| Literature DB >> 31671150 |
Yuanwei Xu1, Irving Cancino-Muñoz2, Manuela Torres-Puente2, Luis M Villamayor3, Rafael Borrás4, María Borrás-Máñez5, Montserrat Bosque6, Juan J Camarena7, Ester Colomer-Roig3,7, Javier Colomina5, Isabel Escribano8, Oscar Esparcia-Rodríguez9, Ana Gil-Brusola10, Concepción Gimeno11, Adelina Gimeno-Gascón12, Bárbara Gomila-Sard13, Damiana González-Granda14, Nieves Gonzalo-Jiménez15, María Remedio Guna-Serrano11, José Luis López-Hontangas10, Coral Martín-González16, Rosario Moreno-Muñoz13, David Navarro4, María Navarro17, Nieves Orta18, Elvira Pérez19, Josep Prat20, Juan Carlos Rodríguez12, María Montserrat Ruiz-García14, Herme Vanaclocha19, Caroline Colijn1,21, Iñaki Comas2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole genome sequencing provides better delineation of transmission clusters in Mycobacterium tuberculosis than traditional methods. However, its ability to reveal individual transmission links within clusters is limited. Here, we used a 2-step approach based on Bayesian transmission reconstruction to (1) identify likely index and missing cases, (2) determine risk factors associated with transmitters, and (3) estimate when transmission happened. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31671150 PMCID: PMC6822721 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Main characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristic | All patients |
|---|---|
| <18 | 11 (10%) |
| 19–34 | 20 (18%) |
| 35–65 | 66 (61%) |
| >65 | 12 (11%) |
| Female | 33 (30%) |
| Male | 76 (70%) |
| Spain | 80 (73%) |
| Other country | 29 (27%) |
| Positive | 66 (61%) |
| Negative | 41 (38%) |
| Pulmonary | 100 (92%) |
| Extrapulmonary | 9 (8%) |
| 25 (23%) | |
| 13 (12%) | |
| 10 (9%) | |
| 13 (12%) | |
| 5 (5%) | |
| 8 (7%) | |
| ≤30 | 46 (42%) |
| 31–60 | 25 (23%) |
| 61–89 | 14 (13%) |
| ≥90 | 32 (29%) |
*Eight TB cases had no epidemiological data.
Fig 1Comparison of transmission reconstruction methods.
The figure shows for clusters CL045 and CL016 the inferred genetic network (A) and the consensus transmission tree inferred from TransPhylo (B and C). In addition we show the strength of the TransPhylo prediction (C). When the index case is sampled, it is depicted by a direct black arrow connecting the grey “0” circle to the respective individual. This is the case for G146 in CL045. When the index case is missing, this is represented by an orange square connected to all cases, as in CL016. Any other unsampled tuberculosis case is shown using a blue square symbol.
Fig 2Weighted mean number of unsampled tuberculosis cases.
For each posterior transmission tree, we associate a weighting factor t, where k is the number of sampled cases for which transmission happened after diagnosis, and t = 0.1. This accounts for the fact that individuals are treated once diagnosed, and so are less likely to transmit. This figure shows the mean number of unsampled cases for one of the simulated clock rates (0.363). The results for all clock rates appear in S5 Fig.
Fig 3The posterior probability that each individual is the index case for a cluster versus the time of diagnosis of the individual.
The individual with highest posterior probability to be the index case is shown in red for each cluster. In some clusters, the first diagnosed case was the estimated index case, in that it had the highest probability of being the index case (e.g., CL002). In contrast, in the majority of clusters the most likely index case was not the first diagnosed individual (e.g., CL010 and CL023) or was not sampled (e.g., CL016 and CL003). The Psamp values are the posterior probability that the index case was any of the sampled individuals—in some clusters (e.g., CL003) the index case was likely to have been an unsampled individual.
Fig 4Resampled median time of first transmission.
The graph represents the median time of the first highly likely transmission for individuals for whom the posterior probability of transmitting (prob_transm) was greater than 0.6, under a clock rate value of 0.363 SNPs/genome/year. For each case, the diagnosis time (dgns_time; squares) and, where known, the symptom onset time (symp_time; triangles) are added. Analogous graphs for different transmission probability cutoffs, and without cutoffs, are shown in S6–S12 Figs.
Fig 5Epidemiological characteristics of the cases used to identify transmission risk factors.
Note that the data do not include all the study samples: for 5 clusters we were not able to identify a likely transmission event, and these clusters were excluded from this analysis. Transmitters are defined as those individuals estimated to be likely transmitters and/or likely index cases detected by TransPhylo. The figure shows estimated odd ratios for each risk factor tested. *Fisher’s exact test. Comparisons were made between transmitter cases and the rest of the clustered samples.