| Literature DB >> 28118860 |
Wesley Wong1, Allison D Griggs2, Rachel F Daniels1,2, Stephen F Schaffner2, Daouda Ndiaye3, Amy K Bei1,3, Awa B Deme3, Bronwyn MacInnis2, Sarah K Volkman1,2,4, Daniel L Hartl1,5, Daniel E Neafsey2, Dyann F Wirth6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As public health interventions drive parasite populations to elimination, genetic epidemiology models that incorporate population genomics can be powerful tools for evaluating the effectiveness of continued intervention. However, current genetic epidemiology models may not accurately simulate the population genetic profile of parasite populations, particularly with regard to polygenomic (multi-strain) infections. Current epidemiology models simulate polygenomic infections via superinfection (multiple mosquito bites), despite growing evidence that cotransmission (a single mosquito bite) may contribute to polygenomic infections.Entities:
Keywords: Coinfection; Cotransmission; Epidemiology; Genomics; Malaria; Polygenomic infection; Relatedness; Superinfection; Transmission
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28118860 PMCID: PMC5260019 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-017-0398-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 11.117
Fig. 1Trusted SNP set marker map. A representation of the P. falciparum genome and the location of each of the 3132 trusted SNPs. Gray bars represent individual chromosomes. Blue lines indicate the location of coding SNPs, and green lines represent the location of non-coding SNPs
Fig. 2Relatedness within polygenomic infections. Barplots of jackknife estimates of the mean relatedness within 31 polygenomic infections collected from Senegal from 2011–2013. Error bars represent one jackknife estimate of the standard error of the mean. Relatedness is defined as the proportion of genome shared IBD between the strains comprising each polygenomic infection. While there is no clustering of relatedness by year, samples collected in 2011 are less related (average relatedness = 0.24) than samples collected in 2012 and 2013 (average relatedness = 0.46 and 0.50, respectively) (p value = 0.048, one-way ANOVA). Samples collected from 2012 and 2013 had lower coverage than those in 2011, which may contribute to their higher relatedness values
Fig. 3Polygenomic infection IBD maps. Representative IBD maps of nine different polygenomic infections. Gray bars represent sections of the genome that are not IBD among the strains present within the polygenomic infections. Orange sections represent regions of the genome that are IBD. a = SenT88.11, b = SenT37.11, c = SenT51.11, d = SenT248.12, e = SenT223.12, f = SenT093.11, g = SenT232.13, h = SenT100.11, i = SenT021.13
Fig. 4IBD block distributions within polygenomic infections. Distribution of IBD block sizes in megabase pairs (Mbp). IBD blocks were defined as contiguous segments of the genome that are IBD and are longer in highly related polygenomic infections (p value = 2.70 × 10−8, Mann–Whitney U). a Distribution of IBD block size in less related polygenomic infections (relatedness <0.30). Average block size is 0.31 Mbp with a standard deviation of 0.21 Mbp. b Distribution of IBD block sizes in highly related polygenomic infections (relatedness >0.30). Average block size is 1.04 Mbp with a standard deviation of 0.73 Mbp
Fig. 5IBD maps within polygenomic infections and between monogenomic infections. Each subplot represents an individual polygenomic infection. a = SenT009.11, b = SenT100.11, c = SenT044.12, d = SenT210.12, e = SenT232.13, f = SenT232.13. Orange/gray color scheme represents the IBD map of the polygenomic infection, with orange representing regions of the genome that are IBD and gray representing regions of the genome not IBD. Blue/green color schemes represent regions of the genome that are IBD between the strains found within the polygenomic infections and a related monogenomic strain. Blue bars indicate that region of the genome is IBD with one of the monogenomic strains, while green bars indicate that region of the genome is IBD with the other monogenomic strain. Values in parentheses indicate the proportion of the within-polygenomic infection IBD block that is explained by a particular monogenomic infection
Fig. 6Expected relatedness under superinfection. Bootstrap distributions for the expected relatedness under superinfection were generated by randomly sampling with replacement 31 monogenomic pairs. For each set of 31 monogenomic pairs, we calculated the average relatedness and repeated this process 40,000 times to generate bootstrapped distributions of the mean relatedness between monogenomic infection pairs. Superinfection was simulated with either a simple random sampling scheme (blue), in which all sample pairs were equally likely, or a weighted sampling scheme (green), which uses the barcode frequencies of the corresponding monogenomic samples to weigh each sample pair. Bootstrap resampled distributions of expected relatedness in polygenomic infections are shown in orange. p values for both sampling schemes were ≤2.5 × 10−5