Caught in a trap: DNA contamination in tsetse xenomonitoring can lead to over-estimates of Trypanosoma brucei infection.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101291488 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1935-2735 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19352727 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science

Tsetse Flies*/parasitology ; Trypanosoma brucei brucei*/isolation & purification ; Trypanosoma brucei brucei*/genetics ; Trypanosomiasis, African*/transmission ; Trypanosomiasis, African*/epidemiology ; Trypanosomiasis, African*/parasitology ; Trypanosomiasis, African*/diagnosis; Animals ; DNA, Protozoan/genetics ; DNA, Protozoan/analysis ; Insect Vectors/parasitology ; Feces/parasitology ; Female ; Male ; Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods

Background: Tsetse flies (Glossina sp.) are vectors of Trypanosoma brucei subspecies that cause human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). Capturing and screening tsetse is critical for HAT surveillance. Classically, tsetse have been microscopically analysed to identify trypanosomes, but this is increasingly replaced with molecular xenomonitoring. Nonetheless, sensitive T. brucei-detection assays, such as TBR-PCR, are vulnerable to DNA cross-contamination. This may occur at capture, when often multiple live tsetse are retained temporarily in the cage of a trap. This study set out to determine whether infected tsetse can contaminate naïve tsetse with T. brucei DNA via faeces when co-housed.
Methodology/principle Findings: Insectary-reared teneral G. morsitans morsitans were fed an infectious T. b. brucei-spiked bloodmeal. At 19 days post-infection, infected and naïve tsetse were caged together in the following ratios: (T1) 9:3, (T2) 6:6 (T3) 1:11 and a control (C0) 0:12 in triplicate. Following 24-hour incubation, DNA was extracted from each fly and screened for parasite DNA presence using PCR and qPCR. All insectary-reared infected flies were positive for T. brucei DNA using TBR-qPCR. However, naïve tsetse also tested positive. Even at a ratio of 1 infected to 11 naïve flies, 91% of naïve tsetse gave positive TBR-qPCR results. Furthermore, the quantity of T. brucei DNA detected in naïve tsetse was significantly correlated with cage infection ratio. With evidence of cross-contamination, field-caught tsetse from Tanzania were then assessed using the same screening protocol. End-point TBR-PCR predicted a sample population prevalence of 24.8%. Using qPCR and Cq cut-offs optimised on insectary-reared flies, we estimated that prevalence was 0.5% (95% confidence interval [0.36, 0.73]).
Conclusions/significance: Our results show that infected tsetse can contaminate naïve flies with T. brucei DNA when co-caged, and that the level of contamination can be extensive. Whilst simple PCR may overestimate infection prevalence, quantitative PCR offers a means of eliminating false positives.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright: © 2024 Saldanha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Gates Open Res. 2019 Dec 19;3:1734. (PMID: 32596646)
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004 Apr;23(4):289-99. (PMID: 15015033)
Bull Entomol Res. 2002 Oct;92(5):385-403. (PMID: 12241564)
Parasitology. 1989 Aug;99 Pt 1:57-66. (PMID: 2797872)
J Forensic Sci. 1999 Sep;44(5):1042-5. (PMID: 10486955)
Ecol Evol. 2023 Oct 18;13(10):e10652. (PMID: 37869424)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Apr 8;14(4):e0008175. (PMID: 32267840)
Med Vet Entomol. 2011 Jun;25(2):192-201. (PMID: 21276027)
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Nov 01;6(1):316. (PMID: 24499678)
Exp Parasitol. 2008 Jan;118(1):41-6. (PMID: 17643434)
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 14;72(Suppl 3):S203-S209. (PMID: 33906238)
J Insect Physiol. 1965 Jul;11(7):993-1001. (PMID: 5827549)
Acta Trop. 1995 May;59(2):85-92. (PMID: 7676910)
Bull Entomol Res. 1967 Nov;57(3):459-77. (PMID: 6070494)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Oct 12;15(10):e0009812. (PMID: 34637436)
Acta Trop. 2003 Oct;88(2):161-5. (PMID: 14516928)
Infect Dis Poverty. 2017 Sep 4;6(1):126. (PMID: 28866983)
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004 Nov;50(3):193-9. (PMID: 15541605)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1515. (PMID: 22348165)
Tropenmed Parasitol. 1982 Jun;33(2):113-8. (PMID: 6287687)
Acta Trop. 2000 May 31;75(3):315-21. (PMID: 10838215)
Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 20;14(1):4158. (PMID: 38378867)
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Jan 11;12(1):24. (PMID: 30635017)
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Feb;50(2):472-4. (PMID: 22162551)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Feb 18;10(2):e0004441. (PMID: 26890882)
Parasit Vectors. 2019 May 28;12(1):268. (PMID: 31138324)
Mol Ecol Resour. 2012 May;12(3):464-9. (PMID: 22268594)
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Apr 13;13(1):100. (PMID: 28403841)
Med Vet Entomol. 1989 Jan;3(1):77-82. (PMID: 2519650)
Parasitology. 2000 Jun;120 ( Pt 6):583-92. (PMID: 10874721)
Acta Trop. 1985 Mar;42(1):5-23. (PMID: 2859750)
Parasitology. 1973 Apr;66(2):259-67. (PMID: 4786840)
Acta Trop. 1998 Jun 30;70(2):143-55. (PMID: 9698260)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Nov 25;14(11):e0008308. (PMID: 33237917)
Malawi Med J. 2017 Mar;29(1):5-9. (PMID: 28567189)
Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2014 Dec;5(6):351-7. (PMID: 25562044)
Infect Genet Evol. 2020 Jan;77:104095. (PMID: 31689541)
Ecol Evol. 2019 Dec 06;10(1):480-492. (PMID: 31993122)
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Oct;77(4):593-600. (PMID: 17978055)
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 25;16(10):e0258711. (PMID: 34695154)
Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2017 Aug;9:93-97. (PMID: 31014851)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Aug 25;14(8):e0008288. (PMID: 32841229)
Parasit Vectors. 2016 Aug 12;9(1):448. (PMID: 27519526)
Parasit Vectors. 2011 Nov 17;4:217. (PMID: 22093363)

INV-001785 United States GATES Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

0 (DNA, Protozoan)

Date Created: 20240812 Date Completed: 20240822 Latest Revision: 20240824

20240826

PMC11341098

10.1371/journal.pntd.0012095

39133740