4.7 Article

HIV-1 Transmission Patterns Within and Between Risk Groups in Coastal Kenya

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-63731-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)
  2. Sub-Saharan African Network for TB/HIV Research Excellence (SANTHE), a DELTAS Africa Initiative [DEL-15-006]
  3. African Academy of Sciences (AAS)'s Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA)
  4. New Partnership for Africa's Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency)
  5. Wellcome Trust [107752/Z/15/Z]
  6. UK government
  7. Swedish Research Council [2016-01417]
  8. Swedish Society for Medical Research [SA-2016]
  9. Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

HIV-1 transmission patterns within and between populations at different risk of HIV-1 acquisition in Kenya are not well understood. We investigated HIV-1 transmission networks in men who have sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDU), female sex workers (FSW) and heterosexuals (HET) in coastal Kenya. We used maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetics to analyse new (N=163) and previously published (N=495) HIV-1 polymerase sequences collected during 2005-2019. Of the 658 sequences, 131 (20%) were from MSM, 58 (9%) IDU, 109 (17%) FSW, and 360 (55%) HET. Overall, 206 (31%) sequences formed 61 clusters. Most clusters (85%) consisted of sequences from the same risk group, suggesting frequent within-group transmission. The remaining clusters were mixed between HET/MSM (7%), HET/FSW (5%), and MSM/FSW (3%) sequences. One large IDU-exclusive cluster was found, indicating an independent sub-epidemic among this group. Phylodynamic analysis of this cluster revealed a steady increase in HIV-1 infections among IDU since the estimated origin of the cluster in 1987. Our results suggest mixing between high-risk groups and heterosexual populations and could be relevant for the development of targeted HIV-1 prevention programmes in coastal Kenya.

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