| Literature DB >> 30186244 |
Luz H Patiño1,2, Milena Camargo2,3, Marina Muñoz1, Dora I Ríos-Chaparro1, Manuel A Patarroyo3,4, Juan D Ramírez1.
Abstract
Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) has become a useful tool for studying the genetic diversity of important public health pathogens, such as Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct). Four MLST schemes have been proposed for Ct (data available from Chlamydiales MLST databases). However, the lack of a sole standardized scheme represents the greatest limitation regarding typing this species. This study was thus aimed at evaluating the usefulness of the four MLST schemes available for Ct, describing each molecular marker's pattern and its contribution toward a description of intra-specific genetic diversity and population structure. The markers for each scheme, showed a variable power of dicrimination, exhibiting in some cases over estimation in the determination of Sequence Types (STs). However, individual analysis of each locus's typing efficiency and discrimination power led to identifying 8 markers as having a suitable pattern for intra-specific typing. analyzing the 8 candidate markers gave a combination of 3 of these loci as an optimal scheme for identifying a large amount of STs, maximizing discrimination power whilst maintaining suitable typing efficiency. One scheme was compared against core genome phylogenies, finding a higher typing resolution through the last approach. These results confirm once again that although complete genome data, in particular from core genome MLST (cgMLST) allow a high resolution clustering for Ct isolates. There are combinations of molecular markers that could generate equivalent results, with the advantage of representing an easy implementation strategy and lower costs leading to contribute to the monitoring and molecular epidemiology of Ct.Entities:
Keywords: MLST; MLST-genotyping; chlamydia; schemes; sequence type (ST)
Year: 2018 PMID: 30186244 PMCID: PMC6113918 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Chromosome and plasmid mapping of studied loci. The outer circle (red bars) shows the location of the 7 markers used in the scheme A (Chlamydiales-Ct); the middle circle (green bars) shows the location of the 7 markers in scheme B (C. trachomatis); and the inner circle (blue bars) shows the location of the 5 markers in scheme C (C. trachomatis Uppsala). Scheme D molecular markers are plasmid loci.
Figure 3Haplotype diversity (Hd) and nucleotide diversity (pi) indexes for each marker and concatenated sequence for every MLST scheme. DnaSP software was used for calculating the indices.
Figure 4Diagram of the main clonal complexes identified by eBURST analysis. Graphical representation of the clonal complexes, including the greatest amount of STs for each scheme evaluated. Yellow color shows the ST founder and blue color the subgroup founder.
Figure 5Allele plot. Graphical representation of phylogenetic inferences regarding the markers for the MLST schemes evaluated; each cluster is represented by a color (≥80.0% bootstrap) found per gene (row). The cluster to which each ST (columns) belongs was analyzed. (A) Scheme A (Chlamydiales-Ct). (B) Scheme B (C. trachomatis), (C) scheme C (C. trachomatis Uppsala), (D) scheme D (plasmid loci).
Figure 6Comparison of phylogenetic reconstructions obtained from genome dataset. Phylogenetic trees after extraction and alignment of seven housekeeping genes included in Chlamydiales MLST schemes: (A) Scheme A; (B) Scheme B; (C) Scheme C; (D) Core genome phylogeny. (E) SNPs core genome phylogeny.
Calculating the typing efficiency and discriminatory power of the markers in the schemes analyzed.
| Scheme A | 1.250 | 0.7928 [0.5305] | 0.668 [0.586–0.751] | 0.5841 [0.1741] | 0.0094 | |
| 1.111 | 0.624 [0.516–0.732] | 0.0191 | ||||
| 1.250 | 0.708 [0.634–0.782] | 0.0184 | ||||
| 0.134 | 0.771 [0.717–0.826] | 0.0200 | ||||
| 1.143 | 0.639 [0.56–0.718] | 0.0184 | ||||
| 0.026 | 0.328 [0.191–0.464] | 0.5880 | ||||
| 0.636 | 0.351 [0.211–0.492] | 0.0172 | ||||
| Combination of loci | 0.148 | 1 [1–1] | ||||
| Scheme B | 1.400 | 1.0386 [0.3401] | 0.538 [0.372–0.705] | 0.5534 [0.1918] | 0.0096 | |
| 1.333 | 0.289 [0.108–0.469] | 0.0058 | ||||
| 1.167 | 0.331 [0.139–0.523] | 0.0109 | ||||
| 0.381 | 0.526 [0.342–0.711] | 0.0417 | ||||
| 1.000 | 0.739 [0.647–0.831] | 0.0133 | ||||
| 0.889 | 0.668 [0.527–0.809] | 0.0156 | ||||
| 1.100 | 0.783 [0.671–0.895] | 0.0193 | ||||
| Combination of loci | 0.852 | 1 [1–1] | ||||
| Scheme C | CT058 | 0.75 | 0.3432 [0.2579] | 0.875 [0.86–0.89] | 0.8774 [0.0404] | 0.0904 |
| CT144 | 0.277 | 0.829 [0.811–0.848] | 0.2288 | |||
| CT172 | 0.092 | 0.848 [0.824–0.873] | 0.6207 | |||
| 0.178 | 0.925 [0.909–0.941] | 0.0785 | ||||
| 0.419 | 0.91 [0.903–0.918] | 0.1429 | ||||
| Combination of loci | 0.183 | 1 [1–1] | ||||
| Scheme D | 0.565 | 0.7344 [0.3559] | 0.795 [0.708–0.881] | 0.7759 [0.0252] | 0.0251 | |
| 0.611 | 0.776 [0.675–0.878] | 0.0181 | ||||
| 0.667 | 0.87 [0.826–0.913] | 0.0133 | ||||
| 0.333 | 0.887 [0.841–0.933] | 0.0201 | ||||
| 0.522 | 0.865 [0.819–0.91] | 0.0289 | ||||
| 1.500 | 0.303 [0.131–0.476] | 0.0075 | ||||
| 0.867 | 0.825 [0.759–0.891] | 0.0189 | ||||
| 0.81 | 0.886 [0.837–0.935] | 0.0282 | ||||
| Combination of loci | 0.586 | 1 [1–1] |
Typing efficiency and discriminatory power of the markers herein selected.
| Scheme A | 1.167 | 0.718 (0.684–0.751) | |
| Scheme B | 1 | 0.384 (0.299–0.468) | |
| Scheme C | 1 | 0.312 (0.227–0.398) | |
| 0.517 | 0.823 (0.789–0.857) | ||
| 0.056 | 0.879 (0.849–0.908) | ||
| 0.052 | 0.843 (0.803–0.883) | ||
| 0.194 | 0.874 (0.857–0.891) | ||
| Combination of loci | 0.139 | 0.976 (0.969–0.984) | |
Figure 7Chromosomal markers suggested as the best combination for Ct typing.
Calculation of SNPs and Pi sites according to the scheme evaluated.
| Number of alleles | 75 | 74 | 53 | 44 | 44 | 37 | 520 | 501 | 454 | 47 | 46 | 16 |
| Number of polymorphisms | 435 | 223 | 198 | 61 | 61 | 45 | 1747 | 665 | 520 | 161 | 140 | 93 |
| Typing efficiency | 0.172 | 0.332 | 0.268 | 0.721 | 0.721 | 0.822 | 0.298 | 0.753 | 0.873 | 0.292 | 0.329 | 0.172 |
| DP (95% confidence interval) | 1 (1–1) | 1 (0.999–1) | 0.986 (0.977–0.995) | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.99 (0.98–1) | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.999 (0.999–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.999 (0.996–1) | 0.913 (0.877–0.949) |
Figure 2Description of Ct variants in isolates reported in Chlamydiales MLST databases. (A) Ct variant frequency (n = 3,242): Green shows cluster 1 variants (associated with ocular infections), red shows cluster 2 variants (associated with urogenital infections) and blue shows cluster 3 variants (associated with Lymphogranuloma venereum). (B) Ct distribution according to country (n = 3,242). (C) Ct cluster distribution according to sample source (n = 2,194).