Cargando…

Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda

BACKGROUND: Molecular genotyping is performed in anti-malarial trials to determine whether recurrent parasitaemia after therapy represents a recrudescence (treatment failure) or new infection. The use of capillary instead of agarose gel electrophoresis for genotyping offers technical advantages, but...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gupta, Vinay, Dorsey, Grant, Hubbard, Alan E, Rosenthal, Philip J, Greenhouse, Bryan
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20074380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-19
_version_ 1782177229524959232
author Gupta, Vinay
Dorsey, Grant
Hubbard, Alan E
Rosenthal, Philip J
Greenhouse, Bryan
author_facet Gupta, Vinay
Dorsey, Grant
Hubbard, Alan E
Rosenthal, Philip J
Greenhouse, Bryan
author_sort Gupta, Vinay
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Molecular genotyping is performed in anti-malarial trials to determine whether recurrent parasitaemia after therapy represents a recrudescence (treatment failure) or new infection. The use of capillary instead of agarose gel electrophoresis for genotyping offers technical advantages, but it is unclear whether capillary electrophoresis will result in improved classification of anti-malarial treatment outcomes. METHODS: Samples were genotyped using both gel and capillary electrophoresis from randomized trials of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) vs. dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) performed in two areas of Uganda: Kanungu, where transmission is moderate, and Apac, where transmission is very high. Both gel and capillary methods evaluated polymorphic regions of the merozoite surface protein 1 and 2 and glutamine rich protein genes. RESULTS: Capillary electrophoresis detected more alleles and provided higher discriminatory power than agarose gel electrophoresis at both study sites. There was only moderate agreement between classification of outcomes with the two methods in Kanungu (kappa = 0.66) and poor agreement in Apac (kappa = 0.24). Overall efficacy results were similar when using gel vs. capillary methods in Kanungu (42-day risk of treatment failure for AL: 6.9% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.4; DP 2.4% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.5). However, the measured risk of recrudescence was significantly higher when using gel vs. capillary electrophoresis in Apac (risk of treatment failure for AL: 17.0% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.02; DP: 8.5% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.03). Risk differences between AL and DP were not significantly different whether gel or capillary methods were used. CONCLUSIONS: Genotyping with gel electrophoresis overestimates the risk of recrudescence in anti-malarial trials performed in areas of high transmission intensity. Capillary electrophoresis provides more accurate outcomes for such trials and should be performed when possible. In areas of moderate transmission, gel electrophoresis appears adequate to estimate comparative risks of treatment failure.
format Text
id pubmed-2817701
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28177012010-02-09 Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda Gupta, Vinay Dorsey, Grant Hubbard, Alan E Rosenthal, Philip J Greenhouse, Bryan Malar J Research BACKGROUND: Molecular genotyping is performed in anti-malarial trials to determine whether recurrent parasitaemia after therapy represents a recrudescence (treatment failure) or new infection. The use of capillary instead of agarose gel electrophoresis for genotyping offers technical advantages, but it is unclear whether capillary electrophoresis will result in improved classification of anti-malarial treatment outcomes. METHODS: Samples were genotyped using both gel and capillary electrophoresis from randomized trials of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) vs. dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) performed in two areas of Uganda: Kanungu, where transmission is moderate, and Apac, where transmission is very high. Both gel and capillary methods evaluated polymorphic regions of the merozoite surface protein 1 and 2 and glutamine rich protein genes. RESULTS: Capillary electrophoresis detected more alleles and provided higher discriminatory power than agarose gel electrophoresis at both study sites. There was only moderate agreement between classification of outcomes with the two methods in Kanungu (kappa = 0.66) and poor agreement in Apac (kappa = 0.24). Overall efficacy results were similar when using gel vs. capillary methods in Kanungu (42-day risk of treatment failure for AL: 6.9% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.4; DP 2.4% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.5). However, the measured risk of recrudescence was significantly higher when using gel vs. capillary electrophoresis in Apac (risk of treatment failure for AL: 17.0% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.02; DP: 8.5% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.03). Risk differences between AL and DP were not significantly different whether gel or capillary methods were used. CONCLUSIONS: Genotyping with gel electrophoresis overestimates the risk of recrudescence in anti-malarial trials performed in areas of high transmission intensity. Capillary electrophoresis provides more accurate outcomes for such trials and should be performed when possible. In areas of moderate transmission, gel electrophoresis appears adequate to estimate comparative risks of treatment failure. BioMed Central 2010-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2817701/ /pubmed/20074380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-19 Text en Copyright ©2010 Gupta et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Gupta, Vinay
Dorsey, Grant
Hubbard, Alan E
Rosenthal, Philip J
Greenhouse, Bryan
Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda
title Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda
title_full Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda
title_fullStr Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda
title_full_unstemmed Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda
title_short Gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in Uganda
title_sort gel versus capillary electrophoresis genotyping for categorizing treatment outcomes in two anti-malarial trials in uganda
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817701/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20074380
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-9-19
work_keys_str_mv AT guptavinay gelversuscapillaryelectrophoresisgenotypingforcategorizingtreatmentoutcomesintwoantimalarialtrialsinuganda
AT dorseygrant gelversuscapillaryelectrophoresisgenotypingforcategorizingtreatmentoutcomesintwoantimalarialtrialsinuganda
AT hubbardalane gelversuscapillaryelectrophoresisgenotypingforcategorizingtreatmentoutcomesintwoantimalarialtrialsinuganda
AT rosenthalphilipj gelversuscapillaryelectrophoresisgenotypingforcategorizingtreatmentoutcomesintwoantimalarialtrialsinuganda
AT greenhousebryan gelversuscapillaryelectrophoresisgenotypingforcategorizingtreatmentoutcomesintwoantimalarialtrialsinuganda