Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Virological characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 spike

Open access
Yamasoba, Daichi, Kimura, Izumi, Nasser, Hesham, Morioka, Yuhei, Nao, Naganori, Ito, Jumpei, Uriu, Keiya, Tsuda, Masumi, Zahradnik, Jiri, Shirakawa, Kotaro, Suzuki, Rigel, Kishimoto, Mai, Kosugi, Yusuke, Kobiyama, Kouji, Hara, Teppei, Toyoda, Mako, Tanaka, Yuri L., Butlertanaka, Erika P., Shimizu, Ryo, Ito, Hayato, Wang, Lei, Oda, Yoshitaka, Orba, Yasuko, Sasaki, Michihito, Nagata, Kayoko, Yoshimatsu, Kumiko, Asakura, Hiroyuki, Nagashima, Mami, Sadamasu, Kenji, Yoshimura, Kazuhisa, Kuramochi, Jin, Seki, Motoaki, Fujiki, Ryoji, Kaneda, Atsushi, Shimada, Tadanaga, Nakada, Taka-aki, Sakao, Seiichiro, Suzuki, Takuji, Ueno, Takamasa, Takaori-Kondo, Akifumi, Ishii, Ken J., Schreiber, Gideon, Sawa, Hirofumi, Saito, Akatsuki, Irie, Takashi, Tanaka, Shinya, Matsuno, Keita, Fukuhara, Takasuke, Ikeda, Terumasa, Sato, Kei·2022·Cell

Abstract

Soon after the emergence and global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage BA.1, another Omicron lineage, BA.2, began outcompeting BA.1. The results of statistical analysis showed that the effective reproduction number of BA.2 is 1.4-fold higher than that of BA.1. Neutralization experiments revealed that immunity induced by COVID vaccines widely administered to human populations is not effective against BA.2, similar to BA.1, and that the antigenicity of BA.2 is notably different from that of BA.1. Cell culture experiments showed that the BA.2 spike confers higher replication efficacy in human nasal epithelial cells and is more efficient in mediating syncytia formation than the BA.1 spike. Furthermore, infection experiments using hamsters indicated that the BA.2 spike-bearing virus is more pathogenic than the BA.1 spike-bearing virus. Altogether, the results of our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 to global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2022.04.035

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 64 references

Cited by

See all 380

Metadata

Authors
Yamasoba, D., Kimura, I., Nasser, H., Morioka, Y., Nao, N., Ito, J., Uriu, K., Tsuda, M., Zahradnik, J., Shirakawa, K., Suzuki, R., Kishimoto, M., Kosugi, Y., Kobiyama, K., Hara, T., Toyoda, M., Tanaka, Y. L., Butlertanaka, E. P., Shimizu, R., Ito, H., Wang, L., Oda, Y., Orba, Y., Sasaki, M., Nagata, K., Yoshimatsu, K., Asakura, H., Nagashima, M., Sadamasu, K., Yoshimura, K., Kuramochi, J., Seki, M., Fujiki, R., Kaneda, A., Shimada, T., Nakada, T.-A., Sakao, S., Suzuki, T., Ueno, T., Takaori-Kondo, A., Ishii, K. J., Schreiber, G., Sawa, H., Saito, A., Irie, T., Tanaka, S., Matsuno, K., Fukuhara, T., Ikeda, T., & Sato, K.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
185
Issue
12
Pages
2103-2115.e19
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225266546
Cited by
380
References
64
FWCI
41.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Virological characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 spike. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cell.2022.04.035
The paper
Yamasoba, D., Kimura, I., Nasser, H., Morioka, Y., Nao, N., Ito, J., Uriu, K., Tsuda, M., Zahradnik, J., Shirakawa, K., Suzuki, R., Kishimoto, M., Kosugi, Y., Kobiyama, K., Hara, T., Toyoda, M., Tanaka, Y. L., Butlertanaka, E. P., Shimizu, R., . . . Sato, K. (2022). Virological characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 spike. Cell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.04.035

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.