Signatures of transmission in within-host Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex variation: a retrospective genomic epidemiology study.

IF 20.9 1区 生物学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Lancet Microbe Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.06.003
Katharine S Walter, Ted Cohen, Barun Mathema, Caroline Colijn, Benjamin Sobkowiak, Iñaki Comas, Galo A Goig, Julio Croda, Jason R Andrews
{"title":"Signatures of transmission in within-host Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex variation: a retrospective genomic epidemiology study.","authors":"Katharine S Walter, Ted Cohen, Barun Mathema, Caroline Colijn, Benjamin Sobkowiak, Iñaki Comas, Galo A Goig, Julio Croda, Jason R Andrews","doi":"10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.06.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) species evolve slowly, so isolates from individuals linked in transmission often have identical or nearly identical genomes, making it difficult to reconstruct transmission chains. Finding additional sources of shared MTBC variation could help overcome this problem. Previous studies have reported MTBC diversity within infected individuals; however, whether within-host variation improves transmission inferences remains unclear. Here, we aimed to quantify within-host MTBC variation and assess whether such information improves transmission inferences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective genomic epidemiology study in which we reanalysed publicly available sequence data from household transmission studies published in PubMed from database inception until Jan 31, 2024, for which both genomic and epidemiological contact data were available, using household membership as a proxy for transmission linkage. We quantified minority variants (ie, positions with two or more alleles each supported by at least five-fold coverage and with a minor allele frequency of 1% or more) outside of PE and PPE genes, within individual samples and shared across samples. We used receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves to compare the performance of a general linear model for household membership that included shared minority variants and one that included only fixed genetic differences.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified three MTBC household transmission studies with publicly available whole-genome sequencing data and epidemiological linkages: a household transmission study in Vitória, Brazil (Colangeli et al), a retrospective population-based study of paediatric tuberculosis in British Columbia, Canada (Guthrie et al), and a retrospective population-based study in Oxfordshire, England (Walker et al). We found moderate levels of minority variation present in MTBC sequence data from cultured isolates that varied significantly across studies: mean 168·6 minority variants (95% CI 151·4-185·9) for the Colangeli et al dataset, 5·8 (1·5-10·2) for Guthrie et al (p<0·0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test, vs Colangeli et al), and 7·1 (2·4-11·9) for Walker et al (p<0·0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test, vs Colangeli et al). Isolates from household pairs shared more minority variants than did randomly selected pairs of isolates: mean 97·7 shared minority variants (79·1-116·3) versus 9·8 (8·6-11·0) in Colangeli et al, 0·8 (0·1-1·5) versus 0·2 (0·1-0·2) in Guthrie et al, and 0·7 (0·1-1·3) versus 0·2 (0·2-0·2) in Walker et al (all p<0·0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test). Shared within-host variation was significantly associated with household membership (odds ratio 1·51 [95% CI 1·30-1·71], p<0·0001), for one standard deviation increase in shared minority variants. Models that included shared within-host variation versus models without within-host variation improved the accuracy of predicting household membership in all three studies: area under the ROC curve 0·95 versus 0·92 for the Colangeli et al study, 0·99 versus 0·95 for the Guthrie et al study, and 0·93 versus 0·91 for the Walker et al study.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Within-host MTBC variation persists through culture of sputum and could enhance the resolution of transmission inferences. The substantial differences in minority variation recovered across studies highlight the need to optimise approaches to recover and incorporate within-host variation into automated phylogenetic and transmission inference.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>National Institutes of Health.</p>","PeriodicalId":46633,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Microbe","volume":" ","pages":"100936"},"PeriodicalIF":20.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Microbe","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.06.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) species evolve slowly, so isolates from individuals linked in transmission often have identical or nearly identical genomes, making it difficult to reconstruct transmission chains. Finding additional sources of shared MTBC variation could help overcome this problem. Previous studies have reported MTBC diversity within infected individuals; however, whether within-host variation improves transmission inferences remains unclear. Here, we aimed to quantify within-host MTBC variation and assess whether such information improves transmission inferences.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective genomic epidemiology study in which we reanalysed publicly available sequence data from household transmission studies published in PubMed from database inception until Jan 31, 2024, for which both genomic and epidemiological contact data were available, using household membership as a proxy for transmission linkage. We quantified minority variants (ie, positions with two or more alleles each supported by at least five-fold coverage and with a minor allele frequency of 1% or more) outside of PE and PPE genes, within individual samples and shared across samples. We used receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves to compare the performance of a general linear model for household membership that included shared minority variants and one that included only fixed genetic differences.

Findings: We identified three MTBC household transmission studies with publicly available whole-genome sequencing data and epidemiological linkages: a household transmission study in Vitória, Brazil (Colangeli et al), a retrospective population-based study of paediatric tuberculosis in British Columbia, Canada (Guthrie et al), and a retrospective population-based study in Oxfordshire, England (Walker et al). We found moderate levels of minority variation present in MTBC sequence data from cultured isolates that varied significantly across studies: mean 168·6 minority variants (95% CI 151·4-185·9) for the Colangeli et al dataset, 5·8 (1·5-10·2) for Guthrie et al (p<0·0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test, vs Colangeli et al), and 7·1 (2·4-11·9) for Walker et al (p<0·0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test, vs Colangeli et al). Isolates from household pairs shared more minority variants than did randomly selected pairs of isolates: mean 97·7 shared minority variants (79·1-116·3) versus 9·8 (8·6-11·0) in Colangeli et al, 0·8 (0·1-1·5) versus 0·2 (0·1-0·2) in Guthrie et al, and 0·7 (0·1-1·3) versus 0·2 (0·2-0·2) in Walker et al (all p<0·0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test). Shared within-host variation was significantly associated with household membership (odds ratio 1·51 [95% CI 1·30-1·71], p<0·0001), for one standard deviation increase in shared minority variants. Models that included shared within-host variation versus models without within-host variation improved the accuracy of predicting household membership in all three studies: area under the ROC curve 0·95 versus 0·92 for the Colangeli et al study, 0·99 versus 0·95 for the Guthrie et al study, and 0·93 versus 0·91 for the Walker et al study.

Interpretation: Within-host MTBC variation persists through culture of sputum and could enhance the resolution of transmission inferences. The substantial differences in minority variation recovered across studies highlight the need to optimise approaches to recover and incorporate within-host variation into automated phylogenetic and transmission inference.

Funding: National Institutes of Health.

宿主内结核分枝杆菌复杂变异的传播特征:回顾性基因组流行病学研究。
背景:结核分枝杆菌复合体(MTBC)物种进化缓慢,因此从与传播有关的个体分离的菌株通常具有相同或几乎相同的基因组,这使得重建传播链变得困难。寻找共享MTBC变异的其他来源可以帮助克服这个问题。先前的研究报告了感染个体内MTBC的多样性;然而,宿主内变异是否能改善传播推断仍不清楚。在这里,我们的目的是量化宿主内MTBC的变化,并评估这些信息是否能改善传播推断。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性基因组流行病学研究,其中我们重新分析了PubMed上发表的从数据库建立到2024年1月31日的家庭传播研究的公开序列数据,其中基因组和流行病学接触数据都是可用的,使用家庭成员作为传播联系的代理。我们量化了PE和PPE基因之外的少数变异(即具有两个或更多等位基因的位置,每个等位基因的覆盖率至少为5倍,等位基因频率为1%或更高),在单个样本内以及在样本间共享。我们使用接收算子特征(ROC)曲线来比较家庭成员的一般线性模型的性能,包括共同的少数变异和只包括固定的遗传差异。研究结果:我们确定了三个MTBC家庭传播研究,这些研究具有公开的全基因组测序数据和流行病学联系:巴西Vitória的家庭传播研究(Colangeli等人),加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的儿童结核病回顾性人群研究(Guthrie等人),以及英国牛津郡的回顾性人群研究(Walker等人)。我们发现来自培养分离株的MTBC序列数据中存在中等水平的少数变异,在不同的研究中差异显著:Colangeli等人的数据集中平均有168.6个少数变异(95% CI为154.1 - 185.9),Guthrie等人的数据集中平均有5.8个(1.5 -10·2)。(解释:宿主内MTBC变异通过痰培养持续存在,可以提高传播推断的分辨率。)不同研究中恢复的少数变异的巨大差异突出了优化恢复方法的必要性,并将宿主内变异纳入自动化的系统发育和传播推断中。资助:美国国立卫生研究院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lancet Microbe
Lancet Microbe Multiple-
CiteScore
27.20
自引率
0.80%
发文量
278
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Microbe is a gold open access journal committed to publishing content relevant to clinical microbiologists worldwide, with a focus on studies that advance clinical understanding, challenge the status quo, and advocate change in health policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信