4.7 Article

Analysis of Breath Specimens for Biomarkers of Plasmodium falciparum Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 212, 期 7, 页码 1120-1128

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiv176

关键词

malaria; (E)-1-methylthio-1-propene; thioethers; volatile organic compound; odors; machine learning; diagnostic tool

资金

  1. Medicines for Malaria Venture
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council
  3. CSIRO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, the majority of diagnoses of malaria rely on a combination of the patient's clinical presentation and the visualization of parasites on a stained blood film. Breath offers an attractive alternative to blood as the basis for simple, noninvasive diagnosis of infectious diseases. In this study, breath samples were collected from individuals during controlled malaria to determine whether specific malaria-associated volatiles could be detected in breath. We identified 9 compounds whose concentrations varied significantly over the course of malaria: carbon dioxide, isoprene, acetone, benzene, cyclohexanone, and 4 thioethers. The latter group, consisting of allyl methyl sulfide, 1-methylthio-propane, (Z)-1-methylthio-1-propene, and (E)-1-methylthio-1-propene, had not previously been associated with any disease or condition. Before the availability of antimalarial drug treatment, there was evidence of concurrent 48-hour cyclical changes in the levels of both thioethers and parasitemia. When thioether concentrations were subjected to a phase shift of 24 hours, a direct correlation between the parasitemia and volatile levels was revealed. Volatile levels declined monotonically approximately 6.5 hours after initial drug treatment, correlating with clearance of parasitemia. No thioethers were detected in in vitro cultures of Plasmodium falciparum. The metabolic origin of the thioethers is not known, but results suggest that interplay between host and parasite metabolic pathways is involved in the production of these thioethers.

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