4.7 Article

Genomic dissection of Australian Bordetella pertussis isolates from the 2008-2012 epidemic

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 72, Issue 4, Pages 468-477

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.01.005

Keywords

Bordetella pertussis; Molecular epidemiology; Whole genome sequencing; Microevolution; Single nucleotide polymorphism

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1011942]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Despite high pertussis vaccination coverage, Australia experienced a prolonged epidemic in 2008-2012. The predominant Bordetella pertussis genotype harboured pertussis toxin promoter allele, ptxP3, and pertactin gene allele, prn2. The emergence and expansion of prn non-expressing isolates (Prn negative), were also observed. We aimed to investigate the microevolution and genomic diversity of epidemic B. pertussis isolates. Methods: We sequenced 22 B. pertussis isolates collected in 2008-2012 from two states of Australia which are geographically widely separated. Ten of the 22 were Prn negative isolates with three different modes of silencing of prn (prn:: IS481F, prn:: IS481R and prn:: IS1002). Five pre-epidemic isolates were also sequenced for comparison. Results: Five single nucleotide polymorphisms were common in the epidemic isolates and differentiated them from pre-epidemic isolates. The Australian epidemic isolates can be divided into five lineages (EL1-EL5) with EL1 containing only Prn negative isolates. Comparison with global isolates showed that three lineages remained geographically and temporally distinct whereas two lineages mixed with isolates from 2012 UK outbreak. Conclusion: Our results suggest significant diversification and the microevolution of B. pertussis within the 2008-2012 Australian epidemic. (C) 2016 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available