Cargando…

The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2

There is growing experimental evidence that many respiratory viruses—including influenza and SARS-CoV-2—can interact, such that their epidemiological dynamics may not be independent. To assess these interactions, standard statistical tests of independence suggest that the prevalence ratio—defined as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Domenech de Cellès, Matthieu, Goult, Elizabeth, Casalegno, Jean-Sebastien, Kramer, Sarah C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2358
_version_ 1784632038051020800
author Domenech de Cellès, Matthieu
Goult, Elizabeth
Casalegno, Jean-Sebastien
Kramer, Sarah C.
author_facet Domenech de Cellès, Matthieu
Goult, Elizabeth
Casalegno, Jean-Sebastien
Kramer, Sarah C.
author_sort Domenech de Cellès, Matthieu
collection PubMed
description There is growing experimental evidence that many respiratory viruses—including influenza and SARS-CoV-2—can interact, such that their epidemiological dynamics may not be independent. To assess these interactions, standard statistical tests of independence suggest that the prevalence ratio—defined as the ratio of co-infection prevalence to the product of single-infection prevalences—should equal unity for non-interacting pathogens. As a result, earlier epidemiological studies aimed to estimate the prevalence ratio from co-detection prevalence data, under the assumption that deviations from unity implied interaction. To examine the validity of this assumption, we designed a simulation study that built on a broadly applicable epidemiological model of co-circulation of two emerging or seasonal respiratory viruses. By focusing on the pair influenza–SARS-CoV-2, we first demonstrate that the prevalence ratio systematically underestimates the strength of interaction, and can even misclassify antagonistic or synergistic interactions that persist after clearance of infection. In a global sensitivity analysis, we further identify properties of viral infection—such as a high reproduction number or a short infectious period—that blur the interaction inferred from the prevalence ratio. Altogether, our results suggest that ecological or epidemiological studies based on co-detection prevalence data provide a poor guide to assess interactions among respiratory viruses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8753173
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Royal Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87531732022-02-04 The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 Domenech de Cellès, Matthieu Goult, Elizabeth Casalegno, Jean-Sebastien Kramer, Sarah C. Proc Biol Sci Ecology There is growing experimental evidence that many respiratory viruses—including influenza and SARS-CoV-2—can interact, such that their epidemiological dynamics may not be independent. To assess these interactions, standard statistical tests of independence suggest that the prevalence ratio—defined as the ratio of co-infection prevalence to the product of single-infection prevalences—should equal unity for non-interacting pathogens. As a result, earlier epidemiological studies aimed to estimate the prevalence ratio from co-detection prevalence data, under the assumption that deviations from unity implied interaction. To examine the validity of this assumption, we designed a simulation study that built on a broadly applicable epidemiological model of co-circulation of two emerging or seasonal respiratory viruses. By focusing on the pair influenza–SARS-CoV-2, we first demonstrate that the prevalence ratio systematically underestimates the strength of interaction, and can even misclassify antagonistic or synergistic interactions that persist after clearance of infection. In a global sensitivity analysis, we further identify properties of viral infection—such as a high reproduction number or a short infectious period—that blur the interaction inferred from the prevalence ratio. Altogether, our results suggest that ecological or epidemiological studies based on co-detection prevalence data provide a poor guide to assess interactions among respiratory viruses. The Royal Society 2022-01-12 2022-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8753173/ /pubmed/35016540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2358 Text en © 2022 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Ecology
Domenech de Cellès, Matthieu
Goult, Elizabeth
Casalegno, Jean-Sebastien
Kramer, Sarah C.
The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2
title The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2
title_full The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2
title_fullStr The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2
title_full_unstemmed The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2
title_short The pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and SARS-CoV-2
title_sort pitfalls of inferring virus–virus interactions from co-detection prevalence data: application to influenza and sars-cov-2
topic Ecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2358
work_keys_str_mv AT domenechdecellesmatthieu thepitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT goultelizabeth thepitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT casalegnojeansebastien thepitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT kramersarahc thepitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT domenechdecellesmatthieu pitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT goultelizabeth pitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT casalegnojeansebastien pitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2
AT kramersarahc pitfallsofinferringvirusvirusinteractionsfromcodetectionprevalencedataapplicationtoinfluenzaandsarscov2