4.8 Article

Global spatial dynamics and vaccine-induced fitness changes of Bordetella pertussis

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 642, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abn3253

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Government Investissement d'Avenir grant [ANR-16-CONV-0005]
  2. Institut Pasteur
  3. French Government's Investissement d'Avenir program Laboratoire d'Excellence Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases [ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID]
  4. European Research Council [804744]
  5. European Research Council under the European Union [725422-ReservoirDOCS]
  6. Public Health France (Sante publique France, Saint Maurice, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used 3344 sequences from 23 countries to demonstrate the presence of numerous transmission chains of Bordetella pertussis within a subnational region, and the number of chains was strongly associated with host population size. Vaccine policy has an impact on the genotype dynamics of B. pertussis, which is responsible for 160,000 deaths annually.
As with other pathogens, competitive interactions between Bordetella pertussis strains drive infection risk. Vaccines are thought to perturb strain diversity through shifts in immune pressures; however, this has rarely been measured because of inadequate data and analytical tools. We used 3344 sequences from 23 countries to show that, on average, there are 28.1 transmission chains circulating within a subnational region, with the number of chains strongly associated with host population size. It took 5 to 10 years for B. pertussis to be homogeneously distributed throughout Europe, with the same time frame required for the United States. Increased fitness of pertactin-deficient strains after implementation of acellular vaccines, but reduced fitness otherwise, can explain long-term genotype dynamics. These findings highlight the role of vaccine policy in shifting local diversity of a pathogen that is responsible for 160,000 deaths annually.

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

4.8
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