| Literature DB >> 26437774 |
Elena Artimovich1, Atupele Kapito-Tembo2, Paul Pensulo3, Osward Nyirenda4, Sarah Brown5, Sudhaunshu Joshi6, Terrie E Taylor7, Don Mathanga8, Ananias A Escalante9, Miriam K Laufer10, Shannon Takala-Harrison11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistence of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) resistance has been described in an urban setting in Malawi where malaria transmission is relatively low. Higher malaria transmission is associated with greater genetic diversity and more frequent genetic recombination, which could lead to a more rapid re-emergence of SP-sensitive parasites, as well as more rapid degradation of selective sweeps. In this study, the impact of local variation in malaria transmission on the prevalence of SP-resistant haplotypes and selective sweep characteristics was investigated at an urban site with low parasite prevalence and two rural sites with moderate and high parasite prevalence.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26437774 PMCID: PMC4595317 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-015-0860-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine-resistant haplotype prevalence at three sites with different prevalence of malaria parasites. Haplotype prevalence at DHFR (a) and DHPS (b) at three sites within Malawi: a rural site with high parasite prevalence (Chikwawa), a rural site with moderate parasite prevalence (Thyolo), and an urban site with low parasite prevalence (Ndirande). Prevalence was calculated as the percentage of individuals with a given haplotype. Error bars represent 95 % confidence intervals
Fig. 2Sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine selective sweep characteristics at three sites with different prevalence of malaria parasites. Expected heterozygosity in microsatellite loci flanking DHFR 51I/59R/108N (a) and DHPS 437G/540E (b). Samples with missing data were excluded. Error bars represent ±1 standard deviation. Dashed lines represent genomic level, average He, based on unlinked loci. Alpha <0.05 asterisk indicates significant difference between two study sites based on permutation
Fig. 3Proportion of unique versus common microsatellite haplotypes between study sites. Proportion of microsatellite haplotypes found between study sites