Investment in SARS-CoV-2 sequencing in Africa over the past year has led to a major increase in the number of sequences generated, now exceeding 100,000 genomes, used to track the pandemic on the continent. Our results show an increase in the number of African countries able to sequence domestically, and highlight that local sequencing enables faster turnaround time and more regular routine surveillance. Despite limitations of low testing proportions, findings from this genomic surveillance study underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic and shed light on the distinct dispersal dynamics of Variants of Concern, particularly Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron, on the continent. Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve, while the continent faces many emerging and re-emerging infectious disease threats. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century.

Documenting the circulation dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 variants in different regions of the world is crucial for monitoring virus transmission worldwide and contributing to global efforts towards combating the pandemic. Tunisia has experienced several waves of COVID-19 with a significant number of infections and deaths. The present study provides genetic information on the different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in Tunisia over 17 months. Lineages were assigned for 1359 samples using whole-genome sequencing, partial S gene sequencing and variant-specific real-time RT-PCR tests. Forty-eight different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 were identified, including variants of concern (VOCs), variants of interest (VOIs) and variants under monitoring (VUMs), particularly Alpha, Beta, Delta, A.27, Zeta and Eta. The first wave, limited to imported and import-related cases, was characterized by a small number of positive samples and lineages. During the second wave, a large number of lineages were detected; the third wave was marked by the predominance of the Alpha VOC, and the fourth wave was characterized by the predominance of the Delta VOC. This study adds new genomic data to the global context of COVID-19, particularly from the North African region, and highlights the importance of the timely molecular characterization of circulating strains.

Background: The mass vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2 was started in Tunisia on 13 March 2021 by using progressively seven different vaccines approved for emergency use. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the humoral and cellular immunity in subjects aged 40 years and over who received one of the following two-dose regimen vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, namely mRNA-1273 or Spikevax (Moderna), BNT162B2 or Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech), Gam-COVID-Vac or Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute), ChAdOx1-S or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), BIBP (Sinopharm), and Coronavac (Sinovac). Material and methods: For each type of vaccine, a sample of subjects aged 40 and over was randomly selected from the national platform for monitoring COVID-19 vaccination and contacted to participate to this study. All consenting participants were sampled for peripheral blood at 3–7 weeks after the second vaccine dose to perform anti-S and anti-N serology by the Elecsys® (Lenexa, KS, USA) anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays (Roche® Basel, Switzerland). The CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were evaluated by the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 (Qiagen® Basel, Switzerland) for a randomly selected sub-group. Results: A total of 501 people consented to the study and, of them, 133 were included for the cellular response investigations. Both humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens differed significantly between all tested groups. RNA vaccines induced the highest levels of humoral and cellular anti-S responses followed by adenovirus vaccines and then by inactivated vaccines. Vaccines from the same platform induced similar levels of specific anti-S immune responses except in the case of the Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, which exhibited contrasting effects on humoral and cellular responses. When analyses were performed in subjects with negative anti-N antibodies, results were similar to those obtained within the total cohort, except for the Moderna vaccine, which gave a better cellular immune response than the Pfizer vaccine and RNA vaccines, which induced similar cellular immune responses to those of adenovirus vaccines. Conclusion: Collectively, our data confirmed the superiority of the RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, in particular that of Moderna, for both humoral and cellular immunogenicity. Our results comparing between different vaccine platforms in a similar population are of great importance since they may help decision makers to adopt the best strategy for further national vaccination programs.