mteb/CovidQA huggingface dataset:
Based on the budget, a season-stratified sample of 250 swabs was randomly selected in order to describe circulating viruses including outside flu season. Random sampling was performed with Excel 1 using the anonymized surveillance database of the Cire OI. The sampling frame contained identification number of swab assigned by Cire OI, laboratory identification number, sex, age, date of onset of symptoms, date of swab collection and result of influenza RT-PCR.
We used Respifinder 1 Smart 22 kits a multiplex RT-PCR (PathoFinder, Maastricht, The Netherlands) which can detect 22 respiratory pathogens. This assay is based on the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) technology. The reverse transcription and preamplification steps were performed on the epgradient Mastercycler 1 (Eppendorf) and the hybridization, ligation and detection steps on the LightCycler 1 480 system (Roche Applied Science). This method was chosen because of its high specificity, compared to other same methods (78% versus 33%) [3, 11] . Multiplex analysis allows for rapid production of diagnostic results. It thus allows highlighted the possible presence of eighteen respiratory viruses and four bacteria in one reaction by melt curve analysis: Influenza A not (H1N1
Statistical analyses were performed with Stata 1 and Excel 1 . Two seasons were defined to identify possible seasonal trends in circulation of the viruses: winter season during weeks 23 to 39 between June and September and summer season during the rest of the year.

Data and swabs result from a surveillance system that received regulatory approvals, including the CNIL (National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties Number 1592205) approval in July 2012. All the patients have received oral information and gave their consent for swab and data collection. Data were collected for surveillance purpose and are totally anonymous.
Among the 250 randomly-selected swabs, 26 were not available anymore as they were sent to Influenza Reference Center for confirmation and characterization of the pathogenic agent. According to the sensitivity of the assay two samples could be discordant results between Influenza PCR initially realized and Multiplex PCR. Thus they were deleted from the analysis: one is positive for Influenza in singleplex and negative for all tested pathogens in multiplex and one is positive for Influenza in singleplex and positive for PIV2 in multiplex. In total, 222 analyses were considered. Moreover, 53 samples were negative for all analyzed respiratory pathogens (23.9%) and 169 samples had at least one detected pathogen (76.1%), finally a total of 178 pathogens was identified.

During the study period, a minority of the weeks (21 i.e. 20%) did not include any sampled swab, mainly outside flu season.
Patients' sex-ratio was 0.63 (86 men and 136 women) and mean age was 28.4 years [min 0; max 81]. Ten percent had less than 5 years, 24% 5-15 years, 63% 15-65 years and only 3% were 65 and older.

The respiratory pathogens most frequently identified in ILI swabs were rhinovirus (23.4%), influenza A not H1N1 (21.2%) and influenza B (12.6%) ( Table 1) .

Among the 22 respiratory pathogens tested by the multiplex, only three were not found in any analyzed sample: Parainfluenza3, Legionella pneumophila and Bordetella pertussis.

Regarding co-infections, nine swabs revealed the presence of two viruses, among which6 involved influenza viruses (Table 2) .
Analyses showed that some viruses are possibly seasonal and were circulating during a specific period of the year. They are detected only in summer for Human Metapneumovirus, RSV A and B, and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. For the latter, it is specific to the studied period since the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus reappeared in Réunion Island in October 2012 and was no longer circulating since late 2010. On the opposite, Parainfluenza 1,2 and 4 viruses were identified only in winter. For other pathogens, no specific period of detection was observed.
A weekly description of samples was realized to study the distribution of respiratory pathogens in 2011 and 2012 (Fig 1) . Results of biological analyses were compared with data of ILI consultations declared by sentinel GPs in 2011 and 2012. We observed in 2011, after a first wave in June mainly due to influenza A not H1N1 virus, a second wave of ILI consultations with mainly identification of Parainfluenza viruses and not influenza viruses. In 2012, the second epidemic wave at the end of austral winter coincided with Influenza viruses and Rhinovirus circulation.

Regarding negative swabs (Fig 2) , we observed no seasonality during the study period with a similar proportion whatever the season.
This retrospective study based on a sentinel GPs network showed that not only influenza viruses are responsible for ILI consultations. Indeed, an important circulation of multiple pathogens was observed throughout the year, with 12 different types of pathogens identified in 2011 and 2012. Respiratory viral pathogens were present in 76.1% of samples, which is largely above results from annual influenza surveillance [12] . After influenza viruses, Rhinovirus and Coronavirus were the most common respiratory viruses in Réunion Island. Although samples were not taken every week, sample was representative of ILI activity and consistent with flu season. Nevertheless, according to the low number of samples, it is difficult to conclude about seasonality. However in our study, RSV was circulating in summer season which is hot and rainy, which is confirmed by other studies in tropical region [13] .
This study also highlighted several co-infections, showing that concomitant the multiple etiology of ILI. Co-circulation was already observed in Réunion Island during the A(H1N1) pdm09 pandemic in addition to influenza virus, with identification of other respiratory viruses such as Rhinovirus or Coronavirus [14] . In mainland France, during this pandemic, circulation of major respiratory viruses was found, such as Rhinovirus, Parainfluenza, Coronavirus, Human Metapneumovirus, like in our publication [15] [16] . In our study, only 5.3% of positive swabs were co-infections whereas in two studies in Madagascar co-infections represented 27.3% and 29.4% [17] [18] .
Despite the distance of 9,300 km between Réunion and France, the island is directly connected to Europe with four daily flights to France. These exchanges can impact respiratory pathogens circulation in southern and northern hemisphere. Results of this study can therefore be of interest to both Indian Ocean and Europe countries.

Among the 148 swabs initially negative for influenza because not previously tested for any other viruses, the study found an etiology for 95 swabs. In total, only 53 swabs, representing 24% of the sample, remained without etiology with negative multiplex PCR results all along the year. Multiple hypotheses can explain this result: a poor quality of swabs, preventing from identifying a pathogen, noninfectious causes or other pathogens not included in the multiplex PCR. However, we couldn't test the negative swabs for RNAse P, a marker of human cells, which could provide a modicum of assurance that the swab contained human cells.
Concerning the two samples divergent for influenza identification between the multiplex and singleplex PCR, we discarded them for the analysis; one was positive in Influenza with singleplex and positive in PIV with multiplex. It could be a false positive result from singleplex. Indeed, as the multiplex PCR assay has a good sensitivity and is considered as a gold-standard, we decided to keep seven negative results for Influenza in singleplex and positive in Influenza in multiplex [7] [8] [9] [10] .

No case of Bordetella pertussis which causes whooping cough and Legionella pneumophila which causes Legionnaires' disease was identified in this study. However, these diseases are rare in Réunion Island, around three cases of Legionnaires' disease are declared each year.
A limit of the study is that no clinical data were available in the virological surveillance system of influenza in Réunion Island. It was impossible to compare clinical symptoms according to each pathogen and to know if there are different pathogens which cause for instance rhinitis, laryngitis or bronchitis (diseases included in ILI). A specific prospective study including clinical data might provide useful elements in the semiotics of diseases.
In conclusion, this study highlighted an important circulation of multiple pathogens in Réunion Island throughout the year. It shows that ILI is not specific to influenza and so it is essential to have biological results in order to establish the differential diagnosis and thus explain the etiology of symptoms. For a better understanding of respiratory pathogens circulating in Réunion Island, information from this study may also be useful to practitioners who see many patients in consultation with ILI. As the use of multiplex RT-PCR showed its efficacy in the ILI surveillance and allowed to highlight the circulation of other viruses and bacterial causes of respiratory infections, it is now used routinely in the surveillance of ILI. Moreover, it would be interesting to repeat this study every 3 or 5 years adding clinical data to monitor the evolution of respiratory pathogens in Réunion Island over time.
No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054935/

SHA: 5a9154aee79901dd8fecd58b7bcd9b7351102d24

Authors: Liu, Shan-Lu; Saif, Linda J.; Weiss, Susan R.; Su, Lishan
Date: 2020-02-26
DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440
License: cc-by

Abstract: nan

Text: The emergence and outbreak of a newly discovered acute respiratory disease in Wuhan, China, has affected greater than 40,000 people, and killed more than 1,000 as of Feb. 10, 2020. A new human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was quickly identified, and the associated disease is now referred to as coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 (COVID-19) (https://globalbiodefense. com/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-portal/).
According to what has been reported [1] [2] [3] , COVID-2019 seems to have similar clinical manifestations to that of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by SARS-CoV. The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence also has ∼80% identity with SARS-CoV, but it is most similar to some bat beta-coronaviruses, with the highest being >96% identity [4, 5] .
Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared ∼96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2 [4] . However, as we know, the human SARS-CoV and intermediate host palm civet SARSlike CoV shared 99.8% homology, with a total of 202 single-nucleotide (nt) variations (SNVs) identified across the genome [6] . Given that there are greater than 1,100 nt differences between the human SARS-CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13-CoV [4] , which are distributed throughout the genome in a naturally occurring pattern following the evolutionary characteristics typical of CoVs, it is highly unlikely that RaTG13 CoV is the immediate source of SARS-CoV-2. The absence of a logical targeted pattern in the new viral sequences and a close relative in a wildlife species (bats) are the most revealing signs that
SARS-CoV-2 evolved by natural evolution. A search for an intermediate animal host between bats and humans is needed to identify animal CoVs more closely related to human SARS-CoV-2. There is speculation that pangolins might carry CoVs closely related to SARS-CoV-2, but the data to substantiate this is not yet published (https:// www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00364-2).
Another claim in Chinese social media points to a Nature Medicine paper published in 2015 [7] , which reports the construction of a chimeric CoV with a bat CoV S gene (SHC014) in the backbone of a SARS CoV that has adapted to infect mice (MA15) and is capable of infecting human cells [8] . However, this claim lacks any scientific basis and must be discounted because of significant divergence in the genetic sequence of this construct with the new SARS-CoV-2 (>5,000 nucleotides).

The mouse-adapted SARS virus (MA15) [9] was generated by serial passage of an infectious wildtype SARS CoV clone in the respiratory tract of BALB/c mice. After 15 passages in mice, the SARS-CoV gained elevated replication and lung pathogenesis in aged mice (hence M15), due to six coding genetic mutations associated with mouse adaptation. It is likely that MA15 is highly attenuated to replicate in human cells or patients due to the mouse adaptation.
It was proposed that the S gene from bat-derived CoV, unlike that from human patients-or civetsderived viruses, was unable to use human ACE2 as a receptor for entry into human cells [10, 11] . Civets were proposed to be an intermediate host of the bat-CoVs, capable of spreading SARS CoV to humans [6, 12] . However, in 2013 several novel bat coronaviruses were isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats and the bat SARS-like or SL-CoV-WIV1 was able to use ACE2 from humans, civets and Chinese horseshoe bats for entry [8] . Combined with evolutionary evidence that the bat ACE2 gene has been positively selected at the same contact sites as the human ACE2 gene for interacting with SARS CoV [13] , it was proposed that an intermediate host may not be necessary and that some bat SL-CoVs may be able to directly infect human hosts. To directly address this possibility, the exact S gene from bat coronavirus SL-SHC014 was synthesized and used to generate a chimeric virus in the mouse adapted MA15
SARS-CoV backbone. The resultant SL-SHC014-MA15 virus could indeed efficiently use human ACE2 and replicate in primary human airway cells to similar titres as epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. While SL-SHC014-MA15 can replicate efficiently in young and aged mouse lungs, infection was attenuated, and less virus antigen was present in the airway epithelium as compared to SARS MA15, which causes lethal outcomes in aged mice [7] .
Due to the elevated pathogenic activity of the SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus relative to MA15 chimeric virus with the original human SARS S gene in mice, such experiments with SL-SHC014-MA15 chimeric virus were later restricted as gain of function (GOF) studies under the US government-mandated pause policy (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-weare/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pausegain-function-research). The current COVID-2019 epidemic has restarted the debate over the risks of constructing such viruses that could have pandemic potential, irrespective of the finding that these bat CoVs already exist in nature. Regardless, upon careful phylogenetic analyses by multiple international groups [5, 14] , the SARS-CoV-2 is undoubtedly distinct from SL-SHC014-MA15, with >6,000 nucleotide differences across the whole genome. Therefore, once again there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 is derived from the chimeric SL-SHC014-MA15 virus.
There are also rumours that the SARS-CoV-2 was artificially, or intentionally, made by humans in the lab, and this is highlighted in one manuscript submitted to BioRxiv (a manuscript sharing site prior to any peer review), claiming that SARS-CoV-2 has HIV sequence in it and was thus likely generated in the laboratory. In a rebuttal paper led by an HIV-1 virologist Dr. Feng Gao, they used careful bioinformatics analyses to demonstrate that the original claim of multiple HIV insertions into the SARS-CoV-2 is not HIV-1 specific but random [15] . Because of the many concerns raised by the international community, the authors who made the initial claim have already withdrawn this report.
Evolution is stepwise and accrues mutations gradually over time, whereas synthetic constructs would typically use a known backbone and introduce logical or targeted changes instead of the randomly occurring mutations that are present in naturally isolated viruses such as bat CoV RaTG13. In our view, there is currently no credible evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a laboratory-engineered CoV. It is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a recombinant CoV generated in nature between a bat CoV and another coronavirus in an intermediate animal host. More studies are needed to explore this possibility and resolve the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. We should emphasize that, although SARS-CoV-2 shows no evidence of laboratory origin, viruses with such great public health threats must be handled properly in the laboratory and also properly regulated by the scientific community and governments.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Susan R. Weiss http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8155-4528
Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors – friend or foe?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542731/

SHA: f5bdf18567bb3760e1ce05008135f0270badbd5c

Authors: Saxena, Manvendra; Van, Thi Thu Hao; Baird, Fiona J.; Coloe, Peter J.; Smooker, Peter M.
Date: 2013-01-27
DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.049601-0
License: cc-by
Abstract: Over the last century, the successful attenuation of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens has led to an effective, robust and safe form of vaccination. Recently, these vaccines have been evaluated as delivery vectors for heterologous antigens, as a means of simultaneous vaccination against two pathogens. The general consensus from published studies is that these vaccine vectors have the potential to be both safe and efficacious. However, some of the commonly employed vectors, for example Salmonella and adenovirus, often have pre-existing immune responses in the host and this has the potential to modify the subsequent immune response to a vectored antigen. This review examines the literature on this topic, and concludes that for bacterial vectors there can in fact, in some cases, be an enhancement in immunogenicity, typically humoral, while for viral vectors pre-existing immunity is a hindrance for subsequent induction of cell-mediated responses.
Text: In the fields of medicine and veterinary medicine, there are numerous live, attenuated bacterial and viral vaccines in use today worldwide. The safety and efficacy of such vaccines is well established and allows further development as vector systems to deliver antigen originating from other pathogens. Various attenuated bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), specifically Lactococcus lactis, Mycobacterium, Listeria, Shigella and Salmonella, have been tested for the targeted delivery of heterologous antigens of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin into a variety of animal hosts (Bahey-El-Din et al., 2010; Innocentin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2011; Tobias et al., 2008 Tobias et al., , 2010 Tobias & Svennerholm, 2012) . Bacteria such as E. coli and lactic acid bacteria have recently gained favour, as E. coli is a commensal and lactic acid bacteria are present in most fermented food items and are therefore naturally present in the
host. They are also a much safer option than traditional attenuated vaccines in children and immunecompromised people. As this review discusses the effects of pre-existing immune responses to attenuated vaccines, further discussion of LAB and E. coli as potential vectors will not be undertaken; however, the reader is directed to several interesting reviews (Bermú dez-Humarán et al., 2011; Wells & Mercenier, 2008) . Intracellular bacteria from the genera Mycobacterium (Guleria et al., 1996) , Listeria (Gentschev et al., 2001) , Shigella (Levine et al., 1997) and Salmonella (Dougan et al., 1987) are considered to be suitable candidates for the delivery of vaccine antigens due to their capability to induce robust T cell immune responses (Alderton et al., 1991; Lo et al., 1999; Mastroeni et al., 2001; Mittrücker & Kaufmann, 2000; Nauciel, 1990) . Salmonella is one genus that has been well examined as a vector, building on the extensive research available on the micro-organism's physiology
and pathogenesis (Basso et al., 2000; Killeen & DiRita, 2000; Sirard et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999) . There exist several commercial vaccines that are used as anti-Salmonella vaccines in humans and animals (e.g. Ty21a for typhoid fever in humans, several Salmonella serovars against salmonellosis in chickens and other animals). The general strategy for vectoring heterologous antigen is depicted in Fig. 1 . The first clinical trial of a recombinant, which was conducted over 20 years ago using an attenuated Salmonella as a delivery vector, led to the widespread testing of this bacterium as a mucosal delivery system for antigens from non-Salmonella pathogens (Dougan et al., 1987) . These studies have demonstrated the utility of live bacteria to deliver expressed antigens and DNA vaccines to the host immune system (Atkins et al., 2006; Husseiny & Hensel, 2008; Jiang et al., 2004; Kirby et al., 2004) . Since then several other intracellular bacterial vectors have been successfully tested
for their capability to deliver a variety of antigens from various pathogens, as well as vaccination against cancer. One genus which has been widely tested as vector is Listeria. Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) .
Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli &
Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated