Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Malar J. 2010 Jan 15;9:19. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在抗疟试验中进行分子基因分型,以确定治疗后反复出现寄生虫血症是复发(治疗失败)还是新感染。使用毛细管电泳而不是琼脂糖凝胶电泳进行基因分型具有技术优势,但尚不清楚毛细管电泳是否会改善抗疟治疗结果的分类。
从乌干达两个地区(坎昆古,传播程度中等,和阿帕克,传播程度非常高)进行的青蒿琥酯-咯萘啶(AL)与双氢青蒿素-哌喹(DP)随机试验中,使用凝胶和毛细管电泳两种方法对样本进行基因分型。两种方法都评估了裂殖子表面蛋白 1 和 2 和富含谷氨酰胺蛋白基因的多态性区域。
在两个研究地点,毛细管电泳检测到的等位基因比琼脂糖凝胶电泳多,并且具有更高的区分能力。在坎昆古(kappa = 0.66),两种方法对结果的分类只有中度一致性,而在阿帕克(kappa = 0.24)则一致性较差。在坎昆古,使用凝胶和毛细管方法的总体疗效结果相似(AL:42 天治疗失败风险为 6.9% vs. 5.5%,p = 0.4;DP:2.4% vs. 2.9%,p = 0.5)。然而,在阿帕克使用凝胶与毛细管电泳相比,复发的测量风险明显更高(AL:治疗失败风险为 17.0% vs. 10.7%,p = 0.02;DP:8.5% vs. 3.4%,p = 0.03)。无论使用凝胶还是毛细管方法,AL 和 DP 之间的风险差异均无统计学意义。
在高强度传播地区进行的抗疟试验中,使用凝胶电泳进行基因分型会高估复发的风险。毛细管电泳为这些试验提供了更准确的结果,在可能的情况下应进行毛细管电泳。在中度传播地区,凝胶电泳似乎足以估计治疗失败的相对风险。