Genotyping methods to distinguish Plasmodium falciparum recrudescence from new infection for the assessment of antimalarial drug efficacy: an observational, single-centre, comparison study

IF 20.9 1区 生物学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Lancet Microbe Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00153-8
Annina Schnoz MSc , Carla Beuret MSc , Maura Concu MSc , Salome Hosch PhD , Liliana K Rutaihwa PhD , Monica Golumbeanu PhD , Christian Nsanzabana PhD
{"title":"Genotyping methods to distinguish Plasmodium falciparum recrudescence from new infection for the assessment of antimalarial drug efficacy: an observational, single-centre, comparison study","authors":"Annina Schnoz MSc ,&nbsp;Carla Beuret MSc ,&nbsp;Maura Concu MSc ,&nbsp;Salome Hosch PhD ,&nbsp;Liliana K Rutaihwa PhD ,&nbsp;Monica Golumbeanu PhD ,&nbsp;Christian Nsanzabana PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00153-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Distinguishing <em>Plasmodium falciparum</em> recrudescence from new infections is crucial for the assessment of antimalarial drug efficacy against <em>P falciparum</em>. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different genotyping methods to assess their effect on drug efficacy estimates, particularly in patients from high-transmission settings with polyclonal infections.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this head-to-head comparison study, we compared five different genotyping methods currently used: fast capillary electrophoresis (F-CE) using <em>msp1, msp2,</em> and <em>glurp</em>; high-resolution capillary electrophoresis (H-CE) using <em>msp1, msp2,</em> and <em>glurp</em>; H-CE using microsatellites; targeted amplicon deep sequencing (TADS) using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-rich markers; and high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis using <em>msp1</em> and <em>msp2</em>. We assessed their sensitivity in detecting minority clones in polyclonal infections, their reproducibility, and the genetic diversity of the markers used. Our study used four well characterised <em>P falciparum</em> laboratory strains mixed in varying ratios, and 20 paired samples collected from an in-vivo clinical trial. The experiments were performed at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland between May 5, 2020, and Aug 23, 2021.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>H-CE using <em>msp1</em> and <em>msp2</em> and TADS revealed the highest sensitivity in detecting minority clones (up to ratios of 1:100 for H-CE and 50:1:1:1 for TADS in the FCB1:HB3 and 3D7:K1:HB3:FCB1 laboratory strain mixtures, respectively), highest reproducibility (intra-assay: 99% and 91% for H-CE and TADS, respectively; inter-assay: 98% and 92% for H-CE and TADS, respectively), and highest genetic diversity in the used markers (up to 36 and 32 unique genotypes in 20 paired samples for H-CE using <em>msp2</em> and TADS using <em>cpmp,</em> respectively). Microsatellites assessed by H-CE had a lower genetic diversity compared with <em>msp1, msp2,</em> and <em>glurp</em> assessed by H-CE and the SNP-rich markers assessed by TADS, with a maximum of 13 unique genotypes, and some genotypes having allelic frequencies larger than 30%. Markers used by TADS gave the most consistent results in distinguishing recrudescence from new infection across all methods (in 18 of 20 pairs of samples <em>vs</em> 15 of 20 pairs for H-CE).</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>WHO currently recommends replacing <em>glurp</em> with microsatellites. However, in this study, the replacement of <em>glurp</em> with microsatellites did not change the genotyping outcome, probably due to the lower genetic diversity of microsatellites. More studies with large sample sizes are required to identify the most suitable microsatellites that could replace <em>glurp</em>. Our study indicates that TADS should be considered the gold standard for genotyping to distinguish recrudescence from new infection, and that it should be used to validate other methods.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46633,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Microbe","volume":"5 11","pages":"Article 100914"},"PeriodicalIF":20.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Microbe","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524724001538","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Distinguishing Plasmodium falciparum recrudescence from new infections is crucial for the assessment of antimalarial drug efficacy against P falciparum. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different genotyping methods to assess their effect on drug efficacy estimates, particularly in patients from high-transmission settings with polyclonal infections.

Methods

In this head-to-head comparison study, we compared five different genotyping methods currently used: fast capillary electrophoresis (F-CE) using msp1, msp2, and glurp; high-resolution capillary electrophoresis (H-CE) using msp1, msp2, and glurp; H-CE using microsatellites; targeted amplicon deep sequencing (TADS) using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-rich markers; and high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis using msp1 and msp2. We assessed their sensitivity in detecting minority clones in polyclonal infections, their reproducibility, and the genetic diversity of the markers used. Our study used four well characterised P falciparum laboratory strains mixed in varying ratios, and 20 paired samples collected from an in-vivo clinical trial. The experiments were performed at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland between May 5, 2020, and Aug 23, 2021.

Findings

H-CE using msp1 and msp2 and TADS revealed the highest sensitivity in detecting minority clones (up to ratios of 1:100 for H-CE and 50:1:1:1 for TADS in the FCB1:HB3 and 3D7:K1:HB3:FCB1 laboratory strain mixtures, respectively), highest reproducibility (intra-assay: 99% and 91% for H-CE and TADS, respectively; inter-assay: 98% and 92% for H-CE and TADS, respectively), and highest genetic diversity in the used markers (up to 36 and 32 unique genotypes in 20 paired samples for H-CE using msp2 and TADS using cpmp, respectively). Microsatellites assessed by H-CE had a lower genetic diversity compared with msp1, msp2, and glurp assessed by H-CE and the SNP-rich markers assessed by TADS, with a maximum of 13 unique genotypes, and some genotypes having allelic frequencies larger than 30%. Markers used by TADS gave the most consistent results in distinguishing recrudescence from new infection across all methods (in 18 of 20 pairs of samples vs 15 of 20 pairs for H-CE).

Interpretation

WHO currently recommends replacing glurp with microsatellites. However, in this study, the replacement of glurp with microsatellites did not change the genotyping outcome, probably due to the lower genetic diversity of microsatellites. More studies with large sample sizes are required to identify the most suitable microsatellites that could replace glurp. Our study indicates that TADS should be considered the gold standard for genotyping to distinguish recrudescence from new infection, and that it should be used to validate other methods.

Funding

Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为评估抗疟药物疗效而区分恶性疟原虫复发和新感染的基因分型方法:一项观察性单中心比较研究。
背景:区分恶性疟原虫复发和新感染对于评估抗疟药物对恶性疟原虫的疗效至关重要。我们的目的是比较不同基因分型方法的疗效,以评估它们对药物疗效评估的影响,尤其是对来自高传播环境的多克隆感染患者的影响:在这项正面对正面的比较研究中,我们对目前使用的五种不同基因分型方法进行了比较:快速毛细管电泳 (F-CE),使用 msp1、msp2 和 glurp;高分辨率毛细管电泳 (H-CE),使用 msp1、msp2 和 glurp;H-CE,使用微卫星;靶向扩增片段深度测序 (TADS),使用富含单核苷酸多态性 (SNP) 的标记;高分辨率熔融 (HRM) 分析,使用 msp1 和 msp2。我们评估了它们在多克隆感染中检测少数克隆的灵敏度、可重复性以及所用标记的遗传多样性。我们的研究使用了以不同比例混合的四种特征明确的恶性疟原虫实验室菌株,以及从体内临床试验中收集的 20 个配对样本。实验于 2020 年 5 月 5 日至 2021 年 8 月 23 日在瑞士巴塞尔的瑞士热带和公共卫生研究所进行:使用 msp1 和 msp2 的 H-CE 和 TADS 在检测少数克隆方面具有最高的灵敏度(在 FCB1:HB3 和 3D7:K1:HB3:FCB1 实验室菌株混合物中,H-CE 和 TADS 的比例分别高达 1:100和 50:1:1:1)、最高的可重复性(测定内,H-CE 为 99%,TADS 为 91%)和最高的可重复性(测定外,H-CE 为 99%,TADS 为 91%):H-CE和TADS的测定结果分别为99%和91%;测定间H-CE和TADS的测定结果分别为98%和92%:H-CE和TADS的测定内重现性最高(测定内重现性分别为99%和91%;测定间重现性分别为98%和92%),所用标记的遗传多样性最高(使用msp2的H-CE和使用cpmp的TADS在20个配对样本中分别有多达36和32个独特的基因型)。与 H-CE 评估的 msp1、msp2 和 glurp 以及 TADS 评估的 SNP 丰富的标记相比,H-CE 评估的微卫星遗传多样性较低,最多只有 13 个独特的基因型,一些基因型的等位基因频率大于 30%。在所有方法中,TADS 使用的标记在区分复发和新感染方面的结果最为一致(20 对样本中的 18 对与 H-CE 的 20 对样本中的 15 对):世卫组织目前建议用微卫星来替代格洛普。然而,在本研究中,用微卫星替代 glurp 并未改变基因分型结果,这可能是由于微卫星的遗传多样性较低。要确定最适合替代 glurp 的微卫星,还需要进行更多的大样本量研究。我们的研究表明,TADS 应被视为基因分型的黄金标准,以区分复发和新感染,并应用于验证其他方法:瑞士热带和公共卫生研究所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Lancet Microbe
Lancet Microbe Multiple-
CiteScore
27.20
自引率
0.80%
发文量
278
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Microbe is a gold open access journal committed to publishing content relevant to clinical microbiologists worldwide, with a focus on studies that advance clinical understanding, challenge the status quo, and advocate change in health policy.
期刊最新文献
Genomic reconstruction of an azole-resistant Candida parapsilosis outbreak and the creation of a multi-locus sequence typing scheme: a retrospective observational and genomic epidemiology study. Reassessing the role of butyrate-producing bacteria in infection risk. Using demographics of patients to inform treatment of shigellosis in England. Variability of Mycobacterium tuberculosis lipid body content in sputum and its implications for treatment response. Therapeutics for Nipah virus disease: a systematic review to support prioritisation of drug candidates for clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1