| Literature DB >> 25123055 |
Stephan Karl1, Moses Laman, Tamarah Koleala, Clemencia Ibam, Bernadine Kasian, Nola N'Drewei, Anna Rosanas-Urgell, Brioni R Moore, Andreea Waltmann, Cristian Koepfli, Peter M Siba, Inoni Betuela, Robert C Woodward, Timothy G St Pierre, Ivo Mueller, Timothy M E Davis.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gametocytes are the transmission stages of Plasmodium parasites, the causative agents of malaria. As their density in the human host is typically low, they are often undetected by conventional light microscopy. Furthermore, application of RNA-based molecular detection methods for gametocyte detection remains challenging in remote field settings. In the present study, a detailed comparison of three methods, namely light microscopy, magnetic fractionation and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for detection of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax gametocytes was conducted.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25123055 PMCID: PMC4139605 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Proportion of gametocyte positive observations using LM MF. (Panel A), LM vs. RTPCR (Panel B) and MF vs. RTPCR (Panel C).The analysis is purely concerned with the performance of the three methods and does not take into account the drug used for treatment or time the sample was taken. (n.s.: not significant; ***p-value <0.001 (McNemar’s test).
Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of gametocyte detection between light microscopy (LM), magnetic fractionation (MF) and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR)
| A1 | LM | Total | A2 | Reference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | LM | MF | ||||
| MF | 0 | 266 | 1 | 267 | Sensitivity | 0.99 | 0.39 |
| 1 | 136 | 88 | 224 | Specificity | 0.66 | 0.99 | |
| Total | 402 | 89 | 491 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| RTPCR | 0 | 110 | 3 | 113 | Sensitivity | 0.94 | 0.40 |
| 1 | 75 | 50 | 125 | Specificity | 0.59 | 0.97 | |
| Total | 185 | 53 | 238 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| MF | 0 | 89 | 34 | 123 | Sensitivity | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| 1 | 29 | 99 | 128 | Specificity | 0.75 | 0.72 | |
| Total | 118 | 133 | 251 | ||||
In each of the three comparisons (A: LM vs MF; B: LM vs RTPCR and C: RTPCR vs MF) both methods served as reference standard.
Figure 2Relationship between gametocyte abundance measured by LM, MF and RTPCR. Panel A: LM gametocyte density is plotted vs MF gametocyte density. The data are heavily left-censored since many observations cluster at the detection limit of LM. Therefore, a censored regression (Tobit model [25]) was used instead of standard linear regression, resulting in the depicted regression line. Panel B: LM gametocyte density is plotted vs Pfs25 and Pvs25 copy numbers. The black line is the best fit curve given by the Tobit regression. Panel C: MF gametocyte density is plotted over RTPCR transcript copy number. The continuous black line is the best fit by orthogonal regression. The dashed black line is the reference estimate from serially diluted strain 3D7 gametocyte cultures published by Wampfler et al.[21].
Figure 3Corrected Bland and Altman comparison between LM and MF. The 95% confidence levels of agreement were +/-0.93 (dotted lines in the graph).