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 The preprint study which had not been peer-reviewed, on which those reports were based, seems to no longer be available in the global scientific literature.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

‘The devil is in the details’ in West Asian peace

Published

16 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Donald Trump at the current G7 summit in France. Evelyn Hockstein/Getty Image

It is obviously too early for an outpouring of joy over the seeming cessation of hostilities between the main antagonists in West Asia. While the prospect of there being a measure of calm in the region is being welcomed by considerable sections of the international community, what is ‘on the table’ currently is only a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran to give peace a chance. The hard part in the peace effort remains to be achieved.

In the Middle East of today we have one of the most complex conflicts to break out in modern international politics and the observer would be naive in the extreme to expect a facile and early closure to the tangle. Yet, for the sake of the world’s publics who have been hurting badly in the prolonged hostilities one could only hope that the US-Iran MoU that is expected to be signed by the sides on Friday would lead eventually to a substantive peace. The world’s thanks are due to Pakistan in this connection for its sustained support in the peace drive.

While the sides have agreed to a ceasing of hostilities in the most general terms and have reached accord on the facilitation of uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, for instance, the ‘devil will prove to be in the details’ in an envisaged comprehensive peace settlement. It is these details that would make or break peace if the negotiations go on in earnest.

Nevertheless, the details would need to be worked out consensually in a spirit of compromise with an eye to the greater good of the world community. Realpolitik or a narrow focus on solely the national interest among the protagonists, for example, would need to give way to a measure of humanity that would encompass within it a consideration of the overall well being of the world. In other words, it is statesmanship that would crucially matter.

The next few weeks would establish whether humanists are ‘asking for far too much’ when they broach the questions at issue in these terms. Yet it is essentially self interest and national security considerations of the first importance that drove the conflict from even prior to February this year and these questions would need to be taken up and resolved to the satisfaction of the US and Iran in the main if some headway is to be made towards a durable settlement.

The nuclear issue would prove to be the proverbial Gordian Knot. From a realistic viewpoint, Iran could not be expected to be without a potential nuclear deterrent in the face of perceived nuclear threats emanating for it from the West and Israel. In the short term, Iran would need to possess this deterrent to a measure, within a mutually agreed international legal framework maybe, until wide agreement is reached on the nuclear tangle. Specifically, Iran’s immediate threat perceptions with regard to her nuclear-powered rivals would need to be defused during initial negotiations.

Ideally it is a world free of nuclear weapons that must be aimed at but since this goal cannot be achieved in the near or medium terms, unfolding negotiations would need to ensure Iran’s absolute security in a world of powers that continue to swear by the nuclear deterrent, if it is to give up the suspected latter capability.

However, it is to the degree to which the present nuclear powers divest themselves of this capability that Iran could be put at ease on this score. Accordingly, it is nothing short of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world that could dissuade keenly security conscious states from developing nuclear weapons of their own with a mass destruction capability.

This is the number one dilemma the international community needs to grapple with going forward and it is to the extent to which it resolves it that a nuclear weapons free world could be envisaged. No doubt, an uphill challenge.

Compelling Israel to support the present negotiatory process constitutes another grueling challenge for the US. Currently the Iranian position essentially is that a Middle East peace is inseparable from a normalization of the security situation in Lebanon. That is, the present Israeli attacks on the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon must cease if a comprehensive peace is to be realized in West Asia.

However, Israel is showing no signs of drawing back from its attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon since the security of the Israeli state is being seen as threatened by the militant group. Co-opting Israel into the negotiatory effort therefore would turn out to be a matter of paramount concern for the US.

Moreover, elements in the rightist administration in Israel are seeing the current peace efforts as a ‘sell out’ to the enemies of Israel. They would have none of it. It is left to be seen how the US would be managing these virtual storm centres in the diplomatic process that could very well bring down the overall purported peace drive.

A recent pronouncement by US Vice President J.D. Vance points to yet another problem area in the US’ current peace overtures. He said that, ‘Regional peace and stability includes stopping the funding of terrorist organizations.’ He was obviously referring to the support extended by Iran to Hezbollah when he mentioned ‘terrorist organizations’ but he has given fresh life to the age-old conundrum of ‘Who is a terrorist?’ by these words.

To the Netanyahu government the Hezbollah and other militant organizations fighting Israel are ‘terrorists’ but from the viewpoint of the Iranian regime they are ‘freedom fighters’. This seemingly insurmountable definitional issue would not only stubbornly bedevil the peace effort but could even figure in bringing about its collapse, unless judiciously handled.

Thus, it’s the thorny details that need to be watched to keep the West Asian peace process afloat, once it gets going in earnest. There is no doubt that US President Trump would be receiving a considerable amount of support from the G7 in this historic peace undertaking and his personal appeals to the grouping currently meeting in France for continuous support are likely to elicit a positive response from it.

Likewise, Trump would need to appeal to also the BRICS countries if almost total global support is to be garnered for the peace drive in West Asia. BRICS’ solidarity with the US and the West is likely to carry considerable weight with Iran and other Eastern actors who are key to a sustained peace drive in the Middle East.

Features

Sri Lanka’s elephant paradox: Govt. counts tourism dollars while playing a dangerous numbers game: Expert

Published

16 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

At a time when Sri Lanka is enjoying a resurgence in wildlife tourism, with elephants remaining the undisputed stars of the country’s national parks and one of its most marketable natural assets, elephant conservationist Supun Lahiru Prakash has sounded a stark warning: the nation is in danger of losing the very species that helps attract millions of tourism dollars while sustaining some of the island’s most important ecosystems.

Supun says repeated claims by authorities that Sri Lanka’s elephant population is increasing, despite the absence of a final survey report and amid continuing elephant deaths, risk creating a misleading narrative that could undermine conservation efforts and encourage retaliation against elephants.

According to Supun, the issue is not merely about numbers. It is about political priorities, scientific credibility and the future of one of Sri Lanka’s most iconic species.

“Repeatedly claiming that the elephant population is increasing appears to be an attempt to hide the Government’s inability to manage the rising annual elephant death rate and the complications of human-elephant conflict,” Supun said.

For decades, the Sri Lankan elephant has been a symbol of the country’s rich natural heritage. It is the centrepiece of wildlife tourism, drawing visitors from across the globe to national parks such as Yala, Udawalawe, Minneriya, Kaudulla and Wilpattu. International wildlife documentaries, tourism campaigns and social media promotions frequently place elephants at the heart of Sri Lanka’s nature tourism brand.

Yet, according to Supun, the country’s conservation policies do not reflect the value of the species.

“On one hand, the Government is enjoying increasing tourism revenue, and elephants remain one of Sri Lanka’s most important wildlife attractions. On the other hand, narratives are being promoted that could encourage retaliation against the very species that contributes significantly to the country’s tourism industry,” Supun said.

According to the First Countrywide National Survey of Elephants conducted in 2011, Sri Lanka had 5,879 elephants. However, official statistics show that 4,167 elephants died between 2012 and 2024.

Supun stressed that these figures represent only the deaths officially recorded by the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

“In a context where more than 70 percent of the country’s elephant population reported in 2011 has died within 13 years, it is difficult to accept claims that the population has increased,” Supun said.

The conservationist pointed out that elephants have the longest gestation period among land mammals and that scientific studies have reported increasing interbirth intervals among female elephants together with high calf mortality.

“When such biological realities are taken into consideration, claims of a dramatic increase in elephant numbers become difficult to understand,” Supun said.

Supun believes that repeated references to increasing elephant populations risk fuelling public hostility towards elephants, particularly among farming communities already affected by crop raids and property damage.

“Such claims can create the impression that elephant populations are exploding and thereby promote retaliation against elephants as well,” Supun said.

According to Supun, Sri Lanka’s elephant crisis cannot be understood solely through population estimates. The real issue lies in the country’s failure to address human-elephant conflict through long-term, science-based solutions.

Sri Lanka continues to record among the highest levels of human-elephant conflict in the world. Every year, hundreds of elephants and dozens of people lose their lives as competition for land and resources intensifies.

Despite the scale of the crisis, Supun says authorities continue to rely on strategies that have repeatedly failed.

Lahiru Prakash

These include driving elephants into protected areas, strengthening electric fences to confine them there and allocating additional manpower to maintain fencing systems.

Supun was also critical of several proposals that emerged from district-level discussions on conflict mitigation, including the sowing of paddy and corn using Air Force drones and the planting of fruit orchards within protected areas.

“Such proposals fail to address the real ecological and social dimensions of the conflict,” Supun said.

While welcoming reports that the Government intends appointing a national-level mechanism to tackle human-elephant conflict, Supun said the challenge required intervention at the highest level of government.

“Given the gravity, complexity and geographical spread of human-elephant conflict, appointing any committee other than a Presidential Task Force is not useful,” Supun said.

He argued that a Presidential Task Force chaired by either the President or the Secretary to the President would be better positioned to overcome the bureaucratic delays and institutional fragmentation that have hindered previous efforts.

Supun also stressed the urgent need to restore and protect elephant corridors and home ranges that allow elephants to move safely across landscapes.

He cited the Koholankala elephant corridor in Hambantota as one example where removing obstacles could help reduce conflict while improving habitat connectivity.

At the same time, Supun questioned policies that permit the allocation of forest lands in areas identified by environmental assessments as crucial elephant ranges and movement corridors.

“The opening of elephant corridors and the protection of elephant home ranges must be carried out scientifically and consistently if they are to succeed,” Supun said.

Beyond tourism, Supun emphasised the ecological importance of elephants.

“Elephants are ecosystem engineers. Through their feeding habits and movements, they help maintain habitats that support numerous other species. In many ways, they create safer and healthier environments for wildlife,” Supun said.

According to Supun, protecting elephants means protecting entire ecosystems and the biodiversity upon which Sri Lanka’s wildlife tourism industry depends.

“By protecting elephants, we are also protecting the biodiversity that makes Sri Lanka one of the world’s premier wildlife tourism destinations,” Supun said.

As Sri Lanka seeks to expand tourism earnings and strengthen its reputation as a wildlife destination, Supun believes the country faces a defining choice: continue with policies that have failed to stem elephant deaths and human-elephant conflict, or embrace a science-based conservation strategy that safeguards both people and wildlife.

Without a fundamental shift in policy and political will, Supun warned, Sri Lanka risks losing not only one of its most iconic species but also the ecological and economic benefits that elephants continue to provide.

“The suffering of both farmers and elephants will only intensify unless meaningful action replaces rhetoric,” Supun said.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Top Model of the World 2026

Published

16 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

Back-to-back victory for Colombia

Katherine Castaño of Colombia claimed the Top Model of the World 2026 crown, securing a historic back-to-back victory for her country. Angelica Sanchez of Puerto Rico was named first runner-up, and Eunice Deza of the Philippines finished as second runner-up.

Katherine was crowned by outgoing titleholder Natalia Garizabal Vera of Colombia.

Several special category awards, and subsidiary titles, were also presented during the Top Model of the World 2026 pageant.

These awards recognised excellence in modelling, peer support, and regional representation.

Primary Subsidiary Titles

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage: Top 16 at
the grand finale

Miss Globe 2026: Valentina Tabares (Ecuador) — Awarded to the contestant who perfectly balances fashion modelling with traditional beauty queen qualities.

Queen of Europe 2026: Mia Danielle Williams (United Kingdom) — Given to the highest-ranking candidate from a European nation.

Special Awards Recognition

Audience Iconic Award: Charly (Dominican Republic) — Won via the official public online vote, granting her a fast-track direct entry into the Top 6.

Exotic Model of the World: Angel Emeka (Nigeria) — Awarded for exceptional editorial presence and strong runway performance.

Best Body Award: Thailand — Voted directly by fellow contestants at the Flow Spectrum Hotel. The highest-ranking runners-up for this category included Zambia, South Africa, Colombia, and Ghana.

Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico): 1st Runner-up

Final Placement

Winner: Katherine Castaño (Colombia)

1st Runner-Up: Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico)

2nd Runner-Up: Eunice Deza (Philippines)

Top 6 Finalists: Included contestants from the Dominican Republic, Romania, and Germany.

The pageant, known for focusing on professional modelling careers over just beauty, brought together 36 models from around the globe for two weeks of runway, photoshoots, and cultural events.

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage walked among 36 of the world’s best and powered her way into the Top 16 at the grand finale.