(해외 전문가 코멘트) 게놈 정보, 감염 특성 밝힐까
전문가 의견 26-053 크루즈선 한타바이러스 첫 유전체 해독

2026.5.10. **엠바고 없음** 
> SMCK 등록 기자에게 엠바고 전 사전 발송된 메일입니다. -> 기자 등록하기
  • 배경
    • 아르헨티나에서 출항해 대서양을 횡단해 항해하던 크루즈선 ‘MV 혼디우스’에서 2일 한타바이러스 감염이 확인됐습니다. 
      • 승객과 승무원 등 총 147명이 탑승한 이 배에서 8일(현지시간)까지 의심 환자 8명이 발생했으며 확진은 6건입니다. 현재까지 세 명이 사망했습니다.
    • 세계보건기구(WHO)는 이번 감염에서 사람 간 전파 가능성을 의심하고 있습니다. 
      • 한타바이러스의 주요 감염 경로는 쥐 등 동물의 배설물과 타액을 통한 감염입니다. 배설물이 건조돼 미세한 입자가 될 경우 공기를 타고 사람의 호흡기에 닿을 수 있습니다.
      • 하지만 이번 크루즈선에서는 쥐가 발견되지 않았다고 5일 WHO는 밝혔습니다. 한타바이러스의 사람간 감염은 드문 편이지만, 이번 감염에서는 가능성을 완전히 배제하지 못한 상황입니다. 
      • 하지만 이에 대해, 국내 전문가는 신중해야 한다는 의견을 SMCK를 통해 전했습니다.
    • 이런 가운데 8일(현지시간), 스위스 국립 신종 바이러스 감염 레퍼런스 센터(제네바대 병원)에서 이번 사태를 일으킨 바이러스 유전체(게놈)에 대한 첫 번째 해독 결과를 'virological.org' 전문가 포럼에 공개했습니다.
      • 감염력과 치명률 등 바이러스의 특성을 파악하고, 감염 경로를 파악하는 데 도움이 될지 관심을 모으고 있습니다. 
    • 한편 MV 혼디우스 호는 스페인령 카나리아 제도에 10일 도착할 예정입니다. 승객 하선 뒤 격리, 검사를 거쳐 본국으로 이동시킨다는 계획입니다.
      • 하지만 입항에 반대하는 현지 주민의 반발이 이어지고 있어 입항은 하지 않은 채 승객만 하선시킬 것으로 전망됩니다.

  • 전문가 의견 요청 내용
    • 아직 국내 전문가 코멘트가 도착하지 않아, 영국 및 독일 전문가 의견을 전합니다. 국내 코멘트도 수집되는 대로 전하겠습니다.
기자 여러분은 아래 주의사항을 참고해 활용해주시길 부탁드립니다.
  • 엠바고는 없습니다. 자유롭게 활용 가능합니다.
  • 되도록 원문을 그대로 활용해주시길 부탁드립니다.
  • SMCK를 꼭 인용할 필요는 없습니다. 만약 인용 출처가 필요한 경우, 아래 형식을 따를 수 있습니다.
    • "ㅇㅇㅇ(전문가)는 한국과학기술미디어센터에 ㅁㅁㅁ라고 말했다."

아래는 영국 사이언스미디어센터(UK SMC)에서 수집해 배포한 전문가 반응입니다. 영국 SMC 홈페이지에서도 확인할 수 있습니다.

Dr Damien Tully, Associate Professor at the Medical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (MRC/UVRI and LSHTM) Uganda Research Unit said:

 

What can we learn from one sequence and are there still uncertainties?

“From a single complete genome sequence, we can already infer several important things about the outbreak but there are also major limitations to what one sample can tell us.  The genome from the Swiss resident linked to the MV Hondius cruise provides the first detailed genetic snapshot of the outbreak strain.

 

“Across all three hantavirus genome segments, the closest relatives are consistent with one another, which suggests the virus has not undergone reassortment which is a process where segmented viruses exchange genome segments with another strain, potentially creating a novel variant.  The absence of evidence for reassortment implies the outbreak virus likely emerged from a single, relatively stable viral lineage rather than from a recent mixing event between different hantaviruses.

 

“This sequence also offers an early clue about the likely reservoir and geographic origin of the virus by showing which previously known hantavirus strains it most closely resembles.  That can help narrow down which host species or ecological source may be involved in the spillover event.  However, substantial uncertainties remain as these are based on only one publicly available genome.  At this point we still do not know how genetically diverse the outbreak is and whether there are multiple introductions into humans or whether cases came from a single spillover event (a single transmission event from rodents to humans) followed by human-to-human transmission.  In addition, a single sequence cannot reliably establish how quickly the virus is evolving during the outbreak.

 

“Additional sequencing from more patients and potential animal reservoirs will be essential for reconstructing transmission chains and assessing whether the virus is undergoing functionally change.  The speed at which this current genome has been publicly shared should be applauded as it provides a valuable early signal but it should be viewed as preliminary evidence rather than a definitive picture of the outbreak’s evolutionary history.

 

What does this sequence tell us about the virus in this outbreak – are there signs of significant changes or does this look how we would expect it to?

“The sequence is broadly consistent with what we would expect from a hantavirus spillover from its natural reservoir rather than the emergence of a dramatically altered virus.  Reassuringly, the closest related sequences are from the 2018–2019 outbreak in Argentina, suggesting the virus remains part of a known viral lineage rather than representing a highly divergent new strain.  Viruses naturally accumulate mutations over time as they replicate, so some genetic differences compared with earlier outbreak sequences are expected.  Preliminary analyses indicate only a relatively small degree of change from the most closely related Argentine sequences.  At present, there is no clear evidence from this single genome of major genetic shifts, unusual evolution, or reassortment.

 

“These findings are therefore compatible with another spillover event from the natural reservoir host rather than a virus that has substantially changed biologically.  However, caution is still needed because conclusions are currently based on only one publicly available genome.  Sequencing of additional cases will be important to determine whether the outbreak virus is genetically uniform across patients and whether any meaningful mutations emerge as the outbreak progresses.

 

What does viral sequencing allow science to do re understanding the current situation?

“Viral sequencing has become an important tool for understanding and monitoring an outbreak in real time.  By analysing the virus’s genetic code, we can investigate where the outbreak may have originated, how the virus is evolving, and whether there are any important genetic changes that could affect public health responses.

 

“Sequencing can help identify the likely source and reservoir of the virus and estimate how long the virus may have been circulating before detection.  Comparing genomes from different patients also allows researchers to reconstruct how the outbreak is spreading and determine whether cases are linked through human-to-human transmission or represent separate spillover events from the natural reservoir.  It is also valuable for diagnostics.  Sequencing enables scientists to check whether mutations have occurred in regions targeted by PCR-based tests, helping confirm that existing diagnostic assays remain accurate and reliable.

 

“As more sequence data become available from this outbreak, a clearer picture of how this virus is evolving will emerge.  For example, if viral genomes from different patients are nearly identical, that would support recent human-to-human transmission.  Greater genetic diversity between cases could instead suggest multiple independent spillover events from the reservoir host.”

 

 

Prof Piet Maes, President-elect of the Hantavirus Society, and Virologist at the Plotkin Institute, University of Brussels, said:

 

“I’ve done a quick analysis this afternoon using other available Andes virus sequences from rodents and previously published Andes virus infection clusters.  It is of course still too early to draw in-depth conclusions, particularly since this currently remains only a single full-length sequence from the cluster.

 

“The available phylogenetic and sequence data nevertheless suggest that the Swiss patient isolate represents a relatively typical naturally circulating ANDV lineage originating from the established rodent reservoir in Chile/Argentina, rather than a highly divergent or newly emerged variant.  Across all three genomic segments (S, M, and L), the virus clusters consistently with known South American Andes virus strains, including lineages frequently associated with human infections, without evidence of segment incongruence that would suggest recent reassortment.  Additional sequence comparisons likewise do not reveal any striking or unusual mutations beyond the degree of variation expected for a wildlife-associated RNA virus lineage evolving in its natural reservoir.  The relatively short branch lengths and close phylogenetic relationship to previously described human and rodent isolates further support the interpretation of a recent transmission event from the natural rodent reservoir to a human host — the expected and well-established route of primary Andes virus infection — rather than prolonged cryptic evolution or major adaptive divergence.  Importantly, while these genomic findings do not indicate the emergence of a fundamentally novel Andes virus strain, the genomic data alone cannot distinguish between direct zoonotic acquisition and secondary human-to-human transmission in this case, both of which remain biologically plausible for Andes virus.”


Declared interests

Dr Damien Tully: “I have no COIs.”

Prof Piet Maes: “I have no conflicts or interests to declare.”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.

아래는 독일 사이언스미디어센터(SMC Germany)에서 수집해 배포한 전문가 반응입니다. 독일 SMC 홈페이지에서도 확인할 수 있습니다.

► Dr. Roland Schwarzer NEU

Forschungsgruppenleiter am Institut für die Erforschung von HIV und AIDS-assoziierten Erkrankungen, Universitätsklinikum Essen


„Nach den auf virological.org veröffentlichten Informationen handelt es sich um eine vollständige Konsensussequenz des Andes-Virus aus dem Schweizer Fall. Die dort gezeigte phylogenetische Einordnung auf Basis des S-Segments spricht dafür, dass die Sequenz innerhalb bekannter Andes-Virus-Sequenzen clustert. Aus den öffentlich sichtbaren Informationen – und ohne umfangreiche Analyse unsererseits – ergibt sich daher zunächst kein offensichtlicher Hinweis auf eine ungewöhnliche oder neuartige Virusvariante, aus der man allein eine veränderte Übertragbarkeit oder Infektiosität ableiten könnte. Das sollte man aber nicht überinterpretieren: Solche Eigenschaften lassen sich aus einer einzelnen Konsensussequenz nur sehr begrenzt vorhersagen.“

„Für das Management der Kontaktpersonen hilft die Sequenz vor allem bei der molekularen Bestätigung und epidemiologischen Einordnung des Falls. Sie kann unterstützen, Infektionsketten besser zu rekonstruieren und Fälle miteinander zu verknüpfen. Für die praktischen Maßnahmen — also Identifikation und Beobachtung enger Kontakte, Diagnostik bei Symptomen, Isolation symptomatischer Fälle und geeignete Schutzmaßnahmen im medizinischen Bereich — ändert die Sequenzinformation nach meinem Verständnis derzeit nichts Grundsätzliches.“



► Prof. Dr. Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit

Leiter der Abteilung Arbovirologie und Entomologie, Bernhard-Nocht-Institut für Tropenmedizin (BNITM), Hamburg


„Aus der jetzt veröffentlichten Schweizer Consensus-Sequenz ergeben sich nach meiner Einschätzung bisher keine belastbaren Hinweise auf eine veränderte Übertragbarkeit oder Infektiosität. Allein die Tatsache, dass das Virus sequenziert wurde, erlaubt keine Aussage, dass es sich um eine neue, besonders ansteckende oder besonders virulente Andes-Virusvariante handelt. Solche Schlussfolgerungen wären nur gerechtfertigt, wenn mehrere funktionelle Daten oder klare epidemiologische Hinweise auf ein verändertes Verhalten des Virus vorlägen. Das sehe ich derzeit nicht. Die veröffentlichte Konsensus-Sequenz wurde aus Blutproben mittels Illumina-Sequenzierung (Methode zur Sequenzierung von DNA; Anm. d. Red.) erzeugt. Das ist wertvoll für die phylogenetische Einordnung (evolutionäre Abstammung, um zum Beispiel Virusstämme zu unterscheiden; Anm. d. Red.), aber für die Bewertung einzelner Mutationen sollte man bei niedriger Sequenz-Abdeckung – hier ist es wohl noch so – vorsichtig sein. Einzelne Basenpositionen können dann noch unsicher sein. Für belastbare Aussagen über mögliche relevante Mutationen wären idealerweise zusätzliche Sequenzen, höhere Abdeckung und Rohdaten beziehungsweise bestätigende Analysen notwendig.“

„Für das Management der Kontaktpersonen hilft die Sequenz vor allem auf drei Ebenen: Erstens bestätigt sie den Erreger und damit die Notwendigkeit eines spezifischen Andes-Virus-Managements. Zweitens kann sie helfen, Infektionsketten besser zu rekonstruieren, wenn auch Sequenzen anderer Fälle vorliegen. Dann könnte man prüfen, ob die Fälle sehr eng miteinander verwandt sind und ob das eher für eine gemeinsame Quelle oder für nachfolgende Mensch-zu-Mensch-Übertragungen spricht. Drittens kann die Sequenz helfen, die Diagnostik zu verbessern und gegebenenfalls molekulare Testsysteme gezielt abzugleichen.“

„Für die praktische Kontaktpersonennachverfolgung ändert die Sequenz aber nicht alles grundlegend. Entscheidend bleibt die epidemiologische Risikobewertung: enger, längerer oder ungeschützter Kontakt zu Erkrankten, etwa Kabinenpartner, enge Reisebegleiter, Pflegekontakte oder medizinisches Personal mit Exposition, sind anders zu bewerten als flüchtige Alltagskontakte. Relevante Kontaktpersonen sollten wegen der langen Inkubationszeit über mehrere Wochen aktiv überwacht werden. Eine pauschale Quarantäne aller Personen unabhängig vom Expositionsrisiko halte ich nicht automatisch für verhältnismäßig. Sinnvoller ist ein risikoadaptiertes Vorgehen mit Isolation bestätigter oder hochverdächtiger Fälle, Symptommonitoring, rascher Diagnostik bei Symptomen und klaren Schutzmaßnahmen für medizinisches Personal.“



► Prof. Dr. Roman Wölfel

Oberstarzt und Leiter, Institut für Mikrobiologie der Bundeswehr, München, und Außerplanmäßiger Professor, Technische Universität München


„Die Sequenz muss in den kommenden Tagen selbstverständlich noch genauer analysiert werden. Dieser Prozess nimmt etwas Zeit in Anspruch. Das große Interesse an der Genomsequenzierung hatte ursprünglich allerdings vor allem einen anderen Hintergrund: Für die erste Identifikation des Virus wurde eine sogenannte Pan-Hantavirus-PCR verwendet, also eine Genus-spezifische PCR, die grundsätzlich alle Hantaviren erfassen kann. Zur eindeutigen Identifikation der konkreten Virusspezies sind anschließend weiterführende Untersuchungen erforderlich – in diesem Fall die Genomsequenzierung. Daher bestand ein besonderes Interesse an diesem Ergebnis.“

„Mit der nun erfolgten Bestätigung des Andes-Virus ist die Einordnung des Hantavirus insbesondere hinsichtlich der potenziellen Ansteckungsgefahr für Menschen jedoch eindeutig möglich. Mehr war zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt zunächst gar nicht erforderlich.“

„Ob das Virus im vorliegenden Fall genetische Besonderheiten aufweist, die möglicherweise mit der Infektion zusammenhängen oder diese begünstigt haben könnten, muss nun – wie gesagt – in Ruhe und detailliert analysiert werden. Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt lassen sich daraus noch keine belastbaren Schlussfolgerungen ableiten.“

„Für die Beurteilung von Kontaktpersonen beziehungsweise Quarantänefällen, also Personen mit möglichem Kontakt zu Erkrankten, die bislang jedoch keine Symptome zeigen, hat die Genomsequenz selbst derzeit keine besondere praktische Relevanz.“

Interessenkonflikte

Alle: Keine Angaben erhalten.  

한국과학기술미디어센터(SMCK) 소개

한국과학기술미디어센터는 근거 기반의 과학 정보를 언론에 제공하는, 과학계와 미디어 사이의 다리 역할을 하는 독립 비영리 조직입니다. 잘못된 정보와 가짜 뉴스가 넘쳐나는 세상에서, 제대로 된 전문가의 해설과 의견을 빠르고 다양하게 기자들에게 제시하고 이를 체계적으로 아카이빙하는 역할을 합니다.
2025년 7월 이사회를 구성하고(이사장 노정혜 전 한국연구재단 이사장) 센터장(이근영 전 한겨레 과학전문기자)을 선임했으며, 같은해 9월 개소식을 열며 활동을 시작했습니다.

*참고 기사: 
  
SMCK 역할
SMCK는 세 분야 전문가인 과학자, 기관 커뮤니케이터(홍보팀), 기자에게 구체적인 도움을 드리고자 설립됐습니다. 각각 아래와 같습니다.
  • 과학자, 연구자에게는 의견과 해설이 온전한 맥락과 함께 제공되는 안전한 발언 공간이 돼줍니다. 선의를 위해 한 논평이 기사화 과정에서 왜곡되거나 부정확하게 변질될 우려를 줄이는 완충 작용을 합니다. 
  • 기관 홍보 담당자에게는 기관의 성과를 기자들에게 보다 객관적이고 정교하게 알리고, SMC 글로벌 네트워크를 통해 영향력을 높일 기회를 제공합니다. 
  • 기자에게는 사안을 해석하는 데 도움이 될 치우침 없는 종합적인 정보를 빠르고 풍성하게 제공하고, 이를 통해 기사에서 과학과 기술을 보다 자유롭고 편리하게 활용하도록 돕습니다.
SMCK는 이를 통해, 궁극적으로 근거에 기반해 사안을 합리적으로 판단하고 이것이 정책에까지 반영되는 사회를 만드는 데 기여하고자 합니다.

해외 협력
사이언스미디어센터(SMC)는 2002년 영국에서 최초로 설립됐고 현재 호주와 뉴질랜드, 독일, 스페인, 대만, 아일랜드 등으로 확장됐습니다. 한국은 2025년 12월, 7번째 센터로 합류했습니다. 글로벌 네트워크에 포함된 8개 조직은 엄격한 독립성과 신뢰성이라는 가치를 공유하고 있으며 협력을 통해 주요한 국제 과학 이슈에 공동 대응하고 있습니다.
지속적으로 SMCK의 전문가 해설 및 의견을 받아보길 원하신다면 아래 링크에 등록해주세요.
📌 기자 등록하고 전문가 의견 받기 >
* 지난 의견은 '지난 의견 다시 보기'를 선택해주세요.
내용문의: 윤신영 미디어국장 yoonsy@smck.or.kr
비상 연락(당직 전화): 010-4440-5450
한국과학기술미디어센터(SMCK)
news@smck.or.kr
서울특별시 종로구 새문안로 92, 1209호 / 02-6203-5450
수신거부 Unsubscribe