4.4 Article

Comparison of Plasmodium falciparum allelic frequency distribution in different endemic settings by high-resolution genotyping

期刊

MALARIA JOURNAL
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-250

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [112196]
  2. National Institute of Health (NIH)
  3. Forlen Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The diversity of genotyping markers of Plasmodium falciparum depends on transmission intensity. It has been reported that the diversity of the merozoite surface protein 2 (msp2) is greater in areas of high compared to low endemicity, however, results for msp1 were inconsistent. These previous reports relied on low resolution genotyping techniques. Methods: In the present study, a high-resolution capillary electrophoresis-based technique was applied to genotype samples from areas of different endemicity in Papua New Guinea and Tanzania. For both endemic settings, the diversity of msp1 and msp2 was investigated; the mean multiplicity of infection (MOI) and the F-ST values were determined to investigate whether more accurate sizing generates different results. Results and Conclusion: The results of the present study confirmed previous reports of a higher mean MOI for both marker genes and increased genetic diversity in areas of higher endemicity as estimated by the total number of distinct alleles for msp2. For msp1 a minor increase in diversity was observed. Measures of between population variance in allele frequencies (F-ST) indicated little genetic differentiation for both marker genes between the two populations from different endemic settings. MOI adjusted for the probability of multiple infections sharing the same allele was estimated by using the msp2 allele frequency distribution and the distribution of observed numbers of concurrent infections. For the high-resolution typing technique applied in this study, this adjustment made little difference to the estimated mean MOI compared to the observed mean MOI.

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

4.4
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