| Literature DB >> 32611396 |
Dingwen Lin1, Zhezhe Cui1, Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong2, Prasit Palittapongarnpim3, Angkana Chaiprasert4, Wuthiwat Ruangchai3, Jing Ou1, Liwen Huang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At present, there are few studies on polymorphism of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) gene and how it affects the TB epidemic. This study aimed to document the differences of polymorphisms between tuberculosis hot and cold spot areas of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China.Entities:
Keywords: Genotypes; Influence; Polymorphisms; Spatial; Tuberculosis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32611396 PMCID: PMC7329418 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-020-05189-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1The phylogenetic tree of Mtb constructed by the Bayesian Inference method. The three most likely recent clusters,with the criterion of SNP distances less than or equal to 12, were shaded. The clusters No. 1 & 2 were found in a county of hot spots and the cluster No. 3 was found in two counties of cold spots. Only a single Lineage 1 isolate (102268) was identified
Lineage distribution at county level(n, row%)
| Region | Subgroups | lineage1.1.1.1 | lineage2.1 | lineage2.2.1 | lineage2.2.2 | lineage4.2.2 | lineage4.4.1 | lineage4.4.2 | lineage4.5 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ancestral | Modern | ||||||||||
| Hot spots | C1 | 0 (0) | 1 (1.5) | 14 (21.54) | 27 (41.54) | 2 (3.1) | 2 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 8 (12.3) | 11 (16.9) | 65 (100) |
| C2 | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4) | 9 (21.95) | 13 (31.71) | 1 (2.4) | 4 (9.8) | 0 (0) | 10 (24.4) | 3 (7.3) | 41 (100) | |
| C3 | 1 (2.4) | 3 (7.3) | 17 (41.46) | 10 (24.39) | 2 (4.9) | 2 (4.9) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4) | 5 (12.2) | 41 (100) | |
| Cold spots | C4 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 12 (20.34) | 18 (30.51) | 3 (5.1) | 3 (5.1) | 0 (0) | 12 (20.3) | 11 (18.6) | 59 (100) |
| C5 | 0 (0) | 1 (1.7) | 9 (15.52) | 15 (25.86) | 2 (3.4) | 5 (8.6) | 1 (1.7) | 14 (24.1) | 11 (19) | 58 (100) | |
| C6 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 9 (33.33) | 3 (11.11) | 2 (7.4) | 3 (11.1) | 0 (0) | 6 (22.2) | 4 (14.8) | 27 (100) | |
| Total | 1 (0.3) | 6 (2.1) | 70 (24.05) | 86 (29.55) | 12 (4.1) | 19 (6.5) | 1 (0.3) | 51 (17.5) | 45 (15.5) | 291 (100) | |
Comparison the proportion of Beijing genotype in each group
| Region | Subgroups | Beijing | Non-Beijing | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hot spots | C1 | 43 | 22 | 0.361 | 0.022 |
| C2 | 23 | 18 | |||
| C3 | 29 | 12 | |||
| Cold spots | C4 | 33 | 26 | 0.482 | |
| C5 | 26 | 32 | |||
| C6 | 14 | 13 |
Fig. 2The Fst of each SNP sites of MTB isolates in hot spots compared with cold spots (Weir and Cockerham weighted). The SNP sites that showed highest Fst are labeled
Fig. 3The Multidemensional scaling similar scores of Fst between six counties. (We are very grateful to Center for Spatial Sciences at the University of California, Davis for providing us with the map files which are freely available for academic use. https://www.gadm.org/about.html)
Fig. 4The frequency distribution of SNPs distances in hot and cold spot areas. In general, SNP distance peak of > 1000 are form differences between isolates belonging to different lineages, in this case between L2 and L4. 500–1000 are resulted from major sub-lineages such as between L2.1 and L2.2. The ones < 500 are usually from differences between more detailed sub-lineages such Asian African2 and Asian African 3. < 100 is almost definitely from the difference between isolates belonging to the same detailed sub-lineages or the same cluster
SNPs based clustering at different clustering criterias
| SNP difference cut point | ≤ 12 | ≤ 24 | ≤ 48 | ≤ 96 | ≤ 192 | ≤ 384 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of clusters | 3 | 6 | 8 | 20 | 16 | 27 |
| Geometric mean (geometric SD) of cluster size | 2.88 (0.82) | 1.92 (1.17) | 2.48 (1.06) | 2.38 (1.23) | 5.87 (15.90) | 36.77 (57.12) |
| No. of cluster crossing counties in the same zone | 1 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 13 | 24 |
| No. of cluster acrossing zones | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 24 |