Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278287

Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern circulating in Hawai’i to facilitate public-health policies

David P Maison 1,2,3,*, Sean B Cleveland 4,5, Vivek R Nerurkar 1,2,3,*
Editor: Ming Zhang6
PMCID: PMC9714757  PMID: 36454775

Abstract

Using genomics, bioinformatics and statistics, herein we demonstrate the effect of statewide and nationwide quarantine on the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) in Hawai’i. To define the origins of introduced VOC, we analyzed 260 VOC sequences from Hawai’i, and 301,646 VOC sequences worldwide, deposited in the GenBank and global initiative on sharing all influenza data (GISAID), and constructed phylogenetic trees. The trees define the most recent common ancestor as the origin. Further, the multiple sequence alignment used to generate the phylogenetic trees identified the consensus single nucleotide polymorphisms in the VOC genomes. These consensus sequences allow for VOC comparison and identification of mutations of interest in relation to viral immune evasion and host immune activation. Of note is the P71L substitution within the E protein, the protein sensed by TLR2 to produce cytokines, found in the B.1.351 VOC may diminish the efficacy of some vaccines. Based on the phylogenetic trees, the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.427, and B.1.429 VOC have been introduced in Hawai’i multiple times since December 2020 from several definable geographic regions. From the first worldwide report of VOC in GenBank and GISAID, to the first arrival of VOC in Hawai’i, averages 320 days with quarantine, and 132 days without quarantine. As such, the effect of quarantine is shown to significantly affect the time to arrival of VOC in Hawai’i. Further, the collective 2020 quarantine of 43-states in the United States demonstrates a profound impact in delaying the arrival of VOC in states that did not practice quarantine, such as Utah. Our data demonstrates that at least 76% of all definable SARS-CoV-2 VOC have entered Hawai’i from California, with the B.1.351 variant in Hawai’i originating exclusively from the United Kingdom. These data provide a foundation for policy-makers and public-health officials to apply precision public health genomics to real-world policies such as mandatory screening and quarantine.

Introduction

Hawai’i has experienced unique epidemics within the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in that Pacific Islanders, which account for 4% of the population, once accounted for nearly 30% of COVID-19 cases [1]. Further, the Japanese population of Hawai’i currently accounts for 6% of the population and experiences 15% of COVID-19 cases. White persons, in contrast, account for 37% of the population and 25% of the cases [2]. As such, a heightened need exists to understand SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Hawai’i and the effect of public policy measures. Early in the pandemic, in an attempt to control the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Hawai’i, like 42 other states in the United States, implemented a quarantine defined by “Stay-at-Home” orders. State-at-Home orders directed residents to stay inside homes except for essential needs and closed operations of non-essential businesses [3]. In addition to this public policy, more than 22,300 SARS-CoV-2 sequences submitted to GISAID and GenBank originate from Hawai’i to facilitate further studies.

The Pangolin/Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak (PANGO) Lineage nomenclature system developed by Rambaut and colleagues [4] for SARS-CoV-2 lineages has allowed for manageable and efficient partitioning of Hawai’i and worldwide sequences for the rapid determination of SARS-CoV-2 origin. The partitioning converts the vast number of sequences into smaller collections of pre-defined similar sequences. These can further generate multiple sequence alignments (MSA) to produce phylogenetic trees efficiently and at low cost.

Using the CDC-classified SARS-CoV-2 VOC (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.427, B.1.429, and P.1), identified in Hawai’i [57] as an example, we demonstrate a method to define the origin of SARS-CoV-2 lineages and VOC. This method works using either open-source or licensed software with either a personal computer or a supercomputer. Additionally, we evaluate the effect of quarantine in delaying the arrival of VOC. Using these methods and associated analysis to define the origin of introduction of VOC and determine the impact of quarantine, public-health officials can develop evidence-based policies to curtail the spread of VOC.

Methods

Defining the origin of SARS-CoV-2 VOC

Here, we present a method to define SARS-CoV-2 VOC origin. The architecture of this analysis is outlined in Fig 1 (DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.x54v9yqz4g3e/v1). We used 14 B.1.1.7, five B.1.351, 34 B.1.427, and 207 B.1.429 SARS-CoV-2 VOC sequences from Hawai’i deposited as of April 2, 2021, in the GenBank and global initiative on sharing all influenza data (GISAID) as an example. In brief, the method includes: 1) The lineage-defining sequences of SARS-CoV-2 Lineage A and Lineage B act as the most ancestral roots [4]. Lineage A (EPI_ISL_406801) is from GISAID, and Lineage B (MN908947) is from GenBank. 2) To identify lineages of interest in an area, filter GISAID by location (e.g.: North America/USA/Hawai’i) and download all sequences. For VOC with >10,000 sequences, GISAID sequences were downloaded in batches due to GISAID maximum download size. Similarly, all geographically similar sequences reported in GenBank were downloaded using the search term SARS-CoV-2 and state abbreviation (e.g., “SARS-CoV-2 HI”) and the sequence length filter (20,000–40,000). 3) Combine the GISAID and GenBank sequences into one.fasta file using AliView, Geneious Prime 2021.0.3 (http://www. geneious.com), or a text editor, and assign lineages using Pangolin Lineage Assigner (pangolin.cog-uk.io) [4, 810]. 4) Download the results to Microsoft Excel, use advanced filter to copy unique records of lineages to a new column (ex: column M), then use COUNTIF (e.g., = COUNTIF($B$2:$B$1432,M2)) to determine prevalence of each lineage. Alternatively, upload the results to Google Sheets and use the = UNIQUE command (e.g., = UNIQUE(B2:B1432) followed by the above COUNTIF command. 5) Identify sequences that are the lineage of interest (e.g.: B.1.429), from using Pangolin Lineage Assigner, and download those sequences individually from GenBank. Filter GISAID by the lineage of interest (e.g., B.1.429) and download all sequences. 6) Combine lineage of interest (B.1.429) GenBank sequences, GISAID (B.1.429) sequences, and EPI_ISL_406801 into one fasta file. 7) Align sequences using multiple alignment using fast Fourier transform (MAFFT) program or server (https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/add_fragments.html?frommanualnov6) [1113] with MN908947 as a reference and do not remove any uninformative sequences and all parameters set as “same as input.” 8) Remove the newly added MN908947 sequence that MAFFT places at the beginning of the alignment using AliView, Geneious Prime, or a text editor. If not, the sRNA toolbox will remove the MN908947 sequence during the duplicate removal step, and Lineage B will not serve as an ancestral root in the phylogenetic tree. 9) Import MSA file into Geneious Prime or AliView [10], search for the orf1a 5’ start of the entire alignment (5’-atggagagccttgtccctggtttca-3’) and remove the 5’ untranslated region (UTR) by deleting the upstream region (~265 bp) from the MSA. Next, search for ORF10 3’ end (5’-tgtagttaactttaatctcacatag-3’) and remove the entire 3’ UTR by deleting the downstream region (~229 bp) from the MSA. 10) Create a duplicate file for the MN908947 sequence and remove the 5’ UTR and 3’ UTR from MN908947 as described above. 11) Using MAFFT, align the trimmed MSA with the trimmed MN908947 as a reference and delete sequences with uncalled nucleotides ‘n’. Set the “remove uninformative sequences” parameter in the MAFFT at >0%. 12) Using sRNAtoolbox program or server (https://arn.ugr.es/srnatoolbox/helper/removedup/) [14], load the updated alignment to remove duplicate sequences and merge identifications (also referred to as sequence accession numbers) of duplicates. This merger will create “appendages” in the phylogenetic tree where the sRNA toolbox will line up identical sequences together with equal signs (=). 13) Import the final alignment into Geneious Prime and create an approximately maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree using the FastTree program [15]. Alternatively, FastTree can run as standalone software, and FastTreeMP is appropriate when multiple CPU cores/threads are available. 14) Root the tree with Lineage A (EPI_ISL_406801), which should then be the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) to Lineage B (MN908947) if performing phylogenetics on a Lineage B subgroup. Identify the MRCA of each sequence of interest.

Fig 1. Workflow to generate phylogenetic trees and to identify MRCA.

Fig 1

This figure outlines the 14 steps to define the origin of SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern (VOC) into an area of interest (demonstrated as Hawaii). Collectively, the workflow defines the VOC of a particular area, so research may identify a VOC of interest to conduct the workflow. Then all worldwide sequences of the selected VOC are aggregated into a Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA). The MSA is modified to remove ambiguous and uninformative sequences and added to the ancestral lineages A (GISAID Accession # EPI_ISL_406801) and B (GenBank Accession # MN908947). Duplicate sequences are merged via their accession number (creating appendages), and the duplicates are removed from the MSA. An approximately maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree is generated and rooted with ancestral lineage A. The identification (ID) of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the sequences of interest defines the origin. Maps generated with the open-source “usmap” and“ggplot2” packages and R under GPL-3 and MIT+ license and are free to use (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/usmap/usmap.pdf)(https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/index.html).

For the B.1.1.7 VOC, which began with 272,732 sequences, we partitioned the sequences into seven sub-MSAs of ~50,000 sequences and performed the above method on each sub-MSA. After unambiguous sequences and duplicates were removed from each group, sub-MSA were recombined using AliView [10]. Duplicates were removed after each recombination of two sub-MSA, except for the final MSA due to size restrictions. Four sub-MSA were combined to create the final MSA. All sequences in the final MSA are unambiguous. However, there are likely duplicate sequences present. FastTreeMP generated the phylogenetic tree for B.1.1.7 in the University of Hawai’i MANA High-Performance Computing Cluster (HPC). All other steps, including the phylogenetic trees for B.1.351, B.1.427, and B.1.429, were done using a 2014 Apple MacBook Pro (2.6 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB RAM) or a Dell OptiPlex 3070 (3.0 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB RAM).

Identifying the consensus of each VOC

To identify consensus SNPs of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, assign Lineage B as the reference sequence, and use the Geneious Prime “Find Variations/SNPs” Annotate and Predict function to identify consensus SNPs. Input SNPs into the SnapGene (Insightful Science, snapgene.com) to identify the nucleotide and amino acid number and substitution as described previously [16].

Evaluating the effect of quarantine

To test the hypothesis that the 67-day (2020-03-25 to 2020-05-31) [17] quarantine in Hawai’i, and the collective 43-state quarantine in the United States that occured from 2020-03-11 to 2020-06-16, significantly delayed the arrival of VOC, we partitioned the VOC into two categories. The first category of “quarantine” are those VOC (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and B.1.429) that emerged worldwide before and during the 43-state collective mandatory quarantine was in effect. The second category of “post-quarantine” are those VOC (B.1.427 and P.1) that emerged worldwide after all quarantines were lifted. To determine the earliest collection date of each VOC worldwide, we analyzed all VOC (764,134) reported in the GISAID as of May 20, 2021. Since only 10 whole-genome sequences (WGS) of VOC B.1.351 have been reported from Hawai’i as of May 20, 2021, we analyzed the 10 first reported, and genetically distinct, of each VOC (B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1) (total 47, since only 7 of the 10 B.1.351 were distinctive genetically) from Hawai’i as of May 20, 2021. For each VOC, we calculated the days between the first worldwide report and each of the first ten genetically distinct strains of VOC introduced in Hawai’i. We then compared the quarantine group to the post-quarantine group by days-to-arrival using an independent t-test in RStudio version 1.3.1093 (R version 4.0.3) and plotted with ggplot2 and ggstatsplot packages [1820]. Further, we evaluated one of the seven states (AR, IA, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY) [21] that did not participate in the collective 43-state quarantine to determine if the delay in the arrival of VOC between quarantine and non-quarantine time periods exists for a state that did not quarantine. The nearest geographic state to Hawai’i of the remaining seven states which did not quarantine is Utah. Therefore, we evaluated Utah’s first ten genetically distinct reports of each of the five VOC (Utah only had three strains of B.1.351 VOC, with two being unique (total 42)), as mentioned above, and compared them to the groups from Hawai’i.

Results

As of April 02, 2021, 43 unique lineages were identified with Pangolin Lineage Assigner from the 1,431 total sequences deposited in the GenBank and GISAID from Hawai’i (Table 1). Based on this analysis, the B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, and B.1.351 were 14.47%, 2.38%, 0.98%, and 0.35%, respectively, prevalent in Hawai’i. Moreover, the SARS-CoV-2 VOC, as classified by the CDC, were overall 18.2% (260/1,431) prevalent among all SARS-CoV-2 sequences in Hawai’i (Table 1). As of May 20, 2021, the VOC prevalence had increased overall to 45.2% (1,069/2,367) (Table 1). This increase includes the emergence of the P.1 VOC, a 11.78% increase in B.1.1.7, and a 14.13% increase in B.1.429 (Table 1).

Table 1. SARS-CoV-2 lineage prevalence in Hawai’i as of April 02, 2021 and May 20, 2021.

Lineage VOC* Identifier Prevalence of Lineages VOC Reporting Dates
April 02, 2021 May 20, 2021 Δ% First Reported VOC Arrival of VOC in Hawaii Δ (Days)
n (%) n (%)
A.1 - 6 (0.42) 6 (0.25) -0.17 - - -
A.2.2 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
A.3 - 2 (0.14) 2 (0.08) -0.06 - - -
B - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1 - 66 (4.61) 54 (2.28) -2.33 - - -
B.1.1 - 11 (0.77) 11 (0.47) -0.30 - - -
B.1.1.207 - 1 (0.07) 3 (0.13) +0.06 - - -
B.1.1.222 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.1.304 - - 2 (0.08) +0.08 - - -
B.1.1.316 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.1.380 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.1.416 - 7 (0.07) 7 (0.3) +0.23 - - -
B.1.1.519 - 18 (1.26) 43 (1.82) +0.56 - - -
B.1.1.7 United Kingdom 14 (0.98) 302 (12.76) +11.78 2020-02-07 2021-01-21 349
B.1.108 - 2 (0.14) 2 (0.08) -0.06 - - -
B.1.139 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.160 - - 9 (0.38) +0.38 - - -
B.1.2 - 171 (11.95) 214 (9.04) -2.91 - - -
B.1.234 - 7 (0.49) 7 (0.3) -0.19 - - -
B.1.241 - 2 (0.14) 3 (0.13) -0.01 - - -
B.1.243 - 745 (52.06) 751 (31.73) -20.33 - - -
B.1.265 - 2 (0.14) 2 (0.08) -0.06 - - -
B.1.298 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.340 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.351 South Africa 5 (0.35) 10 (0.42) +0.07 2020-05-11 2021-02-16 281
B.1.357 - 61 (4.26) 61 (2.58) -1.68 - - -
B.1.36.8 - 5 (0.35) 5 (0.21) -0.14 - - -
B.1.369 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.37 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.400 - 9 (0.63) 9 (0.38) -0.25 - - -
B.1.413 - 4 (0.28) 4 (0.17) -0.11 - - -
B.1.427 California 34 (2.38) 46 (1.94) -0.44 2020-09-17 2020-12-07 81
B.1.429 California 207 (14.47) 677 (28.6) +14.13 2020-04-15 2020-12-31 260
B.1.517 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.526 - 3 (0.21) 17 (0.72) +0.51 - - -
B.1.526.1 - - 3 (0.13) +0.13 - - -
B.1.526.2 - - 18 (0.76) +0.76 - - -
B.1.561 - 1 (0.07) 8 (0.34) +0.27 - - -
B.1.568 - - 3 (0.13) +0.13 - - -
B.1.575 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.588 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.595 - 4 (0.28) 4 (0.17) -0.11 - - -
B.1.596 - 18 (1.26) 24 (1.01) -0.25 - - -
B.1.601 - 1 (0.07) 1 (0.04) -0.03 - - -
B.1.609 - 3 (0.21) 3 (0.13) -0.08 - - -
B.6 - 5 (0.35) 5 (0.21) -0.14 - - -
P.1 Brazil - 34 (1.44) +1.44 2020-11-03 2021-03-21 138
P.2 - 2 (0.14) 2 (0.08) -0.06 - - -
R.1 - 2 (0.14) 2 (0.08) -0.06 - - -
Total - 1,431 2,367

*VOC = Variant of concern (depicted in bold)

Variants of concern consensus

Fig 2 shows the phylogenetic analysis of all VOC prevalent in Hawai’i reported worldwide rooted with the Lineage A reference sequence (EPI_ISL_406801) [4]. These trees were generated using FastTree in MANA HPC and Geneious Prime [15]. Based on this analysis, 228 of the 260 (87.69%) VOC found in Hawai’i have identifiable origins. Fig 3 shows the states in the continental United States, as well as the countries worldwide, that were identified as being the source of the B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, and B.1.351 SARS-CoV-2 VOC introductions into Hawai’i. The consensus (>90%) of the B.1.429 MSA, B.1.427 MSA, B.1.1.7 MSA, and B.1.351 MSA revealed 20, 16, 27, and 19, respectively, genomic mutations as compared to the MN908947 Lineage B reference sequence (Table 2).

Fig 2. Phylogenetic trees of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns.

Fig 2

The phylogenetic trees show the approximately maximum-likelihood trees generated by FastTree in Geneious Prime 2021.0.3 (http://www.geneious.com) and FastTreeMP in the University of Hawai’i MANA High Performance Computing Cluster. The trees were rooted to the SARS-CoV-2 Lineage A reference sequence (EPI_ISL_406801). Clusters and strains from Hawai’i are identified with the colored text (blue), and were evaluated for the most recent common ancestor to define the origin of Hawai’i strains (pink). Text shown in black indicates global variant strains not necessarily directly affiliated with variants found in Hawai’i. Appendage sequences designated by an equal sign (=) indicate identical sequences as generated by the sRNAtoolbox. A) Phylogenetic tree of B.1.429 California variant of concern (VOC) generated using Geneious Prime from 2,809 unambiguous and unique sequences. B) Phylogenetic tree of B.1.427 California VOC generated using Geneious Prime from 1,019 unique and unambiguous sequences. C) Phylogenetic tree of B.1.1.7 United Kingdom VOC generated with FastTreeMP in the MANA HPC using 83,471 unambiguous sequences. D) Phylogenetic tree of B.1.351 South Africa VOC generated in Geneious Prime using 778 unambiguous and unique sequences. Maps generated with the open-source “usmap” and“ggplot2” packages and R under GPL-3 and MIT+ license and are free to use (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/usmap/usmap.pdf)(https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/index.html). Map editing was done in Adobe Photoshop 22.4.2, and the final figure was created with BioRender.com.

Fig 3. Introduction of the SAR-CoV-2 variants of concern in Hawai’i.

Fig 3

This figure shows the states within the United States, and countries worldwide, from which the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) have been introduced into Hawai’i. Represented geographical locations are: California (CA), Washington (WA), Texas (TX), Louisiana (LA), the United Kingdom (UK), Pennsylvania (PA), Colorado (CO), Florida (FL), Arizona (AZ), Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Nevada (NV), North Carolina (NC), Ohio (OH) and Oregon (OR). Blue represents the origin of B.1.351 VOC, yellow represents the origin of B.1.1.7 VOC, pink represents the origin of B.1.427 VOC, and the green represents the origin of B.1.429 VOC. The width of the arrows is proportional to the abundance of introductions of VOC from various geographic areas. Maps generated with the open-source “usmap” and“ggplot2” packages and R under GPL-3 and MIT+ license and are free to use (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/usmap/usmap.pdf)(https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/index.html). Map editing was done in Adobe Photoshop 22.4.2 and the final figure was created with Biorender.com.

Table 2. Single nucleotide polymorphisms, amino acid substitutions, and deletions among SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern circulating in Hawai’i.

Nucleotides and Amino Acids VOC Circulating in Hawai’i
Gene or region Nucleotide Loci Nucleotide Change Amino Acid Position Amino Acid Change B.1.427 B.1.429 B.1.1.7 B.1.351
orf1ab 913 C → T 216 -
1,059 C → T 265 Thr → Ile
2,395 C → T 710 -
2,597 T → C 778 -
3,037 C → T 924 -
3,267 C → T 1,001 Thr → Ile
5,230 G → T 1,655 Lys → Asn
5,388 C → A 1,708 Ala → Asp
5,986 C → T 1,907 -
6,954 T → C 2,230 Ile → Thr
8,947 C → T 2,894 -
9,738 G → C 3,158 Ser → Thr
10,323 A → G 3,353 Lys → Arg
11,288–11,296 Δ 3,675–3,677 ΔSerΔGlyΔPhe
12,100 C → T 3,945 -
12,878 A → G 4,205 Ile → Val
13,713 G → A 4,483 -
14,408 C → T 4,715 Pro → Leu
14,676 C → T 4,804 -
15,279 C → T 5,005 -
16,176 T → C 5,304 -
16,394 C → T 5,377 Pro → Leu
17,014 G → T 5,584 Asp → Tyr
S 21,600 G → T 13 Ser → Ile
21,765–21,770 Δ 69–70 ΔHisΔVal
21,801 A → C 80 Asp → Ala
21,991–21,993 Δ 144 ΔTyr
22,018 G → T 152 Trp → Cys
22,206 A → G 215 Asp → Gly
22,281–22,289 Δ 242–244 ΔLeuΔAlaΔLeu
22,813 G → T 417 Lys → Asn
22,917 T → G 452 Leu → Arg
23,012 G → A 484 Glu → Lys
23,063 A → T 501 Asn → Tyr
23,271 C → A 570 Ala → Asp
23,403 A → G 614 Asp → Gly
23,604 C → A 681 Pro → His
23,664 C → T 701 Ala → Val
23,709 C → T 716 Thr → Ile
24,349 T → C 929 -
24,506 T → G 982 Ser → Ala
24,914 G → C 1,118 Asp → His
ORF3a 25,563 G → T 57 Gln → His
25,904 C → T 171 Ser → Leu
E 26,456 C → T 71 Pro → Leu
M 26,681 C → T 53 -
ORF7b/ORF8 intron 27,890 G → T - -
ORF8 27,972 C → T 27 Gln → stop
28,048 G → T 52 Arg → Ile
28,111 A → G 73 Tyr → Cys
28,253 C → T 120 -
ORF8/N intron 28,271 Δ - -
28,272 A → T - -
N 28,280–28,282 GAT → CTA 3 Asp → Leu
28,881–28,883 GGG → AAC 203–204 ArgGly → LysArg
28,887 C → T 205 Thr → Ile
28,977 C → T 235 Ser → Phe
29,362 C → T 363 -

Consensus determined for B.1.427 VOC, B.1.429 VOC, B.1.1.7 VOC, and B.1.351 VOC from multiple sequence alignment of 1,019, 2,809, 83,471, and 778 strains, respectively. Mutations present in the corresponding VOC are shaded with black color.

B.1.429 California VOC

In the GenBank, as of April 02, 2021, 21 of 97 Hawai’i sequences were of lineage B.1.429 as determined with the Pangolin Lineage Assigner. One-hundred eighty-six sequences in GISAID from Hawai’i were identified as the B.1.429 VOC. Total B.1.429 VOC reported worldwide in GISAID was 15,393 as determined by applying the GISAID lineage filter. Thus, the starting sequence count was 15,416 (21 GenBank + 15,393 GISAID + 2 lineage origin = 15,416). Of the 15,416 sequences, 11,648 sequences were removed for being uninformative and containing incomplete sequences. Further, the sRNAtoolbox server removed 944 sequences containing duplicate sequences and 15 sequences of duplicate ID. The final alignment of 2,809 (15,416–11,648 ambiguous—959 duplicate sequence and ID = 2,809) strains and subsequent phylogenetic analysis defined the origin of the B.1.429 variant introduced into Hawai’i (Fig 2A). Using this method, we were able to identify the origin of 183 of 207 B.1.429 sequences introduced into Hawai’i (Fig 3).

B.1.427 California VOC

In the GenBank, as of April 02, 2021, 8 of 97 Hawai’i sequences were B.1.427 VOC as determined with the Pangolin Lineage Assigner. Twenty-six sequences in GISAID from Hawai’i were identified as the B.1.427 VOC. Total B.1.427 lineages reported worldwide in GISAID were 6,562 as determined by applying the GISAID lineage filter. Thus, the starting sequence count was 6,572 (8 GenBank + 6,562 GISAID + 2 lineage origin = 6,572). Of the 6,572 sequences, 5,273 sequences were removed for being ambiguous. Further, the sRNAtoolbox server removed 278 sequences containing duplicate sequences and 3 sequences of duplicate ID. One duplicate ID was created by the duplicate sequence merger. The final alignment of 1,019 strains (6,572–5,273 ambiguous—(281 duplicate sequence and ID—1 duplicate ID created by duplicate sequence merger) = 1,019) and subsequent phylogenetic analysis defined the origin of the B.1.427 variant introduced into Hawai’i (Fig 2B). Using this method, we were able to identify the origin of 22 of 34 B.1.427 sequences introduced into Hawai’i (Fig 3).

B.1.1.7 United Kingdom VOC

In the GenBank, as of April 02, 2021, 0 of 97 Hawai’i sequences were of lineage B.1.1.7 as determined with the Pangolin Lineage Assigner. Fourteen strains in GISAID from Hawai’i were identified as the B.1.1.7 VOC. Total B.1.1.7 lineages reported worldwide in GISAID were 272,730 as determined by applying the GISAID lineage filter. Thus, the starting sequence count was 272,734 (272,730 GISAID sequences + 4 lineage origin). The aforementioned method was applied to each of the seven sub-MSA, thereby removing a total of 113,685 ambiguous sequences, and 75,590 duplicate sequences and ID. Twelve duplicate IDs were created by the duplicate sequence merger. The final alignment of 83,471 sequences (272,734–113,685 ambiguous—(75,590 duplicate sequence and ID—12 duplicate ID created by duplicate sequence merger) = 83,471) and subsequent phylogenetic analysis defined the origin of the B.1.1.7 VOC introduced into Hawai’i using phylogenetic analysis (Fig 2C). Using this method, we were able to identify the origin of 10 of 14 B.1.1.7 sequences introduced into Hawai’i (Fig 3).

B.1.351 South Africa VOC

In the GenBank, as of April 02, 2021, 0 of 97 Hawai’i sequences were B.1.351 VOC as determined with the Pangolin Lineage Assigner. Five sequences in GISAID from Hawai’i were identified as the B.1.351 VOC. Total B.1.351 sequences reported worldwide in GISAID were 6,961 as determined by applying the GISAID lineage filter. Of the 6,963 sequences aligned, 5,758 sequences were removed for being uninformative and containing incomplete sequences. Further, the sRNAtoolbox server removed 373 sequences containing duplicate sequences and 55 sequences of duplicate ID. One duplicate ID was created by the duplicate sequence merger. The final alignment of 778 strains (6,961 GISAID + 2 lineage origin—5,758 ambiguous—(428 duplicate sequence and ID—1 duplicate ID created by duplicate sequence merger) = 778) and subsequent phylogenetic analysis defined the origin of the B.1.1.7 VOC introduced into Hawai’i using phylogenetic analysis (Fig 2D). Using this method, we were able to identify the origin of all five B.1.351 sequences introduced into Hawai’i (Fig 3).

High-quality sequencing

Several published sequences worldwide have missing nucleotides between the 5’ UTR and 3’ UTR, such as 41.7%, 82.7%, 80.2%, and 75.6% of B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.427, and B.1.429 sequences, respectively. Therefore, these sequences are not useful for phylogenetic analysis.

Quarantine

As of May 20, 2021, the first reported collection dates worldwide for B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 VOC, respectively, are 2020-04-15 [22], 2020-09-17 [23], 2020-02-07 [24], 2020-05-11 [25], and 2020-11-03 [26]. In Hawai’i, the first reported collection dates for B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 VOC were on 2020-12-31, 2020-12-07, 2021-01-21, 2021-02-16, and 2021-03-21, respectively [27]. From first reported worldwide collection date to first reported collection date in Hawai’i, for the B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 VOC, are 260, 81, 349, 281, and 138 days, respectively (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 VOC timeline.

Fig 4

This figure shows the timeline of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) with respect to Hawai’i. The x-axis is a calendar from December 2019 through May 20, 2021. Solid lines with the corresponding VOC name (B.1.1.7, B.1.429, B.1.351, B.1.427, and P.1) depict the worldwide emergence dates of the VOC. Dashed lines with the corresponding VOC name depict the first reported VOC date in Hawai’i. Dates of quarantine in Hawai’i (2020-03-22–2020-05-31), dates of intermittent quarantine in Hawai’i and trans-Pacific travel restrictions (2020-03-22–2020-10-15), and dates of the collective 43-state quarantine (2020-03-11 to 2020-06-16) are shown in colored boxes. As of May 20, 2021, the first reported collection dates worldwide for B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 VOC, respectively, are 2020-04-15, 2020-09-17, 2020-02-07, 2020-05-11, and 2020-11-03. In Hawai’i, the first reported collection dates for B.1.429, B.1.427, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 VOC were on 2020-12-31, 2020-12-07, 2021-01-21, 2021-02-16, and 2021-03-21, respectively. The figure was created with Biorender.com.

Partitioning days to VOC arrival in Hawai’i into quarantine (2020-03-11 to 2020-06-16) (M = 320 days, SD = 45) and post-quarantine (2020-06-16 to 2021-05-20) (M = 132 days, SD = 21) time periods demonstrates that quarantine significantly delayed the arrival of VOC to Hawai’i, t(45) = 17.38, p = 1.38e-21 (Fig 5A). Utah, a non-quarantine state, also demonstrated difference in days to VOC arrival between the time period defined by the collective quarantine of the 43 states (2020-03-11 to 2020-06-16) (M = 285 days, SD = 71) when compared to the nationwide no-quarantine time period (2020-06-16 to 2021-05-20) (M = 116 days, SD = 40), t(40) = 9.37, p = 1.2e-11 (Fig 5B). Comparing the group defined by the collective 43-state quarantine demonstrates that VOC arrival in Hawai’i (M = 320 days, SD = 45) was delayed when compared to Utah (M = 285 days, SD = 71), t(47) = 2.11, p = 0.04 (Fig 5C). Comparing the group defined by the time period following the collective 43-state quarantine demonstrates no significant difference in days to VOC arrival between Hawai’i (M = 132 days, SD = 21) when compared to Utah (M = 116 days, SD = 40), t(38) = 1.59, p = 0.12 (Fig 5D).

Fig 5. Post-quarantine days to VOC arrival vs. quarantine days to VOC arrival in Hawai’i and Utah as of May, 20, 2021.

Fig 5

This figure shows the days-to-arrival of variants of concern (VOC) compared to VOC categorized as ‘quarantine’ and ‘post-quarantine.’ Depicted as a box-and-whisker/violin plot displaying median (line), mean (black circle), interquartile range, minimum, and maximum. Quarantine VOC are those VOC that emerged worldwide during the 43-state collective quarantine in the United States (2020-03-11 to 2020-06-16). Post-quarantine VOC are those VOC that emerged worldwide following the collective quarantine in the United States (2020-06-16 to 2021-05-20). The comparison was done using an independent t-test. A) Partitioning days to VOC arrival in Hawai’i into quarantine (M = 320 days, SD = 45) and post-quarantine (M = 132 days, SD = 21) time periods demonstrates that quarantine delayed the arrival of VOC to Hawai’i (t(45) = 17.38, p = 1.38e-21). B) For Utah, a state that did not quarantine during the 43-state collective quarantine, a difference is also demonstrated between the two time periods (quarantine M = 285 days, SD = 71; post-quarantine M = 116 days, SD = 40) regarding time to VOC arrival (t(40) = 9.37, p = 1.2e-11). C) Comparing Hawai’i and Utah by the quarantine time period demonstrates that Hawai’i (M = 320 days, SD = 45), a quarantine state, saw a greater delay in days to VOC arrival compared to Utah (M = 285 days, SD = 71), a non-quarantine state (t(47) = 2.11, p = 0.04). D) Comparing Hawai’i and Utah by the post-quarantine time period demonstrates no difference between Hawai’i (M = 132 days, SD = 40) and Utah (M = 116 days, SD = 40) (t(38) = 1.59, p = 0.12) in days to VOC arrival. Created with RStudio version 1.3.1093 (R version 4.0.3) using ggplot2 and ggstatsplot packages. The final figure was created with BioRender.com.

Discussion

Precision public health genomics has been a tool in past outbreaks that has yet to be applied for the COVID-19 pandemic. These data and the method serve as a foundation for policy-makers to apply precision public health genomics tools by discerning trends related to the source of SARS-CoV-2 introductions. By identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, policies can be reasonably constructed with evidence-based decisions.

The origins of variants of concern in Hawai’i

Fourteen geographical locations are definable as the origin of SARS-CoV-2 VOC in Hawai’i. From the most to the least VOC introductions in Hawai’i, these locations are California (174 introduced VOC), Washington (19), Texas (10), Louisiana (6), United Kingdom (5), Pennsylvania (4), Colorado (2), Florida (1), Arizona (1), Illinois (1), Indiana (1), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), Ohio (1) and Oregon (1).

The MRCA branch to the sequences from Hawai’i indicates that the B.1.429, B.1.427, and B.1.1.7 VOCs were introduced into Hawai’i independently at different times from the aforementioned states in the continental United States. The B.1.351 VOC was introduced to Hawai’i from the United Kingdom. The overwhelming majority of the VOC entering Hawai’i are exclusively from California. In 2020, 27% of all travelers to Hawai’i originated from California, with 53% coming from the West Coast. Further, Hawai’i residents traveled to the West Coast, specifically Las Vegas, Nevada [1, 28, 29].

Defining VOC using genetic characterization

As an effect of performing the origin defining method, described in the methods section, the MSA of all unambiguous VOC genomes can characterize the genome of VOC. Additionally, with this method, we can robustly compare the genomic similarities and differences between VOC. Within the S gene of the B.1.1.7 VOC, there are nine nucleotide and amino acid changes compared to the wild-type. These are Δ69–70, ΔY144, N501Y, A570D, D614G, P681H, T716I, S982A, and D1118H. Within the S gene of the B.1.427 and B.1.429 VOC, there is a consensus of four non-synonymous amino acid substitutions: S13I, W152C, L452R, D614G. Also, the S gene of the B.1.351 VOC encodes eight substitutions or deletions: D80A, D215G, Δ242–244, K417N, E484K, N501Y, D614G, and A701V. Further, the B.1.351 contains a substitution in the E gene (P71L) that results in the slightly stabilizing, based on the changes of Gibbs free energy, loss of a proline in the envelope protein [30]. The envelope protein was recently shown to interact with TLR2 and initiate inflammatory response [31]. Prolines are known to be involved in beta-turns, and the P71L substitution could significantly change the secondary and tertiary protein structures. This proline loss is striking for vaccines, since some vaccines effective against wild-type SARS-CoV-2, have diminished efficacy against the B.1.351 variant [32, 33].

Efforts to understand variants still focus primarily on identifying the effect of individual mutations and substitutions. Many of the other mutations have yet to be evaluated experimentally, either individually or in concert with the D614G substitution. The ubiquitous D614G substitution increases the fitness of SARS-CoV-2, even at the cost of increased susceptibility to neutralization [3436]. As such, SARS-CoV-2 has been evolving, and substitutions in the B.1.351 VOC and P.2 variant of interest (VOI), such as the E484K, are shown to confer resistance to neutralization and exhibit 50% increased transmission [37, 38]. Recent publications focused on L452R mutation demonstrate significant decrease in the effectiveness of mAb treatments and neutralization by convalescent and vaccine sera [39, 40]. Other mutated genes within VOC are orf1ab, ORF3a, M, ORF8, and N, as well as two introns. Mutations and substitutions in these genes and proteins, annotated in Table 2, are enigmatic, and warrant further studies. Conclusively, what is certain is that tracking the spread of these VOC, and determining the effects of their substitutions, is paramount in the effort to control the pandemic.

Ambiguous sequences

This method demonstrates the need for high-quality sequencing and the need for enrichment and deep coverage. For example, the first B.1.429 sequence deposited from Hawai’i was from a sample collected on December 31, 2020 (EPI_ISL_967766) is presently unusable. Without resequencing the whole genome or filling in with Sanger sequencing, this sequence is currently not of use in phylogenetics and origin determination due to ambiguous nucleotides in the S gene. While uninformative sequences may be useful for tracking the emergence of individual mutations, they are not useful in tracking VOC.

Public policy recommendations and impacts

Precision public health genomics is a public health policy tool to track the spread of viruses. In the age of fast-evolving digital information, precision public health genomics became prominent during the West Africa Ebola outbreak from 2014–2016 [41]. This tool has not been efficiently and effectively used during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the overwhelming worldwide sequencing effort. A testament to this effort is the deposition of over 18 million SARS-CoV-2 WGS in the GenBank and GISAID since January 2020. For precision public health genomics to be effective during the COVID-19 pandemic, high-throughput sequencing and high-speed, low-cost sequence data analysis, and robust phylogenetics are necessary. Also, a fast, effective, consistent, and economical method is required to analyze the vast amount of SARS-CoV-2 sequences and determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2 VOC and lineages in populations worldwide.

As the scientific community continues to understand the vaccine and healthcare consequences of VOC, of crucial importance is to control and limit the spread of these VOC. Policy-makers should first ascertain the source of the spread before they can control and limit the spread of future VOC. By understanding the source responsible for the highest number of cases, policy-makers can look at interactions between that area and the host area, identify the reasons for the spread, and address those with appropriate measures both in the present and future COVID-19 waves. After policy-makers contain the source, healthcare providers will treat patients with the most effective therapy, and vaccines will uphold their efficacy. However, without such precision public health genomics in practice, society risks losing progress in the fight against this pandemic. As only 5.4% of the global population is fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as of May 28, 2021 [42], the possibility of new infections, even in vaccinated populations, is ever present without appropriate measures to deter the spread and evolution of SARS-CoV-2. To exemplify this healthcare point, the B.1.427 and B.1.429 are resistant to specific monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies [40, 43]. Clinically, of treatment importance, the Food and Drug Administration and California Department of Health and Human Services have stopped using Bamlanivimab due to reduced clinical activity against the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants [43]. Furthermore, the B.1.351 VOC demonstrates some resistance to mAbs, convalescent sera, and vaccine sera neutralizing antibodies, and the B.1.1.7 is resistant to some mAbs [44].

Much of Hawai’i was under a mandatory stay-at-home order (2020-03-22–2020-05-31) from the Governor of Hawai’i’s Third [45] (2020-03-22) through Eighth [46] (2020-05-18) COVID-19 Proclamation’s, with intermittent and inter-island quarantines continuing through the Thirteenth [47] (2020-09-23) Proclamation. Trans-Pacific travelers were no longer required to quarantine as of October 15, 2020 [48]. Of interest is that even though VOC were circulating worldwide, none entered Hawai’i during the stay-at-home order or intermittent quarantines; all entered after the conclusion of the Thirteenth Proclamation and the reinstatement of Trans-Pacific travel. Furthermore, the average time it took for the VOC to arrive into Hawai’i decreased from an average of 320 days to 132 days when compared between the quarantine and post-quarantine groups, respectively. The data here argues in favor of the success of the quarantine here in Hawai’i in preventing the influx of the SARS-CoV-2 VOC. Further, from 2020-03-11 to 2020-06-16, 43 states participated in a collective nationwide quarantine averaging 46 days per state, although there was no point in time where all 43 states were under simultaneous quarantine. We observed that even the seven states not participating in quarantine were able to significantly delay arrival of VOC, analogous to the “concept of herd immunity.” Furthermore, in the post-collective-quarantine period (2020/06/16–2021/05/20), wherein no states were practicing quarantine, there was no significant difference in days to VOC arrival. This finding supports the data that quarantine (2020/03/11–2020/06/16) indeed delayed the arrival of VOC. While individual states benefit from separate quarantine, the data here indicate the success and impact of collective quarantine of the 43-states within the United States.

As the purpose of this article is to facilitate evidence based public-health policy, the vast number of VOC (194/228) entering Hawai’i from the West Coast of the United States is alarming and warrants policies directed at controlling the spread of the VOC in the Hawaiian Islands.

From the analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence data, a policy-maker could reasonably consider focusing on additional screening, contact tracing, and quarantine efforts among visitors and residents arriving from and traveling to the West Coast of the continental United States. In terms of public policies and precision public health genomics, this information can direct funding into scientific studies evaluating the effects of mutations prevalent in specific populations, particularly mutations within genes that affect SARS-CoV-2 immunogenic epitopes. Policies should encourage research focusing on developing pseudoviruses [49]. and infectious clones [50] to evaluate kinetics, virulence, anatomical localization, transmission, and neutralization by mAbs, convalescent sera, and vaccine sera. Funding to conduct the aforementioned research should be directed at local and national levels.

Limitations

As SARS-CoV-2 sequences continue to be submitted retrospectively, these data will evolve. As a tool for precision public health genomics, the highest value is the trends that this method elucidates. The quarantine data will also change, this analysis is a snapshot in time.

Conclusions

These methods demonstrate the ability of precision public health genomics to identify the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the success of quarantine in Hawai’i, and the concern of emerging VOC. The conclusion from defining the origin of VOC in Hawai’i is that California is the primary source of VOC circulating in Hawai’i. Additional screening and quarantining of the travelers from California while vacationing in Hawai’i will protect the local population from evasive SARS-CoV-2 VOC. A tool was needed to evaluate and make use of the vast worldwide sequencing effort and the tool herein fills that need. Moreover, our methodology demonstrates the ability of sequencing and phylogenetic analysis to provide precision public health genomics in policy-making decisions. As SARS-CoV-2 VOC spreads asymptomatically across the United States and worldwide, it is essential to use fast and accurate SARS-CoV-2 VOC, lineage, and origin assignment for making evidence-based public-policy decisions.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Vedbar Khadka for assistance with identifying appropriate statistical tests to be used in this study. The viral genome sequences used in this publication are publicly available from GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/) and GISAID (https://gisaid.org). Tables of acknowledgments for the genome sequences from GISAID are available at: https://github.com/dpmaison/Genomic-Analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-Variants-of-Concern-Circulating-in-Hawai-i-to-Facilitate-Public-Healt.

Data Availability

The viral genome sequences used in this publication are publicly available from GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/) and GISAID (https://gisaid.org). Tables of acknowledgements for the genome sequences from GISAID are available at: https://github.com/dpmaison/Genomic-Analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-Variants-of-Concern-Circulating-in-Hawai-i-to-Facilitate-Public-Healt.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by a grant (P30GM114737-05) (V.R.N.) (https://hsrproject.nlm.nih.gov/view_hsrproj_record/20204464) from the Pacific Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Research, COBRE and a grant (P20GM103466-20S1) (V.R.N) (https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/AwardDetail?arg_AwardNum=P20GM103466&arg_ProgOfficeCode=127) from the INBRE, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH. Computation was supported by NSF grant #1920304 (S.B.C.) (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1920304&HistoricalAwards=false) on the University of Hawai’i MANA High Performance Computing Cluster. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

Decision Letter 0

Ming Zhang

15 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-19856

Genomic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Circulating in Hawai’i to Facilitate Public-Health Policies

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maison,

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 Aug 27 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,

Ming Zhang

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 Figure 2 in your submission contain map 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 Figure 2 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/

3. 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.

[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: This paper focuses on analyzing the VOCs that have been found in Hawaií and performs an analysis of the VOC variants to determine their point of origin. The authors also analyze the case numbers during quarantine and post quarantine in an attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of quarantine in delaying the entry of VOC to Hawaií, which was, (unsurprisingly) confirmed through analysis and comparison with Utah.

The strength of the paper is the thoroughness of the analysis of the genomic data available for the VOCs in Hawaii and the comparison to the VOCs worldwide from banked genomic data. The methods and the analysis of the genomic data is very well presented and explained.

What I feel the authors could improve is the background information to help the general reader better understand the significance and impact of the data presented. In particular, I would suggest that the authors rewrite the introduction to describe the general epidemiological trends of COVID infection in Hawaií, and also provide more details of what is meant by ‘quarantine’ as this has different guidelines in different countries. This would then provide the readers with a better background heading into the core findings and be able to better appreciate the findings. In the intro line 52 to 63 reads like content better suited to the discussion than the introduction?

I would also suggest that in terms of the discussion there are a few other points the authors may wish to briefly mention in the writing and discussion – it is of course of great epidemiological significance to identify the source of infection to understand the pattern of infection and global spread, however I would argue that the authors assertions (line 467) that the source of infection must be ascertained before steps can be taken may be overstating the case as by that time the case is already in, and it may be more appropriate to argue that understanding the origin of cases (eg highest from California) may be a reason to look at the processes in that country or in the infection control measures in place in that country for review? With regard to line 367 where the authors have highlighted that the highest number came from California I would suggest inferring some suggestions as to why – did California have different regulations on COVID control? Or was it because more people entering Hawaií were from California? Ideas about this then provide more guidance to public health measures at appropriate points in the chain of transmission. In addition, while limiting case numbers is of paramount concern, economic and social considerations also are a factor in deciding on the measure to implement - meaning the data and statistics here are a key consideration, but they are not the only ones.

Reviewer #2: dear author,

this paper is much appreciable and it gives the origin and spread of variants of SARS Cov-2 in different areas.

methods should have been simplified with flowchart or something. then it would be easy to reproduce by some other .

********** 

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: Priyia Pusparajah

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. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278287.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Oct 2022

Editor Comments 1 (09/26/2022):

Comment 1:

1. Thank you for your response regarding the potential copyright of your Figures. We note that you have contacted the copyright holder directly. Given what we have seen in the postscript, their approval should be enough to proceed.

At this time, please upload screenshots of your email correspondence with the copyright holder with your resubmission, and this should be good to proceed.

Response 1:

We thank the editors for this comment. Figures generated with the usmap package have been restored and the email correspondence with the copyright holder has been included.

Editor Comments 2 (09/09/2022):

Comment 1:

1. 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 updated Funding Information.

Response 1:

We thank the editor for this comment. The Funding Information has been updated to match the Financial Disclosure.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 2:

2. We note that several of your files are duplicated on your submission. Please remove any unnecessary or old files from your revision, and make sure that only those relevant to the current version of the manuscript are included.

Response 2:

We thank the editor for this comment. The duplicate files have been removed. The old files have been removed.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 3:

3. Thank you for your response regarding the potential copyright of your Figures. Unfortunately, at this time, it appears that the package usmap uses the GPL license, which is not compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. As such, please note the below prompts:

A. Was the usmap package used for both Figure 2 and Figure 3?

B. For any Figure that used the usmap package, we will require specific consent from the copyright holder to publish these images in PLOS ONE, under the CC BY 4.0 license. To seek permission from the copyright owner to publish your map figures under the specific Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), CC BY 4.0, please contact them with the following text and PLOS ONE Request for Permission form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf):

“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.”

Please upload the granted permission to the manuscript as an other file. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Republished from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

Please note that RightsLink permission forms often impose use restrictions that are incompatible with our CC BY 4.0 license, and we are therefore unable to accept these permissions. For this reason, we strongly recommend contacting copyright holders with the PLOS ONE Request for Permission form.

If you are unable to obtain permission from the copyright holder, please either A) remove the figure or B) 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.

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

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

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

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)

Maps at the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/refmaps.html)

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

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

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

Response 3:

We thank the editor for this comment. A) Yes, the usmap package was used for both figure 2 and 3. We have removed all images generated with the usmap package and have replaced the images with those acquired from the recommended Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/).

_________________________________________________________________________

Editor Comments 3 (07/15/2022):

Comment 1:

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.

Response 1:

We thank the editor for this recommendation. We have submitted the protocol to protocols.io with the following DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.x54v9yqz4g3e/v1 (Private link for reviewers: https://www.protocols.io/private/3136D4A315E611ED832E0A58A9FEAC02 to be removed before publication.). We will release the protocol publicly after the manuscript is accepted for publication.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 2:

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

Response 2:

We thank the editor for this comment. The manuscript has been updated to meet PLOS ONE style requirements.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 3:

2. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map 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 Figure 2 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/

Response 3:

We thank the editor for this comment and recommendations. We have opted to replace the image and have produced the images ourselves using open-source R with usmap and ggplot2 packages.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 4:

3. 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.

Response 4:

We thank the editor for this comment. All references have been either confirmed or updated.

6. O’Toole Á, Scher E, Underwood A, Jackson B, Hill V, McCrone J, et al. pangolin: lineage assignment in an emerging pandemic as an epidemiological tool. In: PANGO lineages [Internet]. 2021 [cited 11 Mar 2021]. Available: github.com/cov-lineages/pangolin

Has been published since our original submission and has been replaced with:

6. O’Toole Á, Scher E, Underwood A, Jackson B, Hill V, McCrone JT, et al. Assignment of epidemiological lineages in an emerging pandemic using the pangolin tool. Virus Evolution. 2021;7: veab064. doi:10.1093/ve/veab064

16. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical ## computing. [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

Has been updated to:

16. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available: https://www.R-project.org/

17. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2nd ed. 2016. Cham: Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Springer; 2016. 1 p. (Use R!).

Has been updated to:

17. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. Available from: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org

28. Scobie H. Update on Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Vaccine Considerations. 2021 May 12;30.

Has been updated to:

28. Scobie H. Update on Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Vaccine Considerations. 2021 May 12. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/10-COVID-Scobie-508.pdf

33. Jangra S, Ye C, Rathnasinghe R, Stadlbauer D, PVI study group, Krammer F, et al. The E484K mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces but does not abolish neutralizing activity of human convalescent and post-vaccination sera. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2021 Jan. doi:10.1101/2021.01.26.21250543

Has been published since our original submission and has been replaced with:

33. Jangra S, Ye C, Rathnasinghe R, Stadlbauer D, Personalized Virology Initiative study group, Krammer F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike E484K mutation reduces antibody neutralisation. Lancet Microbe. 2021;2: e283–e284. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00068-9

35. Deng X, Garcia-Knight MA, Khalid MM, Servellita V, Wang C, Morris MK, et al. Transmission, infectivity, and antibody neutralization of an emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant in California carrying a L452R spike protein mutation. medRxiv. 2021; 2021.03.07.21252647. doi:10.1101/2021.03.07.21252647

Has been published since our original submission and has been replaced with:

35. Deng X, Garcia-Knight MA, Khalid MM, Servellita V, Wang C, Morris MK, et al. Transmission, infectivity, and neutralization of a spike L452R SARS-CoV-2 variant. Cell. 2021;184: 3426-3437.e8. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.025

36. Li Q, Wu J, Nie J, Zhang L, Hao H, Liu S, et al. The Impact of Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Spike on Viral Infectivity and Antigenicity. Cell (Cambridge). 2020;182: 1284-1294.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.07.012

Has been updated to:

36. Li Q, Wu J, Nie J, Zhang L, Hao H, Liu S, et al. The Impact of Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Spike on Viral Infectivity and Antigenicity. Cell. 2020;182: 1284-1294.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.07.012

38. Aragón TJ, Newsom G. California Department of Public Health - Health Alert: Concerns re: the Use of Bamlanivimab Monotherapy in the Setting of SARS-CoV2 Variants. 2021; 4.

Has been updated to:

38. Aragón TJ, Newsom G. California Department of Public Health - Health Alert: Concerns re: the Use of Bamlanivimab Monotherapy in the Setting of SARS-CoV2 Variants. 2021. Available from: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eprp/lahan/alerts/CAHANBamlanivimabandSARSCoV2Variants.pdf

The following has been removed due to being revoked:

39. Moruf A. Fact Sheet For Health Care Providers Emergency Use Authorization (Eua) Of Bamlanivimab. 2021; 26.

_________________________________________________________________________

[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:

Comment 1:

Reviewer #1: This paper focuses on analyzing the VOCs that have been found in Hawaií and performs an analysis of the VOC variants to determine their point of origin. The authors also analyze the case numbers during quarantine and post quarantine in an attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of quarantine in delaying the entry of VOC to Hawaií, which was, (unsurprisingly) confirmed through analysis and comparison with Utah.

The strength of the paper is the thoroughness of the analysis of the genomic data available for the VOCs in Hawaii and the comparison to the VOCs worldwide from banked genomic data. The methods and the analysis of the genomic data is very well presented and explained.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for these comments.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 2:

What I feel the authors could improve is the background information to help the general reader better understand the significance and impact of the data presented. In particular, I would suggest that the authors rewrite the introduction to describe the general epidemiological trends of COVID infection in Hawaií, and also provide more details of what is meant by ‘quarantine’ as this has different guidelines in different countries. This would then provide the readers with a better background heading into the core findings and be able to better appreciate the findings. In the intro line 52 to 63 reads like content better suited to the discussion than the introduction?

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for these comments. In the revised manuscript, lines 52 to 63 have been moved to the discussion and we have addressed the remaining comments as follows:

“Hawaii has experienced unique epidemics within the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in that Pacific Islanders, which account for 4% of the population, once accounted for nearly 30% of COVID-19 cases.(1) Further, the Japanese population of Hawaii currently accounts for 6% of the population and experiences 15% of COVID-19 cases. White persons, in contrast, account for 37% of the population and 25% of the cases.(2) As such, a heightened need exists to understand SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Hawaii and the effect of public policy measures. Early in the pandemic, in an attempt to control the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Hawaii, like 42 other states in the United States, implemented a quarantine defined by “Stay-at-Home” orders. State-at-Home orders directed residents to stay inside homes except for essential needs and closed operations of non-essential businesses.(3) In addition to this public policy, more than 22,300 SARS-CoV-2 sequences submitted to GISAID and GenBank originate from Hawaii to facilitate further studies.”

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 3:

I would also suggest that in terms of the discussion there are a few other points the authors may wish to briefly mention in the writing and discussion – it is of course of great epidemiological significance to identify the source of infection to understand the pattern of infection and global spread, however I would argue that the authors assertions (line 467) that the source of infection must be ascertained before steps can be taken may be overstating the case as by that time the case is already in, and it may be more appropriate to argue that understanding the origin of cases (eg highest from California) may be a reason to look at the processes in that country or in the infection control measures in place in that country for review?

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this discussion and argument. We have made the statement less assertive and included the reasoning provided in this comment in the revised manuscript as follows:

“Policy-makers should first ascertain the source of the spread before they can control and limit the spread of future VOC. By understanding the source responsible for the highest number of cases, policy-makers can look at interactions between that area and the host area, the policies in that area, identify the reasons for the spread, and address those reasons with appropriate measures both in the present and in future COVID-19 waves.”

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 4:

With regard to line 367 where the authors have highlighted that the highest number came from California I would suggest inferring some suggestions as to why – did California have different regulations on COVID control? Or was it because more people entering Hawaií were from California? Ideas about this then provide more guidance to public health measures at appropriate points in the chain of transmission. In addition, while limiting case numbers is of paramount concern, economic and social considerations also are a factor in deciding on the measure to implement - meaning the data and statistics here are a key consideration, but they are not the only ones.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this comment and suggestion. We have addressed this in the revised manuscript as follows:

In 2020, 27% of all travelers to Hawai’i originated from California, with 53% coming from the West Coast. Further, Hawai’i residents traveled to the West Coast, specifically Las Vegas, Nevada.(1,28,29)

However, the following is additional information:

“From the analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence data, a policy-maker could reasonably consider focusing on additional screening, contact tracing, and quarantine efforts among visitors and residents arriving from and traveling to the West Coast of the continental United States. There are several possible reasons for this vast majority of SARS-COV-2 influx from the US West Coast. In 2020, 27% of all travelers to Hawaii originated from California, with 53% coming from the West Coast. California's biggest domestic traveling demographic is in-state travel, meaning that the state likely spreads SARS-CoV-2 efficiently and uniformly within California.(44) Second, Hawaii residents traveling to the West Coast and returning home once infected with the virus. The first case of COVID-19 in Hawaii and the first case of the Delta variant were brought to Hawaii by residents (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) returning from travel (from Mexico and Nevada, respectively).(45–47) Additionally, 62% of early cases in Hawaii were in either visitors to Hawaii or returning residents.(47) There are presumably additional factors that participated in the 76% of SARS-CoV-2 VOC attributable to California. Regardless, policymakers must evaluate these possible collective factors and social and economic implications together to determine the appropriate public-policy action.”

_________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer #2: dear author,

Comment 1:

this paper is much appreciable and it gives the origin and spread of variants of SARS Cov-2 in different areas.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this comment.

_________________________________________________________________________

Comment 2:

methods should have been simplified with flowchart or something. then it would be easy to reproduce by some other .

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have added a flowchart as a figure and have uploaded the method to protocols.io.

_________________________________________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal_09.26.2022.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ming Zhang

15 Nov 2022

Genomic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Circulating in Hawai’i to Facilitate Public-Health Policies

PONE-D-21-19856R1

Dear Dr. Maison,

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,

Ming Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ming Zhang

21 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-19856R1

Genomic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Circulating in Hawai’i to Facilitate Public-Health Policies

Dear Dr. Maison:

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. Ming Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_09.26.2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The viral genome sequences used in this publication are publicly available from GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/) and GISAID (https://gisaid.org). Tables of acknowledgements for the genome sequences from GISAID are available at: https://github.com/dpmaison/Genomic-Analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-Variants-of-Concern-Circulating-in-Hawai-i-to-Facilitate-Public-Healt.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES