| Title |
Multiple-clone infections of Plasmodium vivax: definition of a panel of markers for molecular epidemiology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12936-015-0846-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aracele M. de Souza, Flávia C. F. de Araújo, Cor J. F. Fontes, Luzia H. Carvalho, Cristiana F. A. de Brito, Taís N. de Sousa |
| Abstract |
Plasmodium vivax infections commonly contain multiple genetically distinct parasite clones. The detection of multiple-clone infections depends on several factors, such as the accuracy of the genotyping method, and the type and number of the molecular markers analysed. Characterizing the multiplicity of infection has broad implications that range from population genetic studies of the parasite to malaria treatment and control. This study compared and evaluated the efficiency of neutral and non-neutral markers that are widely used in studies of molecular epidemiology to detect the multiplicity of P. vivax infection. The performance of six markers was evaluated using 11 mixtures of DNA with well-defined proportions of two different parasite genotypes for each marker. These mixtures were generated by mixing cloned PCR products or patient-derived genomic DNA. In addition, 51 samples of natural infections from the Brazil were genotyped for all markers. The PCR-capillary electrophoresis-based method was used to permit direct comparisons among the markers. The criteria for differentiating minor peaks from artifacts were also evaluated. The analysis of DNA mixtures showed that the tandem repeat MN21 and the polymorphic blocks 2 (msp1B2) and 10 (msp1B10) of merozoite surface protein-1 allowed for the estimation of the expected ratio of both alleles in the majority of preparations. Nevertheless, msp1B2 was not able to detect the majority of multiple-clone infections in field samples; it identified only 6 % of these infections. The merozoite surface protein-3 alpha and microsatellites (PvMS6 and PvMS7) did not accurately estimate the relative clonal proportions in artificial mixtures, but the microsatellites performed well in detecting natural multiple-clone infections. Notably, the use of a less stringent criterion to score rare alleles significantly increased the sensitivity of the detection of multi-clonal infections. Depending on the type of marker used, a considerable amplification bias was observed, which may have serious implications for the characterization of the complexity of a P. vivax infection. Based on the performance of markers in artificial mixtures of DNA and natural infections, a minimum panel of four genetic markers (PvMS6, PvMS7, MN21, and msp1B10) was defined, and these markers are highly informative regarding the genetic variability of P. vivax populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#16,712,239
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,607
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,593
of 272,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#103
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.