| Literature DB >> 27821171 |
Helmi Pett1, Bronner P Gonçalves2, Alassane Dicko3, Issa Nébié4, Alfred B Tiono4, Kjerstin Lanke1, John Bradley5, Ingrid Chen6, Halimatou Diawara3, Almahamoudou Mahamar3, Harouna M Soumare3, Sekou F Traore3, Ibrahima Baber3, Sodiomon B Sirima4, Robert Sauerwein1, Joelle Brown6, Roly Gosling6, Ingrid Felger7, Chris Drakeley2, Teun Bousema8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantifying gametocyte densities in natural malaria infections is important to estimate malaria transmission potential. Two molecular methods (Pfs25 mRNA quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) and Pfs25 mRNA quantitative nucleic acid sequence based amplification (QT-NASBA)) are commonly used to determine gametocyte densities in clinical and epidemiological studies and allow gametocyte detection at densities below the microscopic threshold for detection. Here, reproducibility of these measurements and the association between estimated gametocyte densities and mosquito infection rates were compared.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles; Gametocytes; Malaria; Mosquito; QT-NASBA; Quantification; Transmission; qRT-PCR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27821171 PMCID: PMC5100312 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1584-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Intra (a–d) and inter (e–h) assay variation of QT-NASBA and qRT-PCR. In a–d, different colours represent different strains and cultures used for intra-assay variation assessment. In e–h, different experiments used in the inter-assay variation assessment are represented by different colours. Time to positivity (TTP) values for samples tested by QT-NASBA are presented in a and e and coefficients of variation (CVs), in c and g. Cycle of threshold (Ct) values for samples tested by qRT-PCR are presented in b and f; CVs are presented in d and h. In a, b, e and f, circles outside the y-axis range correspond to samples where Pfs25 mRNA was not detected. Of note, for experiments included in inter-assay variation analysis, different densities were used in gametocyte dilution series for QT-NASBA and qRT-PCR
Fig. 2Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between light microscopy, QT-NASBA and qRT-PCR levels in samples from naturally infected individuals. In the y-axes, differences between gametocyte levels estimated by two different methods are presented: a QT-NASBA levels minus microscopy-defined densities, b qRT-PCR minus microscopy levels, c qRT-PCR levels minus levels estimated by QT-NASBA. The X-axes present the average of the densities estimated by the two methods included in the calculation of the respective Y-axes. In panel a, the differences (Y-axis) are limited to a narrower range of values compared to panels b and c, and the inset plot presents the same data using different Y-axis limits
Fig. 3Mosquito infection rates (y-axes), presented as proportions, by gametocyte counts (x-axes) in samples collected in a clinical study in Mali. Gametocyte densities were estimated by QT-NASBA (a), qRT-PCR (b) and light microscopy (c). Fitted curves and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using glmmadmb package in R