as the rate between deaths in the following week and the number of cases during the week. The 95% and 50% confidence intervals of the rate were estimated using the binomial test [17], according to the estimation that deaths occur randomly among patients; if history repeats in the area with the same conditions, the observed rates will most likely vary as in this estimate. The mink-derived human-virus were found to have sPC8 > 0.003 and sPC9 > 0.001, and the rate was estimated within the countries. The weekly estimation of rates varied, as the numbers of infected and dead, and especially the number of sequences registered, were not very high. Therefore, the line representing the status changes was smoothened using the LOWESS function of the R [18].

Results and discussion

The two highest axes of PC are shown in Fig 1A (for basics of the methodology, see Materials and Methods). As is apparent, viral variants in human and mink appeared into four groups that are temporarily numbered as 0–3. Mink-virus in the Netherlands consisted of all groups, whereas those in Denmark belonged only to group 1. The highly infective variants of the second wave [19] were not found. In the sequence data from both countries, variations in mink-virus that appeared in those axes were few, forming concentrated points stacked with each other (Fig 1A). The limited number of variations reflects that viral transmission from humans to minks is rare and that the migration of the virus is also rare. The contribution of the viral samples from minks to these axes was small, and the viral samples from minks appeared in exactly the same PC as one of the humans. The axes represent the process by which SARS-CoV-2 adapts to humans [19]; group 3 includes the earliest variants, group 0 includes the first variant transferred to Europe [20], and groups 1 and 2 were derived from group 0. The routes of virus migration and mutation presented in these axes were completed in April, and all groups could be found on all continents.

Fig 1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for samples.

Fig 1

A. PC1 and PC2. These axes show the adaptation process of SARS-CoV-2 to humans [19]. Seven thousand of mink-virus are coloured in transparent blue; concentrated blue show multiple stackings. This is the same in 17,000 human-virus. The white dot indicates the position of NB-EMC-35-3, a group 2 mink-virus (S1 Table). B. PC8 and PC9. Mutations found in group 2 mink-virus in the Netherlands are presented on these axes. The presented IDs are those for mink-virus. The downward blue arrow indicates the mink-derived human-virus. C. Part of panel B enlarged. All IDs indicate human-virus, except for NB-EMC-6-13. The mink-derived human-virus are circled with a blue dotted line.

However, mutations also occurred in mink-virus in the Netherlands (Fig 1B). The directions of mutations among mink- and human-viruses are completely different from one another as shown in Fig 1A and 1B. As shown in Fig 1A, this difference suggests that the parental strain of SARS-CoV-2 did not originate from minks, otherwise the reversion mutation would return to the direction that occurs among humans. None of the bases or amino acids were unique to mink-virus [5]. They can be recognised as characteristic rearrangements that have collected parts of human-virus. Such directed mutations were only found in group 2 variants of the Netherlands and were not found in mink-virus in Denmark.

These mutations may be the result of adaptation during viral transmission between minks, and the mutation rates were high (S1 Table) [5]. The differences are comparable to half of those between peaks of the seasonal H1N1 influenza virus, which usually takes a few years among humans to gain enough cumulative mutations that allow escaping herd immunity [19]. In addition, the rates of the missense mutations were high [21]. These phenomena were also observed in mutations in human-virus [19]. The direction strongly suggests that the mutations are meaningful rather than random. These properties could be due to the positive selection of variants that are more infectious among new hosts, minks.

Viruses that normally reside in humans can mutate and infect other mammals, such as mink. These viruses may be able to reinfect humans. Fig 1B and the enlarged insert (Fig 1C) depict the large population of human-viruses from which the mink-viruses evolved (Panel C). Many of the viruses have been reported only once. However, there were many infected humans in the group indicated by the dotted circles. Despite their large numbers, it is clear that these viruses do not normally dwell in humans. No direction of mutations that would enable human infection has been observed (Fig 1C). The viruses have not been reported in minks, which could reflect the very small number of reports from minks. However, based on their PCs it is reasonable to assume that they are derived from minks. The viruses were once prevalent mainly in the Netherlands (Fig 2A) and accounted for approximately 40% of all viruses present (Fig 2B). The variant may have been overlooked by the previous study [5]. Furthermore, human-to-human infectivity seemed to decrease and become sporadic (Fig 1C; the variants are identified).

Fig 2. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Netherlands.

Fig 2

A. Number of confirmed cases, deaths, and PC for human-virus. Before the second wave, variants had changed (coloured points of specified axes of PCs). The mink-derived human-virus appeared at and above the level of PC8 (x) indicated by the blue arrow. B. Rates of fatality (number of deaths in the following week/cases, grey) and the mink-derived variants (red). C. Comparison of fatality rates in August and October. The thick horizontal line indicates the estimation of the rate. The whiskers show 95% confidence intervals, and the boxes show the quartiles. The situation in Denmark is presented in S1 Fig.

Variants further away than those from human-viruses’ mass have not yet been identified in humans (Fig 1B). Conversely, highly infective viral variants of the second wave in humans [19] have not yet been identified in minks. These human and mink variants could have adapted specifically to their respective hosts.

In many countries, the variants mutated before the second wave [19]. This phenomenon has also been confirmed in the Netherlands and Denmark, where similar variants were prevalent and waves occurred similarly (Fig 2 and S1 Fig). However, there is one difference; the variant that seems to be derived from minks appeared mainly in the Netherlands (Fig 2A and 2B). This variant has disappeared to be replaced by the variant belonging to group 0 that caused the second wave. This is also the case in Denmark (S1B Fig). This shows that the mink-derived variant is less infective than the second wave variant.

After the mink-derived variant disappeared, the fatality rate in the Netherlands increased (Fig 2B). In the first wave, many of the cases might have been ignored; hence, the rate became very high, and then decreased. The confidence intervals showed that the increase was substantial (Fig 2C). This difference may correspond to the proportion of the mink-derived human-virus present; if the variant is not lethal to humans, this difference can be explained by its disappearance. Actually, many mink farmers positive by PCR did not show heavy symptoms, and variants that related to the clusters of mink sequences found on the mink farms did not spill over to people living in close proximity to mink farms had occurred [5]. Since lower infectivity suggests a slow spread in the human body, it could allow sufficient time for the immune system to function, achieving lower lethality. Unfortunately, no data are available regarding individual human medical conditions; hence, we were unable to verify this lethality directly. However, data from 360 human samples with these mink-derived variants are shown in Figshare [13] to enable clinical verification. Additionally, to check the toxicity of other variants, PCs of other human samples from each continent are available on the same page in Figshare.

Low lethality can also be expected, as the virus was derived from minks maintained in dense populations [2, 3]. Lethal viruses, such as those in the USA and Denmark [6, 7], eventually die with the host. Therefore, a pathogenicity that is excessively strong becomes a selective pressure. This could be the reason why adaptation was not observed among mink-virus in Denmark, where only limited variants were found. This pressure is not as effective for humans as it is for minks, as some patients do not show symptoms. However, because most farmed minks are of the same age and have similar genetic backgrounds, the disease status can be expected to be fairly uniform. Minks showed limited pathological traits in some countries [8], which suggested that this selection and attenuation is progressing within the mink population, or attenuated variants of human-derived virus are becoming apparent in minks.

The mink-derived human-virus in the Netherlands differ by only eight amino acids and 14 nucleotides from the closest human-virus. Although the mink-derived variant disappeared in Europe, if the variant remained in humans, the difference would not be safe enough for reverse mutations to re-adapt to humans.

Mutations of the group 2 mink-virus (Fig 1B) appeared to adapt to the new host, minks. Accumulating mutations will further reduce infectivity to humans. Variations among these strains can be increased by mink farming. Such strains could be maintained in minks or in Vero cells; among them, we could identify a combination of a strain and dosage that infects, but does not cause symptoms in humans. If this is achieved, vaccination will become possible by infecting the intestinal tract via oral administration. Therefore, local governments should encourage farmers to maintain their minks, rather than culling them. However, as minks can also carry human-virus as is, sequence analysis would be required to avoid this risk. It may be advisable to artificially infect minks with a known safe strain to restart farming. Human SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to change independently in each region [19], as shown in Fig 2A. Although some of the mink-virus from Denmark appear to be highly toxic to minks [7], the same group 1 variants would be the most adapted to humans, and they continue to mutate among humans in regions such as South Africa and Brazil. Some of these may have lower toxicity in minks.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Situation in Denmark.

A. Number of confirmed cases, deaths, and PCs for samples. The blue arrow indicates the mink-derived human-virus (sPC8), which are far fewer than those in the Netherlands. B. Fatality rate (the number of deaths in the following week/the number of cases, grey) and percentage of mink-derived human-virus (red). The fatality rate remained fairly constant after the first wave subsided. C. The estimated confidence intervals confirmed the constancy of fatality.

(PNG)

S1 Table. Rate of differences between mink-derived human-virus.

The differences between each variant in 1000 amino acid residues (positions are shown in Fig 1B and 1C by the IDs) and NB-EMC-35-3 | EPI_ISL_577774 (a mink-virus considered to be the same as that of humans). The rates of missense mutations are also shown. *Humans: differences between the mink-derived variants and similar human-virus in group 2, the Netherlands. The mink-derived human-virus were NB-EMC-45-4, NB-EMC-39-5, NB-EMC-7-2, NB-EMC-26-1, NB-EMC-45-3, NB-EMC-39-3, and NB-EMC-41-4. The related variants were NB-EMC-312, ZH-EMC-379, ZH-EMC-844, and ZH-EMC-845. Differences between averages were used.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Data Availability

Data are available from figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13385192.v1.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Dong-Yan Jin

6 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-04793

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Konishi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

Both reviewers like your paper and they have asked for some clarifications. Please respond and return your paper as soon as possible.

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 Apr 20 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dong-Yan Jin

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.

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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: The manuscript is well-written. The authors use prinicipal component analysis and show that the evolution of human- and mink SARS-CoV-2 differs completely. In addition real-life data from the Netherlands and Denmark indicate that mink variants are less lethal and infective.

The authors suggest that mink-variants may be used for development of vaccines and therfore advise against culling of mink.

The findings in this paper is very important, but also controversial and political hot stuff. In Denmark it is still debated whether or not the culling of 17 millions mink was the right decision.

Reviewer #2: This is a nice and informative study. I have few comments and I request the author to clarify the comments.

1) It's not clear how the author derived the following results "Some mink-derived variants infected humans,

which accounted for 40% of the total SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Netherlands". The author presented this result in the "Introduction" of the main manuscript and then presented these as a part of results in the Abstract. Reading the article -- I didn't understand how the author derived the figure. Please clarify this.

2) In method the author mentioned "The axes were identified using 103 mink-virus and 6092 human-virus that were

proportionally selected from each continent. These data may be comparable to 130

million animals; since the mink population is estimated to be 50 million... ,".

How 103 minus 6092 human were comparable to 130 million animals? What does 130 million animals refers?

3) The author used abbreviation of worlds which need elaborated especially in figure legends and methods which now stands alone.

**********

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: Yes: Carsten Schade Larsen

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Najmul Haider, Postdoctoral Researcher, Royal Veterinary College, United Kingdom

[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. 2021 May 26;16(5):e0247626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247626.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Mar 2021

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well-written. The authors use prinicipal component analysis and show that the evolution of human- and mink SARS-CoV-2 differs completely. In addition real-life data from the Netherlands and Denmark indicate that mink variants are less lethal and infective.

The authors suggest that mink-variants may be used for development of vaccines and therfore advise against culling of mink.

The findings in this paper is very important, but also controversial and political hot stuff. In Denmark it is still debated whether or not the culling of 17 millions mink was the right decision.

I appreciate this comment. I tried to contact Danish officials. However, mink farming was banned in the country and the mink population was culled. The variants that could have supplemented the deficient vaccine were destroyed.

Reviewer #2: This is a nice and informative study. I have few comments and I request the author to clarify the comments.

1) It's not clear how the author derived the following results "Some mink-derived variants infected humans, which accounted for 40% of the total SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Netherlands". The author presented this result in the "Introduction" of the main manuscript and then presented these as a part of results in the Abstract. Reading the article -- I didn't understand how the author derived the figure. Please clarify this.

I rewrote the paragraph adding explanations concerning Fig. 1C, especially for the group indicated by the circle in the figure. I hope this improves the readability of the passage.

2) In method the author mentioned "The axes were identified using 103 mink-virus and 6092 human-virus that were

proportionally selected from each continent. These data may be comparable to 130

million animals; since the mink population is estimated to be 50 million... ,".

How 103 minus 6092 human were comparable to 130 million animals? What does 130 million animals refers?

I regret this shortage. I added an explanation by using an equation.

3) The author used abbreviation of worlds which need elaborated especially in figure legends and methods which now stands alone.

I appreciate the comment. The revised version includes the Materials and Methods section. A summary of all the abbreviations is included. Finally, I tried to find a replacement for DECIPHER, but it seems that this is rather a unique noun.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dong-Yan Jin

16 Mar 2021

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

PONE-D-21-04793R1

Dear Dr. Konishi,

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.

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,

Dong-Yan Jin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dong-Yan Jin

12 May 2021

PONE-D-21-04793R1

SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans

Dear Dr. Konishi:

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

Professor Dong-Yan Jin

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 Fig. Situation in Denmark.

    A. Number of confirmed cases, deaths, and PCs for samples. The blue arrow indicates the mink-derived human-virus (sPC8), which are far fewer than those in the Netherlands. B. Fatality rate (the number of deaths in the following week/the number of cases, grey) and percentage of mink-derived human-virus (red). The fatality rate remained fairly constant after the first wave subsided. C. The estimated confidence intervals confirmed the constancy of fatality.

    (PNG)

    S1 Table. Rate of differences between mink-derived human-virus.

    The differences between each variant in 1000 amino acid residues (positions are shown in Fig 1B and 1C by the IDs) and NB-EMC-35-3 | EPI_ISL_577774 (a mink-virus considered to be the same as that of humans). The rates of missense mutations are also shown. *Humans: differences between the mink-derived variants and similar human-virus in group 2, the Netherlands. The mink-derived human-virus were NB-EMC-45-4, NB-EMC-39-5, NB-EMC-7-2, NB-EMC-26-1, NB-EMC-45-3, NB-EMC-39-3, and NB-EMC-41-4. The related variants were NB-EMC-312, ZH-EMC-379, ZH-EMC-844, and ZH-EMC-845. Differences between averages were used.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13385192.v1.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES