Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
01 December 2021 | Story André Damons | Photo Charl Devenish
Prof Felicity Burt, expert in arbovirology in the Division of Virology at the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS).

Even though not much is yet known about the new COVID-19 variant, Omicron, the presence of a high number of mutations – more than 30 – in the spike protein of the variant raises concern. 

This is according to Prof Felicity Burt, expert in arbovirology in the Division of Virology at the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS). According to her, although Omicron is highly transmissible, further epidemiological data is required to determine if it is more transmissible than the Delta variant.

On Friday 26 November, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the new variant, B.1.1.529, a variant of concern (VOC) and assigned it the name Omicron. This assignation was based on advice from the Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution (TAG-VE), an independent group of experts responsible for monitoring and evaluating emerging variants. The following are considered when categorising a newly identified variant – are there mutations (changes in the viral genes) that are known, or that have the potential, to affect the characteristics of the virus, such as transmissibility, disease severity, immune escape, diagnostic or therapeutic escape; is there significant community transmission or increasing prevalence in multiple countries over time; are the public health and social measures effective against the variant.

With each new variant, the public health concerns are dependent on the transmissibility of the variant, the ability of the virus to escape immunity from natural infection or from vaccination, and the severity of illness caused by the variant or any change in clinical presentation. In addition, the ability of current diagnostic assays to adequately detect the variant and effectiveness of public health and social measures, must be considered.

We know, we don’t know 

Answers are derived from existing epidemiological data, laboratory research, and theoretical considerations. Although we can make some predictions based on the mutations identified and the location of these mutations, the epidemiological data and laboratory research are essential to answer with certainty, and this can take some time. The presence of a high number of mutations – more than 30 – in the spike protein of Omicron, raises concern. What do we know and what don’t we know?

“What we don’t know is whether these mutations have changed the severity of disease caused by the virus. We do know that the diagnostic PCR tests currently used in South Africa are not compromised by the presence of these mutations, and in fact, one of the molecular assays commonly used to target three regions of the virus, can be used as a rapid biomarker to detect the variant. Although sequencing of the genome is used as confirmation, this assay provides a useful rapid biomarker that can be used to detect the presence of the variant; subsequently, PCR results have shown that the variant is likely already present in most provinces in the country,” says Prof Burt, who currently holds an NRF-DST South African Research Chair in vector-borne and zoonotic pathogens research. 

There is also preliminary epidemiological evidence that reinfections are occurring. According to her, the occurrence of reinfections suggests some degree of immune escape; however, we do not know the extent of immune escape or the contribution of waning immunity towards reinfections. “Laboratory tests, in which the live virus is tested against samples from both recovered and vaccinated people, are required to confirm whether existing antibodies can neutralise the variant. The tests for neutralising antibodies require specialised facilities and is dependent on culturing the virus. 
“These tests are already underway in the country and should provide more information in the coming weeks. 

Neutralising antibody tests, although time consuming, are relatively easy to perform compared to tests to determine the role played by other arms of the immune response.”

Vaccines still best option to fight COVID-19

Prof Burt, who has worked on viral haemorrhagic fevers and arboviruses at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD), says it is known that vaccines are highly effective in reducing the severity of disease and fatalities in individuals infected with other variants, such as Beta and Delta, despite mutations in critical regions of the spike gene in the variants. 

The epidemiological data acquired from cases and the results of laboratory tests for neutralising capability will contribute towards understanding the effectiveness of the vaccine against Omicron. The questions regarding severity of the disease and level of protection from previous infection and vaccines are priority areas to understand the impact of this variant. The early identification of the variant and the initiation of vital research and data analysis highlight the importance of genomic surveillance.

Cases of Omicron have already been confirmed in Israel, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and Africa. Travel restrictions have previously been shown to be ineffective in stopping the geographical spread of new variants, merely delaying the inevitable, and at significant cost to economies. “We know with certainty that vaccination has reduced the severity of illness and death with previous variants; even in the face of reduced neutralising ability, there was sufficient protection to save lives,” says Prof Burt.  

She concluded, “Globally, the impact of vaccination is evident in countries experiencing fourth waves, with a reduced number of deaths compared to previous waves. Many decisions in life are based on a risk assessment and consideration of the pros and cons. Vaccines save lives. Vaccines definitely boost waning immune responses from natural infection.” 

“This is certainly not the time to reject the vaccine based on perceived risks from inaccurate social media spreading harmful disinformation compared to the known risks associated with contracting COVID-19 and the known protection against severe disease afforded by the vaccines.”

News Archive

Suspension of the South African Doping Control Laboratory (SADoCoL) by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
2016-05-04

The senior leadership of the UFS and the management of the South African Doping Control Laboratory (SADoCoL) take note of the decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to suspend the laboratory’s accreditation to perform doping control analysis on biological samples of athletes and sportsmen and -women until 30 September 2016. During this time of suspension, all sport-related samples will be sent for analysis to the WADA accredited laboratory in Qatar until the accreditation of SADoCoL is re-established. Analysis according to WADA accreditation will therefore not be interrupted during the period of the suspension of the accreditation of SADoCoL.

The announcement by WADA on 3 May 2016 follows a voluntary decision by SADoCoL in March 2016 to temporarily close the laboratory for some of its routine analytical duties for six months, as from 1 April 2016. The decision was taken in consultation with the senior leadership of the UFS and other role players, especially the Department of Sport and Recreation of South Africa (SRSA) and the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS). SADoCoL is a specialised service laboratory of the University of the Free State (UFS) and has been in existence for more than thirty years.

Due to the ever-increasing demands on the number, variety and analytical sensitivity of compounds to be analysed according to the Prohibited List of WADA, technical and infrastructure adaptations need to be implemented in the laboratory continuously to keep up with the demands. Over the last year, SADoCoL has drastically increased its capacity in both personnel and infrastructure, to a point where these changes can be implemented for optimal performance of the laboratory.  This has to be done while normal routine analysis continues, and it became clear that at present, implementation cannot be successfully accomplished together with the workload from normal routine analyses.

The time of suspension will be utilised to implement and test these new systems in order to achieve the standard presently required by WADA, as well as to perform development and improvements.  This development will be performed in close collaboration with other role players in the anti-doping movement in South Africa, such as SAIDS and SRSA. Scientific development aid will also be acquired from other doping control laboratories worldwide in order to assure that the high analytical quality is maintained and expanded to meet the fast growing challenges in this field. The progress of the process will be closely monitored, and the upgraded methodologies will then, after rigorous testing, be implemented to ensure that the required analytical quality is maintained so as to obtain re-accreditation by WADA at the conclusion of the suspension period.

Issued by: Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Telephone: +27(0)51 401 2584 or +27 (0) 83 645 2454
E-mail: news@ufs.ac.za
Fax: +27 (0) 51 444 6393

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept