4.7 Article

Two Nonrecombining Sympatric Forms of the Human Malaria Parasite Plasmodium ovale Occur Globally

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 201, 期 10, 页码 1544-1550

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/652240

关键词

-

资金

  1. United Kingdom Health Protection Agency
  2. Wellcome Trust-Mahidol University-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Programme
  3. Wellcome Trust of Great Britain
  4. University College London Hospitals Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre Infection Theme
  5. Thailand Research Fund
  6. Commission on Higher Education
  7. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  8. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Malaria in humans is caused by apicomplexan parasites belonging to 5 species of the genus Plasmodium. Infections with Plasmodium ovale are widely distributed but rarely investigated, and the resulting burden of disease is not known. Dimorphism in defined genes has led to P. ovale parasites being divided into classic and variant types. We hypothesized that these dimorphs represent distinct parasite species. Methods. Multilocus sequence analysis of 6 genetic characters was carried out among 55 isolates from 12 African and 3 Asia-Pacific countries. Results. Each genetic character displayed complete dimorphism and segregated perfectly between the 2 types. Both types were identified in samples from Ghana, Nigeria, Sao Tome, Sierra Leone, and Uganda and have been described previously in Myanmar. Splitting of the 2 lineages is estimated to have occurred between 1.0 and 3.5 million years ago in hominid hosts. Conclusions. We propose that P. ovale comprises 2 nonrecombining species that are sympatric in Africa and Asia. We speculate on possible scenarios that could have led to this speciation. Furthermore, the relatively high frequency of imported cases of symptomatic P. ovale infection in the United Kingdom suggests that the morbidity caused by ovale malaria has been underestimated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据