Features

Some oddities of coronavirus mutations

Published

5 years ago

2021/01/26

All RNA viruses tend to evolve rapidly; about a million times faster than human genes. Yet for all that, if SARS-CoV-2 stands out at all among them, it is simply because of the markedly slow pace at which it evolves, compared to many of its relatives. For example, it is thought to evolve about five times less rapidly than the biologically related influenza viruses. It has been postulated by Nextstrain, an open-source project that tracks the evolution of pathogens in real time, and other sources as well, that SARS-CoV-2 is accumulating an average of about two mutations per month.

By Dr B. J. C. Perera

MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paed), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lon), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)

Specialist Consultant Paediatrician

There is a lot of talk as well as considerable uncertainty and apprehension associated with the spectacle of natural and spontaneous changes or ‘mutations’, as they are called, in the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. These trepidations are currently apparent, not only among people but also in the medical circles as well. We have all read several accounts of patients who recovered from Covid-19 only to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 again later, allegedly by a different “strain” of the virus. In late August 2020, came news about the world’s first “documented” or “confirmed” case of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: a man from Hong Kong, diagnosed in March, had contracted “a new virus variant” circulating in Western Europe during the summer. The very next day, news broke out that two people in Europe also appeared to have been reinfected. After that, it was a story about the first American case of the kind, involving a patient in Nevada, who was said to have suffered worse symptoms the second time around. The preprint study which had not been peer-reviewed, on which those reports were based, seems to no longer be available in the global scientific literature.

Yet, for all that, all this talk about newly mutated, perhaps even more virulent forms of SARS-CoV-2, is most definitely igniting and sparking fear and sowing confusion. The vital question is whether there could be either an increase, or for that matter even a decrease, in the severity of the illness caused by these mutant viruses.

For one thing, it is important to keep in mind that isolated cases of reinfection also happen with other viruses. That fact should not necessarily be alarming. Reinfection usually tells us something only about how the human immune system works. On just the face of it, that occurrence is not definitive evidence that a virus does always change in ways that make it more dangerous. Of course, it is well-known that viruses routinely mutate. However, perhaps more importantly, quite a lot of these changes and modifications to their basic structure are bad for the virus itself or even fatal to the virus, according to some scientific studies. Only a minority of mutations are neutral, and only just a tiny minority of mutations are beneficial to the virus itself. The word “mutation” may sound ominous, but it is a rather boring and well-recognised fact of viral life and its implications may not always be all that malevolent for humans.

Yes, of course, the SARS-CoV-2 is mutating, too. One might justifiably ask “So what?”. The million-dollar question is whether it has become more virulent or more infectious than it was when it was first detected in Wuhan in December 2019? The current evidence suggests that it has not been proven to be more virulent. So what indeed?

Like the viruses that give us influenza or measles, SARS-CoV-2 has a genetic code made up of ribonucleic acid (RNA). But RNA is highly mutable, and since SARS-CoV-2 infects us by using our body’s cells to replicate itself again and again, every time its genome is copied, there is a real chance that an error might creep in. That is the unavoidable basic progress of the life-cycle of the virus. Most mutations actually get lost rather quickly, either by chance, or because they damage some part of the main structure or the functions of the virus. Only a small proportion end up spreading widely or lasting for long periods of time. Mutation may be the fuel of evolution but, especially for an RNA virus, it also is just business as usual. Mutations may not always make the virus comply with the celebrated theory of Charles Darwin of survival of the fittest.

When translated to real time, it means that the forms of the virus circulating today are only about 15 accumulated mutations or so, different from the first version traced to the outbreak in Wuhan in China. This really is a tiny number when one considers the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 genome consists of about 30,000 nucleotide components. The implication is that the viral versions that are prevalent today are at least 99.9 per cent the same as the original index strain from Wuhan. If one were to say it in a more simplified way, for an RNA virus, SARS-CoV-2 is in the slowest lane of evolution.

In fact, from a purely scientific perspective, all these discussions of SARS-CoV-2 having developed into however many different “strains” is misleading. Scientists tend to reserve the word ‘strain’ for versions of a virus that differs from the original in major biological ways. SARS-CoV-2’s different forms are very similar; and technically, it is far better to label them as “variants”.

The coronavirus’s sluggish pace of mutation is good news for us. That is because a virus that evolved more rapidly would have a greater chance of outrunning any vaccines or drugs developed to counter it. Having said that, have even the small mutations so far changed SARS-CoV-2 in any important ways? For example, has it become more deadly? The answer might surprise many. Up to the present time, there is no evidence to suggest that any newer or mutated forms of SARS-CoV-2 have become more virulent or more lethal; nor for that matter, that it has become less so as well.

For example, a recent preprint paper (i.e. not yet peer-reviewed) by Erik Volz, of Imperial College, London, UK, and other co-workers, including members of the Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium which analysed 25,000 whole genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences collected in the United Kingdom, found that one particular mutation in the virus, known as D614G, had not increased mortality in patients. There has been much discussion over whether the D614G mutation, which affects the so-called spike protein of the virus, has made SARS-CoV-2 more infectious. In a very broad sense this appears to be so and that contention has led to some of the affected countries to which it has spread, taking drastic steps in locking-down certain areas.

The spike protein sits on the surface of the coronavirus, and that really matters because it’s the part of the virus that attaches itself to the host’s cells. “D614G” is an abbreviation for a change at position 614 of the spike protein. The D614G mutation, which probably initially arose in China, first appeared to become more and more frequent in the outbreak in northern Italy in February. The G614 form of the virus has since spread all over the world and has become the dominant variant. The D614G mutation does seem to have increased the infectivity of the coronavirus, at least in cells grown in laboratories, according to a recent paper by the computational biologist Bette Korber and others, published in the journal ‘Cell’. Apparently based partly on this and some other studies as well, health authorities in various countries have claimed that the G614 form of the coronavirus may be 10 times more infectious than the version first detected in Wuhan.

The more recent UK variant, commonly known as B-1.1.7, is definitely a more contagious variant of the coronavirus. It first emerged in the U.K. in late 2020. It has 23 accumulated mutations. It has acquired 17 of these at once, a feat that has not been seen before. Of particular concern to scientists are eight mutations that affect the gene for a spike protein on the surface of coronaviruses. The worries are the results of the fact that the viruses use the spike protein to grab onto human cells. This mutant strain too appeared to spread faster than other variants in the United Kingdom but has not shown itself to cause more severe disease.

These scientific details could have an abiding effect on the future of this capricious and miserable virus that causes COVID-19. A pandemic virus may disappear from the scene due to one or more of three reasons. The first of these is the notion that a virus that is capable of taking lives would kill a significant number of affected people but those who manage to recover will have some degree of immunity against the very same virus. So, reinfections may be naturally prevented following the first infection with the virus, provided of course that the patient survives the initial onslaught. The second factor is that the virus may induce extensive immunity in a populace, the so-called ‘herd immunity’, either through widespread infection of a large proportion of the population or a similar scenario being enacted through vaccination against the virus. The end result of this is to produce a rather resistant population against the effects of the virus. The third possibility is that repeated mutations would lead to converting the virus into a much less troublesome and less virulent form that it ceases to be a major medical problem and converts the blight into an insignificant and toothless type of an entity. Such impotent strains might even be able to completely overwhelm the more virulent types, with tremendously beneficial implications for the whole of humanity.

These are thought to be at least some of the mechanisms through which the Spanish Flu of 1918 disappeared within a year or so. It was destined never to return in the same life-threatening format for a period of over 100 years or so, right up to the present time.

It has been said that hope springs eternal in the human breast. We do hope and even pray that through some of these postulated mechanisms, the inhabitants of Mother Earth would be spared further turmoil, intense suffering and absolute mayhem that has been their lot for the last year or so, through the doings of this dastardly blight of a nasty coronavirus. We have suffered immeasurably. It is about time that we got a decent break in this fight.

All News Advertisement

Features

Recruiting academics to state universities – beset by archaic selection processes?

Published

4 hours ago

2026/03/3

Thilina Walpola

by Kaushalya Perera

Time has, by and large, stood still in the business of academic staff recruitment to state universities. Qualifications have proliferated and evolved to be more interdisciplinary, but our selection processes and evaluation criteria are unchanged since at least the late 1990s. But before I delve into the problems, I will describe the existing processes and schemes of recruitment. The discussion is limited to UGC-governed state universities (and does not include recruitment to medical and engineering sectors) though the problems may be relevant to other higher education institutions (HEIs).

How recruitment happens currently in SL state universities

Academic ranks in Sri Lankan state universities can be divided into three tiers (subdivisions are not discussed).

* Lecturer (Probationary)

– recruited with a four-year undergraduate degree. A tiny step higher is the Lecturer (Unconfirmed), recruited with a postgraduate degree but no teaching experience.

* A Senior Lecturer can be recruited with certain postgraduate qualifications and some number of years of teaching and research.

* Above this is the professor (of four types), which can be left out of this discussion since only one of those (Chair Professor) is by application.

State universities cannot hire permanent academic staff as and when they wish. Prior to advertising a vacancy, approval to recruit is obtained through a mind-numbing and time-consuming process (months!) ending at the Department of Management Services. The call for applications must list all ranks up to Senior Lecturer. All eligible candidates for Probationary to Senior Lecturer are interviewed, e.g., if a Department wants someone with a doctoral degree, they must still advertise for and interview candidates for all ranks, not only candidates with a doctoral degree. In the evaluation criteria, the first degree is more important than the doctoral degree (more on this strange phenomenon later). All of this is only possible when universities are not under a ‘hiring freeze’, which governments declare regularly and generally lasts several years.

Problem type 1

– Archaic processes and evaluation criteria

Twenty-five years ago, as a probationary lecturer with a first degree, I was a typical hire. We would be recruited, work some years and obtain postgraduate degrees (ideally using the privilege of paid study leave to attend a reputed university in the first world). State universities are primarily undergraduate teaching spaces, and when doctoral degrees were scarce, hiring probationary lecturers may have been a practical solution. The path to a higher degree was through the academic job. Now, due to availability of candidates with postgraduate qualifications and the problems of retaining academics who find foreign postgraduate opportunities, preference for candidates applying with a postgraduate qualification is growing. The evaluation scheme, however, prioritises the first degree over the candidate’s postgraduate education. Were I to apply to a Faculty of Education, despite a PhD on language teaching and research in education, I may not even be interviewed since my undergraduate degree is not in education. The ‘first degree first’ phenomenon shows that universities essentially ignore the intellectual development of a person beyond their early twenties. It also ignores the breadth of disciplines and their overlap with other fields.

This can be helped (not solved) by a simple fix, which can also reduce brain drain: give precedence to the doctoral degree in the required field, regardless of the candidate’s first degree, effected by a UGC circular. The suggestion is not fool-proof. It is a first step, and offered with the understanding that any selection process, however well the evaluation criteria are articulated, will be beset by multiple issues, including that of bias. Like other Sri Lankan institutions, universities, too, have tribal tendencies, surfacing in the form of a preference for one’s own alumni. Nevertheless, there are other problems that are, arguably, more pressing as I discuss next. In relation to the evaluation criteria, a problem is the narrow interpretation of any regulation, e.g., deciding the degree’s suitability based on the title rather than considering courses in the transcript. Despite rhetoric promoting internationalising and inter-disciplinarity, decision-making administrative and academic bodies have very literal expectations of candidates’ qualifications, e.g., a candidate with knowledge of digital literacy should show this through the title of the degree!

Problem type 2 – The mess of badly regulated higher education

A direct consequence of the contemporary expansion of higher education is a large number of applicants with myriad qualifications. The diversity of degree programmes cited makes the responsibility of selecting a suitable candidate for the job a challenging but very important one. After all, the job is for life – it is very difficult to fire a permanent employer in the state sector.

Widely varying undergraduate degree programmes.

At present, Sri Lankan undergraduates bring qualifications (at times more than one) from multiple types of higher education institutions: a degree from a UGC-affiliated state university, a state university external to the UGC, a state institution that is not a university, a foreign university, or a private HEI aka ‘private university’. It could be a degree received by attending on-site, in Sri Lanka or abroad. It could be from a private HEI’s affiliated foreign university or an external degree from a state university or an online only degree from a private HEI that is ‘UGC-approved’ or ‘Ministry of Education approved’, i.e., never studied in a university setting. Needless to say, the diversity (and their differences in quality) are dizzying. Unfortunately, under the evaluation scheme all degrees ‘recognised’ by the UGC are assigned the same marks. The same goes for the candidates’ merits or distinctions, first classes, etc., regardless of how difficult or easy the degree programme may be and even when capabilities, exposure, input, etc are obviously different.

Similar issues are faced when we consider postgraduate qualifications, though to a lesser degree. In my discipline(s), at least, a postgraduate degree obtained on-site from a first-world university is preferable to one from a local university (which usually have weekend or evening classes similar to part-time study) or online from a foreign university. Elitist this may be, but even the best local postgraduate degrees cannot provide the experience and intellectual growth gained by being in a university that gives you access to six million books and teaching and supervision by internationally-recognised scholars. Unfortunately, in the evaluation schemes for recruitment, the worst postgraduate qualification you know of will receive the same marks as one from NUS, Harvard or Leiden.

The problem is clear but what about a solution?

Recruitment to state universities needs to change to meet contemporary needs. We need evaluation criteria that allows us to get rid of the dross as well as a more sophisticated institutional understanding of using them. Recruitment is key if we want our institutions (and our country) to progress. I reiterate here the recommendations proposed in ‘Considerations for Higher Education Reform’ circulated previously by Kuppi Collective:

* Change bond regulations to be more just, in order to retain better qualified academics.

* Update the schemes of recruitment to reflect present-day realities of inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary training in order to recruit suitably qualified candidates.

* Ensure recruitment processes are made transparent by university administrations.

Kaushalya Perera is a senior lecturer at the University of Colombo.

(Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.)

Features

Talento … oozing with talent

Published

4 hours ago

2026/03/3

Thilina Walpola

Talento: Gained recognition as a leading wedding and dance band

This week, too, the spotlight is on an outfit that has gained popularity, mainly through social media.

Last week we had MISTER Band in our scene, and on 10th February, Yellow Beatz – both social media favourites.

Talento is a seven-piece band that plays all types of music, from the ‘60s to the modern tracks of today.

The band has reached many heights, since its inception in 2012, and has gained recognition as a leading wedding and dance band in the scene here.

The members that makeup the outfit have a solid musical background, which comes through years of hard work and dedication

Their portfolio of music contains a mix of both western and eastern songs and are carefully selected, they say, to match the requirements of the intended audience, occasion, or event.

Although the baila is a specialty, which is inherent to this group, that originates from Moratuwa, their repertoire is made up of a vast collection of love, classic, oldies and modern-day hits.

The musicians, who make up Talento, are:

Prabuddha Geetharuchi:

Geilee Fonseka: Dynamic and charismatic vocalist

Prabuddha Geetharuchi: The main man behind the band Talento

(Vocalist/ Frontman). He is an avid music enthusiast and was mentored by a lot of famous musicians, and trainers, since he was a child. Growing up with them influenced him to take on western songs, as well as other music styles. A Peterite, he is the main man behind the band Talento and is a versatile singer/entertainer who never fails to get the crowd going.

Geilee Fonseka (Vocals):

A dynamic and charismatic vocalist whose vibrant stage presence, and powerful voice, bring a fresh spark to every performance. Young, energetic, and musically refined, she is an artiste who effortlessly blends passion with precision – captivating audiences from the very first note. Blessed with an immense vocal range, Geilee is a truly versatile singer, confidently delivering Western and Eastern music across multiple languages and genres.

Chandana Perera (Drummer):

His expertise and exceptional skills have earned him recognition as one of the finest acoustic drummers in Sri Lanka. With over 40 tours under his belt, Chandana has demonstrated his dedication and passion for music, embodying the essential role of a drummer as the heartbeat of any band.

Harsha Soysa:

(Bassist/Vocalist). He a chorister of the western choir of St. Sebastian’s College, Moratuwa, who began his musical education under famous voice trainers, as well as bass guitar trainers in Sri Lanka. He has also performed at events overseas. He acts as the second singer of the band

Udara Jayakody:

(Keyboardist). He is also a qualified pianist, adding technical flavour to Talento’s music. His singing and harmonising skills are an extra asset to the band. From his childhood he has been a part of a number of orchestras as a pianist. He has also previously performed with several famous western bands.

Aruna Madushanka:

(Saxophonist). His proficiciency in playing various instruments, including the saxophone, soprano saxophone, and western flute, showcases his versatility as a musician, and his musical repertoire is further enhanced by his remarkable singing ability.

Prashan Pramuditha:

(Lead guitar). He has the ability to play different styles, both oriental and western music, and he also creates unique tones and patterns with the guitar..

Features

Special milestone for JJ Twins

Published

4 hours ago

2026/03/3

Thilina Walpola

Twin brothers Julian and Jason Prins

The JJ Twins, the Sri Lankan musical duo, performing in the Maldives, and known for blending R&B, Hip Hop, and Sri Lankan rhythms, thereby creating a unique sound, have come out with a brand-new single ‘Me Mawathe.’

In fact, it’s a very special milestone for the twin brothers, Julian and Jason Prins, as ‘Me Mawathe’ is their first ever Sinhala song!

‘Me Mawathe’ showcases a fresh new sound, while staying true to the signature harmony and emotion that their fans love.

This heartfelt track captures the beauty of love, journey, and connection, brought to life through powerful vocals and captivating melodies.

It marks an exciting new chapter for the JJ Twins as they expand their musical journey and connect with audiences in a whole new way.

Their recent album, ‘CONCLUDED,’ explores themes of love, heartbreak, and healing, and include hits like ‘Can’t Get You Off My Mind’ and ‘You Left Me Here to Die’ which showcase their emotional intensity.

Readers could stay connected and follow JJ Twins on social media for exclusive updates, behind-the-scenes moments, and upcoming releases:

Instagram: http://instagram.com/jjtwinsofficial

TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@jjtwinsmusic

Facebook: http://facebook.com/jjtwinssingers

YouTube: http://youtube.com/jjtwins