Back

Signatures of transmission in within-host M. tuberculosis variation

Walter, K. S.; Cohen, T.; Mathema, B.; Colijn, C.; Sobkowiak, B.; Comas, I.; Goig, G. A.; Croda, J.; Andrews, J. R.

2023-12-29 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.12.28.23300451 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundBecause M. tuberculosis evolves slowly, transmission clusters often contain multiple individuals with identical consensus genomes, making it difficult to reconstruct transmission chains. Finding additional sources of shared M. tuberculosis variation could help overcome this problem. Previous studies have reported M. tuberculosis diversity within infected individuals; however, whether within-host variation improves transmission inferences remains unclear. MethodsTo evaluate the transmission information present in within-host M. tuberculosis variation, we re-analyzed publicly available sequence data from three household transmission studies, using household membership as a proxy for transmission linkage between donor-recipient pairs. FindingsWe found moderate levels of minority variation present in M. tuberculosis sequence data from cultured isolates that varied significantly across studies (mean: 6, 7, and 170 minority variants above a 1% minor allele frequency threshold, outside of PE/PPE genes). Isolates from household members shared more minority variants than did isolates from unlinked individuals in the three studies (mean 98 shared minority variants vs. 10; 0.8 vs. 0.2, and 0.7 vs. 0.2, respectively). Shared within-host variation was significantly associated with household membership (OR: 1.51 [1.30,1.71], for one standard deviation increase in shared minority variants). Models that included shared within-host variation improved the accuracy of predicting household membership in all three studies as compared to models without within-host variation (AUC: 0.95 versus 0.92, 0.99 versus 0.95, and 0.93 versus 0.91). InterpretationWithin-host M. tuberculosis variation persists through culture and could enhance the resolution of transmission inferences. The substantial differences in minority variation recovered across studies highlights the need to optimize approaches to recover and incorporate within-host variation into automated phylogenetic and transmission inference. FundingNIAID: 5K01AI173385

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.4%
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
4
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.8%
5
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
EBioMedicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.2%
8
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
9
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.1%
10
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.7%
12
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
14
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
21
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
23
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
25
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%
27
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
28
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
29
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
30
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.6%