MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3197285537 · doi:10.1101/2021.08.30.457783

5WBF: A low-cost and straightforward whole blood filtration method suitable for whole-genome sequencing of <i>Plasmodium falciparum</i> clinical isolates

2021· preprint· en· W3197285537 on OpenAlexaff
Romain Coppée, Atikatou Mama, Véronique Sarrasin, Claire Kamaliddin, Lucie Adoux, Lawrence Palazzo, Nicaise Tuikue Ndam, Franck Letourneur, Frédéric Ariey, Sandrine Houzé, Jérôme Clain

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParasitemiaPlasmodium falciparumWhole bloodMalariaWhole genome sequencingBiologyParasite hostingFiltration (mathematics)GenomeHuman bloodDNA extractionComputational biologyImmunologyGeneticsPolymerase chain reactionGenePhysiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is becoming increasingly helpful to assist malaria control programs. A major drawback of this approach is the large amount of human DNA compared to parasite DNA extracted from unprocessed whole blood. As red blood cells (RBCs) have a diameter of about 7-8 μm and exhibit some deformability, we hypothesized that cheap and commercially available 5 μm filters might retain leukocytes but much less of Plasmodium falciparum -infected RBCs. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that such a filtration method, named 5WBF (for 5 μm W hole B lood F iltration), may provide highly enriched parasite material suitable for P. falciparum WGS. Methods Whole blood was collected from five patients experiencing a P. falciparum malaria episode (ring-stage parasitemia range: 0.04-5.5%) and from mock samples obtained by mixing synchronized, ring-stage cultured P. falciparum 3D7 parasites with uninfected human whole blood (final parasitemia range: 0.02-1.1%). These whole blood samples (50 to 400 μL) were diluted in RPMI 1640 medium or PBS 1X buffer and filtered with syringes connected to a 5 μm commercial filter. DNA was extracted from filtered and unfiltered counterpart blood samples using a commercial kit. The 5WBF method was evaluated on the ratios of parasite:human DNA assessed by qPCR and by sequencing depth and percentages of coverage from WGS data (Illumina NextSeq 500). As a comparison, we also applied to the same unprocessed whole blood samples the selective whole-genome amplification (sWGA) method which does not rely on blood filtration. Results After applying 5WBF, qPCR indicated an average of 2-fold loss in the amount of parasite template DNA (Pf ARN 18S gene) and from 4,096- to 65,536-fold loss of human template DNA (human β actin gene). WGS analyses revealed that > 95% of the nuclear genome and the entire whole organellar genomes were covered at ≥ 10× depth for all samples tested. In sWGA counterparts, none of the organellar genomes were covered, and from 47.7 to 82.1% of the nuclear genome was covered at ≥ 10× depth depending on parasitemia. Sequence reads were homogeneously distributed across gene sequences for 5WBF-treated samples (n = 5,460 genes; mean coverage: 91×; median coverage: 93×; 5 th percentile: 70×; 95 th percentile: 103×), allowing the identification of gene copy number variations such as for gch1 . This later analysis was not possible for sWGA-treated samples, as we observed a much more heterogeneous distribution of reads among gene sequences (mean coverage: 80×; median coverage: 51×; 5 th percentile: 7×; 95 th percentile: 245×). Conclusions The novel 5WBF leucodepletion method is simple to implement and based on commercially available, standardized, 5 μm filters which cost from 1.0 to 1.7€ per unit, depending on suppliers. 5WBF permits extensive genome-wide analysis of P. falciparum DNA from minute amounts of whole blood even with parasitemias as low as 0.02%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMalaria Research and Control→French-language works237,207→