Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic both relied and placed significant burdens on the experts involved from research and public health sectors. The sustained high pressure of a pandemic on responders, such as healthcare workers, can lead to lasting psychological impacts including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and moral injury, which can impact individual wellbeing and productivity. Methods As members of the infectious disease modelling community, we convened a reflective workshop to understand the professional and personal impacts of response work on our community and to propose recommendations for future epidemic responses. The attendees represented a range of career stages, institutions, and disciplines. This piece was collectively produced by those present at the session based on our collective experiences. Results Key issues we identified at the workshop were lack of institutional support, insecure contracts, unequal credit and recognition, and mental health impacts. Our recommendations include rewarding impactful work, fostering academia-public health collaboration, decreasing dependence on key individuals by developing teams, increasing transparency in decision-making, and implementing sustainable work practices. Conclusions Despite limitations in representation, this workshop provided valuable insights into the UK COVID-19 modelling experience and guidance for future public health crises. Recognising and addressing the issues highlighted is crucial, in our view, for ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic response work in the future.

Background: Phylogenetic reconstruction is a necessary first step in many analyses which use whole genome sequence data from bacterial populations. There are many available methods to infer phylogenies, and these have various advantages and disadvantages, but few unbiased comparisons of the range of approaches have been made. Methods: We simulated data from a defined 'true tree' using a realistic evolutionary model. We built phylogenies from this data using a range of methods, and compared reconstructed trees to the true tree using two measures, noting the computational time needed for different phylogenetic reconstructions. We also used real data from Streptococcus pneumoniae alignments to compare individual core gene trees to a core genome tree. Results: We found that, as expected, maximum likelihood trees from good quality alignments were the most accurate, but also the most computationally intensive. Using less accurate phylogenetic reconstruction methods, we were able to obtain results of comparable accuracy; we found that approximate results can rapidly be obtained using genetic distance based methods. In real data we found that highly conserved core genes, such as those involved in translation, gave an inaccurate tree topology, whereas genes involved in recombination events gave inaccurate branch lengths. We also show a tree-of-trees, relating the results of different phylogenetic reconstructions to each other. Conclusions: We recommend three approaches, depending on requirements for accuracy and computational time. For the most accurate tree, use of either RAxML or IQ-TREE with an alignment of variable sites produced by mapping to a reference genome is best. Quicker approaches that do not perform full maximum likelihood optimisation may be useful for many analyses requiring a phylogeny, as generating a high quality input alignment is likely to be the major limiting factor of accurate tree topology. We have publicly released our simulated data and code to enable further comparisons.

Background: Phylogenetic reconstruction is a necessary first step in many analyses which use whole genome sequence data from bacterial populations. There are many available methods to infer phylogenies, and these have various advantages and disadvantages, but few unbiased comparisons of the range of approaches have been made. Methods: We simulated data from a defined “true tree” using a realistic evolutionary model. We built phylogenies from this data using a range of methods, and compared reconstructed trees to the true tree using two measures, noting the computational time needed for different phylogenetic reconstructions. We also used real data from Streptococcus pneumoniae alignments to compare individual core gene trees to a core genome tree. Results: We found that, as expected, maximum likelihood trees from good quality alignments were the most accurate, but also the most computationally intensive. Using less accurate phylogenetic reconstruction methods, we were able to obtain results of comparable accuracy; we found that approximate results can rapidly be obtained using genetic distance based methods. In real data we found that highly conserved core genes, such as those involved in translation, gave an inaccurate tree topology, whereas genes involved in recombination events gave inaccurate branch lengths. We also show a tree-of-trees, relating the results of different phylogenetic reconstructions to each other. Conclusions: We recommend three approaches, depending on requirements for accuracy and computational time. Quicker approaches that do not perform full maximum likelihood optimisation may be useful for many analyses requiring a phylogeny, as generating a high quality input alignment is likely to be the major limiting factor of accurate tree topology. We have publicly released our simulated data and code to enable further comparisons.