| Literature DB >> 26990869 |
Jung-Yeon Kim1, Youn-Kyoung Goo1,2, Young-Gun Zo3, So-Young Ji1, Hidayat Trimarsanto4,5, Sheren To6, Taane G Clark7,8, Ric N Price6,9, Sarah Auburn6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vivax malaria was successfully eliminated from the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the late 1970s but re-emerged in 1993. Two decades later as the ROK enters the final stages of malaria elimination, dedicated surveillance of the local P. vivax population is critical. We apply a population genetic approach to gauge P. vivax transmission dynamics in the ROK between 2010 and 2012. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26990869 PMCID: PMC4798397 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Locations at which infections were acquired.
This map was generated by the Malaria Atlas Project, University of Oxford. The colour scale reflects the model-based geostatistical point estimates of the annual mean P. vivax parasite rate in the 1–99 year age range (PvPR) within the stable spatial limits of P. vivax transmission in 2010 [32]. The approximate locations of the study sites are indicated with black dots. All MAP maps are available to users under the CCAL 3.0. http://www.map.ox.ac.uk/about-map/open-access/.
Sample details.
| Year | No. patients | No. males (%) | Median patient age, years (range) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 27 | 18 (67%) | 49 (12–63) |
| 2011 | 48 | 33 (69%) | 43 (15–74) |
| 2012 | 23 | 13 (57%) | 47 (20–73) |
| 2010–12 | 98 | 64 (65%) | 45 (12–74) |
* Details on median patient age were missing for 9, 20 and 11 individuals in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively.
Marker diversity by year between 2010 and 2013.
| 2010–12 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marker | Pattern of change | ||||
| 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.80 | Stable | |
| 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.75 | Fluctuation | |
| 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.72 | Decline | |
| 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.76 | Fluctuation | |
| 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.74 | Fluctuation | |
| 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.37 | 0.44 | Increase | |
| 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.38 | 0.44 | Increase | |
| 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.36 | Increase | |
| 0.19 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.42 | Increase | |
| 0.56 ± 0.08 | 0.50 ± 0.11 | 0.56 ± 0.08 | 0.60 ± 0.06 | - | |
| 0.48 ± 0.12 | 0.42 ± 0.16 | 0.47 ± 0.12 | 0.56 ± 0.09 | - |
HE = expected heterozygosity.
a All 9 markers used in analysis.
b Analysis restricted to 5 markers defined as balanced by Sutton [35]: MS1, MS5, MS10, MS12, MS20.
Population diversity and LD in the ROK between 1994 and 2013.
| Study | No. samples | No. markers | Collection years | Multilocus LD, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iwagami et al. [ | 81 | 14 | 1994–1998 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 0.584 ( |
| Honma et al. [ | 29 | 13 | 1997–2000 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | 0.557 ( |
| Iwagami et al. [ | 53 | 14 | 1999–2003 | 0.41 ± 0.03 | 0.315 ( |
| Iwagami et al. [ | 29 | 14 | 2004–2008 | 0.50 ± 0.05 | 0.140 ( |
| Honma et al. [ | 29 | 13 | 2007 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | 0.181 ( |
| This study | 96 | 9 | 2010–12 | 0.56 ± 0.08 | 0.098 ( |
a MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5, MS6, MS7, MS8, MS9, MS10, MS12, MS15, MS16, MS20.
b pv1.501, pv3.27, pv3.502, pv14.297, MS3, MS5, MS6, MS8, MS9, MS10, MS16, MS15, MS16, MS20.
c pv3.27, msp1F3, MS1, MS5, MS8, MS10, MS12, MS16, MS20.
Fig 2Unrooted neighbour-joining trees illustrating the genetic relatedness between P. vivax isolates in different years.
Results derived from the 9 marker dataset in the top panel (A), and the 5 marker dataset in the bottom panel (B). N = 79 and 83 in panels A and B respectively.
Linkage disequilibrium.
| All infections | Unique MLGs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Marker Set | ||||
| 2010 | 24 | 0.151 | 21 (88%) | 0.106 | |
| 25 | 0.118 | 13 (52%) | 0.0111 | ||
| 2011 | 34 | 0.094 | 32 (94%) | 0.089 | |
| 36 | 0.070 | 20 (56%) | -0.035 | ||
| 2012 | 19 | 0.049 | 19 (100%) | 0.049 | |
| 19 | 0.078 | 15 (79%) | 0.026 | ||
| 2010–13 | 77 | 0.098 | 64 (83%) | 0.070 | |
| 80 | 0.082 | 33 (38%) | -0.013 |
Only samples with no missing data at all 8 loci are included in the analyses. Note, all samples exhibited low complexity, hence there was no need to repeat the analysis with samples restricted to a maximum of one multi-allelic locus.
2 Unique set of multi-locus genotypes.
3 All 9 markers used in analysis.
4 Analysis restricted to 5 markers defined as balanced by Sutton [35]: MS1, MS5, MS10, MS12, MS20.
*0.01 < P < 0.05.
NS Not significant (P > 0.05).