ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
SARS-CoV-2 intra-host evolution during acute infection in COVID-19 patients.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The intra-host evolution represents the mechanism causing the continued emergence of new, highly divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants. The aim of this work was to investigate the intra-host evolution to ass the conditions associated with the acquisition of new viral mutations. Methods: Whole genome sequences of 58 cases of COVID-19 with 2 or more consecutive positive swabs were analyzed. Variant calling and minority mutations analysis were performed using Nextclade and Stanford Coronavirus Antiviral & Resistance Database. Results: Fifty-seven subjects were hospitalized for a median of 23 days, and 12 died (20.7%) after a median of 25 days. 78.9% (45/58) were vaccinated and 22.4% (13/58) received more than one treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection. None reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Negativization period showed longer intervals in BQ.1 infections (38.5 days) and shorter in BA.1 infections (16.5 days). Comparing the first positive swab to the second swab (T1 and T2), 36.7 and 38.8% decreased/increased number of mutations while 24.5% maintained the same number. Subjects with constant numbers of mutations maintained the same pattern while 57% of the acquisitions and losses were confirmed compared to the previous timepoint. Comparing the second to the third swab (T2 and T3), 66.7 and 33.3% of strains increased or maintained the same number of mutations, respectively. 75% of subjects with constant number of mutations maintained the same pattern. 63% of the acquisitions were confirmed. In T1 vs. T2 the acquisitions were prevalent in the S gene and the losses in ORF1a, in T2 vs. T3 the opposite was observed. Subjects with cardiovascular disease showed a significantly higher acquisition of mutations over time. Discussion: Our data suggested a mechanism with different steps of fitness selection of SARS-CoV-2 mutations and highlighted the presence of highly divergent intra-patient variants within 3 weeks of infection, regardless of treatment, confirming data from other studies showing that new viral variants can also emerge during acute infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.