| Literature DB >> 26325586 |
Adrian Allen1, Eleanor Breadon1, Andrew Byrne1, Thomas Mallon1, Robin Skuce2, Pauline Groussaud3, Amanda Dainty3, Judith Graham4, Kerri Jones1, Lorraine Pollock1, Adrian Whatmore3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is the most common bacterial zoonoses worldwide. Bovine brucellosis caused by Brucella abortus has far reaching animal health and economic impacts at both the local and national levels. Alongside traditional veterinary epidemiology, the use of molecular typing has recently been applied to inform on bacterial population structure and identify epidemiologically-linked cases of infection. Multi-locus variable number tandem repeat VNTR analysis (MLVA) was used to investigate the molecular epidemiology of a well-characterised Brucella abortus epidemic in Northern Ireland involving 387 herds between 1991 and 2012.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26325586 PMCID: PMC4556700 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136721
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Brucella abortus confirmed herd incidence in Northern Ireland 1991–2012.
http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/statistics/animal-disease-statistics/statistics-brucellosis.htm
Fig 2A—Geographic locations of first / disclosing isolates by Divisional Veterinary Office (DVO) and clonal complex designation. B–Inset of Armagh, Dungannon and Newry DVOs with 5 non DVO home range occurrences of Clonal Complex 3 highlighted.
MLVA11 primer sequences.
| Locus | Fwd Primer Sequence | Reverse Primer Sequence |
|---|---|---|
|
| GTGATTGCGGCGTGGTTCCGTTGAATGAG | TAGGGCARTARGGCAGTATGTTAAGGGAATAG |
|
| CGCGCATGATCCGCGAACAGCTGGATG | GGGGAGTATGTTTTGGTTGCGCATGACCGC |
|
| CAGGCGCTTGAGGATGAGGCGGCAG | TAGGGCARTARGGCAGTATGTTAAGGGAATAG |
|
| GCAGAATTTTCGAGGCATTCGGCGATG | TAGGGCARTARGGCAGTATGTTAAGGGAATAG |
|
| GCCGCAGGAAAGCAGGCGATCTGGAGATTATC | TAGGGCARTARGGCAGTATGTTAAGGGAATAG |
|
| GTGGGAAGCGTTATCCTTTAACGGGAGTAAGGG | GGGGAGTATGTTTTGGTTGCGCATGACCGC |
|
| AGTTCGAGACCTTCATGGAA | CAGTTCCATTGCTTGCTGC |
|
| AATCACCCTTTTTCAGTCAAGG | GAAGAACATCTATTTCGCGGT |
|
| GTGGTGGACAAGGCAAGTA | CGCGAGGTTTTCGGCCAGA |
|
| GAATGATAAGCTTCACCTGAATA | CGCGTTTCGATTGTGGAAA |
|
| GAAGACGGCTATCGACTGGTCT | GTTTCAATGAAGGCGAGGTGAG |
* indicates a locus not included in the originally described VNTR21 scheme [4]but taken from the panel described by Le Fleche et al 2006 characterising 80 repetitive loci [20].
Individual and 11 VNTR combined loci discrimination indices (DI) 95% confidence intervals and number of loci observed in study meta population and sub-populations.
| Locus Identity | Meta Population A (1270 isolates)DI | Meta Population ANo. of loci | Sub population B (576 isolates)DI | Sub population B No. of loci | Sub population C (314 disclosing isolates)DI | Sub population C No. of loci | Sub population D (694 isolates)DI | Sub population D No. of loci |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 (0.000–0.006) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.011) | 1 |
|
| 0.002 (0.000–0.005) | 2 | 0.003(0.000–0.010) | 2 | 0.006(0.000–0.018) | 2 | 0(0.000–0.011) | 1 |
|
| 0.009 (0.002–0.017) | 2 | 0.021(0.004–0.037) | 2 | 0.03(0.004–0.056) | 2 | 0(0.000–0.011) | 1 |
|
| 0.031(0.018–0.045) | 5 | 0.058(0.031–0.084) | 5 | 0.048(0.016–0.080) | 4 | 0.009(0.000–0.018) | 4 |
|
| 0.107(0.085–0.130) | 4 | 0.22(0.179–0.261) | 4 | 0.191(0.138–0.243) | 2 | 0(0.000–0.011) | 1 |
|
| 0.242(0.214–0.270) | 4 | 0.437(0.405–0.469) | 4 | 0.451(0.408–0.493) | 4 | 0(0.000–0.011) | 1 |
|
| 0.232(0.201–0.263) | 10 | 0.458(0.408–0.507) | 10 | 0.496(0.432–0.560) | 10 | 0.006(0.000–0.014) | 2 |
|
| 0.233(0.202–0.264) | 11 | 0.461(0.411–0.510) | 11 | 0.497(0.433–0.562) | 11 | 0.006(0.000–0.014) | 2 |
|
| 0.373(0.342–0.404) | 10 | 0.588(0.557–0.619) | 10 | 0.616(0.576–0.655) | 10 | 0.089(0.060–0.118) | 4 |
|
| 0.519(0.491–0.547) | 7 | 0.678(0.656–0.699) | 6 | 0.673(0.639–0.706) | 6 | 0.131(0.097–0.165) | 6 |
|
| 0.742(0.724–0.759) | 11 | 0.739(0.716–0.763) | 11 | 0.715(0.679–0.751) | 11 | 0.542(0.504–0.579) | 7 |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0.813(0.798–0.827) | 15 | 0.822(0.807–0.838) | 13 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0.840(0.825–0.855) | 18 | 0.844(0.824–0.863) | 15 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0.875(0.866–0.885) | 22 | 0.867(0.852–0.882) | 14 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0.007(0.000–0.016) | 3 | 0.006(0.000–0.018) | 2 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| N/A | N/A | 0(0.000–0.013) | 1 | 0(0.000–0.022) | 1 | N/A | N/A |
|
| 0.839 (0.820–0.858) | N/A | 0.954(0.947–0.962) | N/A | 0.964(0.957–0.971) | N/A | 0.634(0.597–0.670) | N/A |
* indicates a locus not included in the originally described VNTR21 scheme [4]but taken from the panel described by Le Fleche et al 2006 characterising 80 repetitive loci [20].
Fig 3Frequencies of all disclosing isolates by assigned strain clonal complex and year of outbreak.
Clonal complex disclosing isolate frequencies by year of outbreak and geographical location (DARD DVO).
Percentage breakdown of each Clonal Complex by DVO also included.
| 1991 | 1999 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Total | % of Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clonal Complex 1 | 1 | 38 | 56 | 11 | 9 | 26 | 30 | 17 | 27 | 6 | 1 | 222 | 100.0 | |||
| Armagh | 1 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 47 | 21.2 | |||||
| Coleraine | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 3.6 | ||||||||||
| Derry | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||
| Dungannon | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 5.9 | ||||||||
| Enniskillen | 14 | 32 | 10 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 80 | 36.0 | ||||||||
| Larne | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1.4 | |||||||||||
| Newry | 6 | 5 | 2 | 14 | 10 | 13 | 4 | 54 | 24.3 | |||||||
| Newtownards | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||
| Omagh | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 6.3 | ||||||||||
| Clonal Complex 2 | 4 | 12 | 7 | 19 | 24 | 8 | 74 | 100.0 | ||||||||
| Armagh | 2 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 20.3 | ||||||||||
| Coleraine | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | |||||||||||||
| Derry | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | |||||||||||||
| Enniskillen | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6.8 | ||||||||||
| Larne | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 13.5 | ||||||||||
| Newry | 2 | 5 | 12 | 16 | 4 | 39 | 52.7 | |||||||||
| Newtownards | 2 | 2 | 2.7 | |||||||||||||
| Omagh | 1 | 1 | 1.4 | |||||||||||||
| Clonal Complex 3 | 3 | 29 | 3 | 35 | 100.0 | |||||||||||
| Armagh | 3 | 25 | 2 | 30 | 85.7 | |||||||||||
| Dungannon | 2 | 2 | 5.7 | |||||||||||||
| Newry | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8.6 | ||||||||||||
| Clonal Complex 4 | 2 | 13 | 8 | 23 | 100.0 | |||||||||||
| Armagh | 2 | 8 | 4 | 14 | 60.9 | |||||||||||
| Derry | 2 | 2 | 8.7 | |||||||||||||
| Enniskillen | 2 | 2 | 8.7 | |||||||||||||
| Larne | 1 | 1 | 4.3 | |||||||||||||
| Newry | 4 | 4 | 17.4 | |||||||||||||
| Clonal Complex 5 | 14 | 9 | 23 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
| Armagh | 6 | 3 | 9 | 39.1 | ||||||||||||
| Larne | 1 | 1 | 4.3 | |||||||||||||
| Newry | 8 | 5 | 13 | 56.5 | ||||||||||||
| Clonal Complex 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 100.0 | |||||||||||
| Dungannon | 1 | 1 | 20.0 | |||||||||||||
| Newtownards | 1 | 3 | 4 | 80.0 | ||||||||||||
| Clonal Complex 7 | 5 | 5 | 100.0 | |||||||||||||
| Armagh | 3 | 3 | 60.0 | |||||||||||||
| Ballymena | 1 | 1 | 20.0 | |||||||||||||
| Larne | 1 | 1 | 20.0 | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig 4Dendrogram of 98 1st isolate genotypes.
Strain genotype and clonal complex assignation indicated.
Fig 5eBurst Minimum Spanning Trees of 98 disclosing isolate MLVA11 genotypes.
Clonal Complex designation based on genotype similarity and epidemiological information indicated. Blue nodes indicate putative founder genotypes for a complete cluster. Yellow nodes indicate putative founders of sub clusters within larger clusters. Node size is related to frequency of observance of a specific genotype. Lines connecting node pairs are indicative of single locus variation.