The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasizes the need to actively study the virome of unexplained respiratory diseases. We performed viral metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) analysis of 91 nasal-throat swabs from individuals working with animals and with acute respiratory diseases. Fifteen virus RT-PCR-positive samples were included as controls, while the other 76 samples were RT-PCR negative for a wide panel of respiratory pathogens. Eukaryotic viruses detected by mNGS were then screened by PCR (using primers based on mNGS-derived contigs) in all samples to compare viral detection by mNGS versus PCR and assess the utility of mNGS in routine diagnostics. mNGS identified expected human rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, influenza A virus, coronavirus OC43, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) A in 13 of 15 (86.7%) positive control samples. Additionally, rotavirus, torque teno virus, human papillomavirus, human betaherpesvirus 7, cyclovirus, vientovirus, gemycircularvirus, and statovirus were identified through mNGS. Notably, complete genomes of novel cyclovirus, gemycircularvirus, and statovirus were genetically characterized. Using PCR screening, the novel cyclovirus was additionally detected in 5 and the novel gemycircularvirus in 12 of the remaining samples included for mNGS analysis. Our studies therefore provide pioneering data of the virome of acute-respiratory diseases from individuals at risk of zoonotic infections. The mNGS protocol/pipeline applied here is sensitive for the detection of a variety of viruses, including novel ones. More frequent detections of the novel viruses by PCR than by mNGS on the same samples suggests that PCR remains the most sensitive diagnostic test for viruses whose genomes are known. The detection of novel viruses expands our understanding of the respiratory virome of animal-exposed humans and warrant further studies.

Redondoviridae is a recently discovered DNA virus family consisting of two species, vientovirus and brisavirus. Here we used PCR amplification and sequencing to characterize redondoviruses in nasal/throat swabs collected longitudinally from a cohort of 58 individuals working with animals in Vietnam. We additionally analyzed samples from animals to which redondovirus DNA-positive participants were exposed. Redondoviruses were detected in approximately 60% of study participants, including 33% (30/91) of samples collected during episodes of acute respiratory disease and in 50% (29/58) of baseline samples (with no respiratory symptoms). Vientovirus (73%; 24/33) was detected more frequently in samples than brisaviruses (27%; 9/33). In the 23 participants with at least 2 redondovirus-positive samples among their longitudinal samples, 10 (43.5%) had identical redondovirus replication-gene sequences detected (sampling duration: 35–132 days). We found no identical redondovirus replication genes in samples from different participants, and no redondoviruses were detected in 53 pooled nasal/throat swabs collected from domestic animals. Phylogenetic analysis described no large-scale geographical clustering between viruses from Vietnam, the US, Spain, and China, indicating that redondoviruses are highly genetically diverse and have a wide geographical distribution. Collectively, our study provides novel insights into the Redondoviridae family in humans, describing a high prevalence, potentially associated with chronic shedding in the respiratory tract with lack of evidence of zoonotic transmission from close animal contacts. The tropism and potential pathogenicity of this viral family remain to be determined.

No abstract

Background: Mixing vaccines was proposed as a solution to tackle supply chain interruptions during the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the safety of mixing COVID-19 vaccines for a booster dose in Hanoi, Vietnam. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted via a telephone-based interview to identify the adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination among 719 participants in Hanoi, Vietnam. Results: In total, 45.76% of participants experienced at least one adverse event following two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Most of the adverse events were local effects with mild symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle pain, and/or pain at the site. In general, matching two doses in the same vaccines was not associated with the adverse events as compared to mixing vaccines (OR = 1.43, 96%CI: 0.93–2.2), except matching two doses of Pfizer (OR = 2.25, 95%CI: 1.33–3.82). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest the overall safety of mixed vaccination. In light of the vaccine shortage, mixing vaccinations for COVID-19 prevention is a good solution. Further studies with larger cohorts and investigating immunity following mixing vaccines are needed to elucidate the mechanism.