Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0287668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287668

Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in Sudan

Safaa Ahmed 1,2, Kareen Pestana 3, Anthony Ford 4, Mohammed Elfaki 1,5, Eiman Gamil 1, Arwa F Elamin 1, Samuel Omer Hamad 1, Tarig Mohamed Elfaki 1,6, Sumaia Mohamed Ahmed Abukashawa 2, Eugenia Lo 3,7,*, Muzamil M Abdel Hamid 1,*
Editor: Luzia H Carvalho8
PMCID: PMC10358875  PMID: 37471337

Abstract

Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein (PvDBP) is essential for interacting with Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines (DARC) on the surface of red blood cells to allow invasion. Earlier whole genome sequence analyses provided evidence for the duplications of PvDBP. It is unclear whether PvDBP duplications play a role in recent increase of P. vivax in Sudan and in Duffy-negative individuals. In this study, the prevalence and type of PvDBP duplications, and its relationship to demographic and clinical features were investigated. A total of 200 malaria-suspected blood samples were collected from health facilities in Khartoum, River Nile, and Al-Obied. Among them, 145 were confirmed to be P. vivax, and 43 (29.7%) had more than one PvDBP copies with up to four copies being detected. Both the Malagasy and Cambodian types of PvDBP duplication were detected. No significant difference was observed between the two types of duplications between Duffy groups. Parasitemia was significantly higher in samples with the Malagasy-type than those without duplications. No significant difference was observed in PvDBP duplication prevalence and copy number among study sites. The functional significance of PvDBP duplications, especially those Malagasy-type that associated with higher parasitemia, merit further investigations.

Introduction

Malaria is a significant public health problem in Sudan and almost 75% of the population is at risk of malaria. Plasmodium vivax is one of the prominent malarial parasites in Sudan that can cause severe infection and substantial morbidity. Plasmodium vivax and P. vivax/P. falciparum co-infection are responsible for 11% and 9.1% of total malaria cases, respectively, in Sudan [13]. The emergence and marked increase of P. vivax poses new challenges to malarial treatment and control in the country. P. vivax was previously less common in Sub-Saharan African countries [1]. However, in recent years, the number of P. vivax cases has markedly increased across Africa with increasing proportions of severe cases, and infections spreading to new areas where Duffy-negative individuals are predominant [410].

The pathology of P. vivax infection depends critically on the parasite’s ability to recognize and invade human erythrocytes, and multiply leading to clinical signs or symptoms [11]. While P. falciparum uses a complex array of receptors to invade human erythrocytes, P. vivax merozoites completely depend on the interactions between P. vivax Duffy Binding Protein (PvDBP) and the Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines (DARC) expressed on the surface of human erythrocytes [1215]. Duffy-negative individuals who have low expression of DARC were previously thought to be resistant to P. vivax infections [16], but the essentiality of the PvDBP-DARC interaction for P. vivax invasion has been recently challenged [17]. Over the past five years, there has been an increasing number of reports on Duffy-negative individuals being infected with P. vivax throughout Africa and in South America [6, 1821]. This changing epidemiology is a serious public health problem as the majority of African populations are Duffy-negatives [21, 22]. The genetic characteristics of PvDBP would provide a deeper understanding of the biological mechanisms behind erythrocyte invasion and the functional consequences of PvDBP variation [11]. PvDBP was previously described as a single copy gene [18], but recent whole genome sequences from field isolates provided evidence for the duplications of this gene [11, 16]. Parasites with two distinct types of PvDBP duplications are circulating globally, namely the Malagasy and the Cambodian duplications based on the where they were first described [11]. The high prevalence of PvDBP duplications raises the possibility that this structural change could be linked to the ability of P. vivax to infect Duffy-negative individuals [6]. Mutations in PvDBP in P. vivax from Duffy-negative Ethiopians did not lead to binding to Duffy-negative erythrocytes in vitro [21]. Other possible alternative mechanisms of erythrocyte invasion are via PvDBP gene duplications that allow evasion of host immune responses [23] or via a Duffy-independent pathway that involves the interactions between PvRBP2b and Transferrin receptor 1 [24].

Parasites with multiple PvDBP copies have been shown to influence host immune evasion [23]. Increased PvDBP copy number may lead to increased mRNA levels and confer protection to P. vivax in vitro against invasion inhibition by human monoclonal antibodies targeting region II of PvDBP [23]. However, the extent of invasion inhibition could also be dependent of PvDBP sequence polymorphisms and/or Duffy status of host individuals. In Africa, PvDBP duplications have been reported in Ethiopia and Madagascar, but such phenomenon is not yet clear in Sudan. Therefore, this study investigated the prevalence and type of PvDBP gene duplication, as well as its relationship with demographic and clinical features among P. vivax cases in Sudan. Findings would allow comparisons of the distribution and prevalence of PvDBP duplications with other African P. vivax isolates.

Methodology

Ethics statement

Ethical clearance was obtained from Khartoum State Ministry of Health, Sudan (number KMOH-REC-062.2). Verbal informed consent was obtained from each participant and guardians of minor prior to their participation in the study.

Sample collection and processing

A cross sectional study was conducted between May 2018 to January 2021 in hospitals and health facilities in urban and rural Khartoum including the Gezira Slang and Alsarorab clinics, River Nile (Northern Sudan) and Al-Obied (Central Sudan). These study sites have similar malaria incidence and low-moderate transmission [25]. A total of 200 whole blood samples from suspected P. vivax patients (24 from Khartoum, 53 from Gezira Slang, 44 from Alsarorab, 55 from River Nile, and 24 from Al Obeid) were collected in EDTA tubes. P. vivax was diagnosed by microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained thin and thick blood films and/or rapid diagnosis test (SD Bioline, Standard Diagnostics Inc., South Korea). Demographical and clinical data including age, gender, ethnicity, and medical history were recorded with questionnaire. Patients who were infected with other Plasmodium species (P. falciparum, P. malariae, P. ovale and/or mixed infection) were excluded from this study. Genomic DNA was extracted from venous blood or dried blood spots (Whatman 3mm filter paper) using ZymoBead Genomic DNA kit (Zymo Research) following the manufacturer’s procedures [6]. The concentrations of DNA were determined using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer (UV1visible Nanodrop 1000, Thermo Fisher) prior to PCR. The obtained DNA concentration ranged from 150–700 ng/μl.

Identification of P. vivax by nested and quantitative PCR

Nested PCR was performed in a total volume of 20μl including maxime PCR premix (intron biotechnology, Inc, South Korea), 2.5U i-Taq DNA polymerase, 2.5μM dNTPs, 2μl DNA template, 0.5μl from each primer (10pmol/μl), and 17μl deionized H2O. Species-specific primers that amplify the 18S rRNA amplicon were used to detect P. vivax as previously described [26]. The first round of PCR condition was as follow: initial denaturation 94°C for 2 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of: denaturation 94°C for 30 seconds, annealing 55°C for 1 minute, extension 72°C for 1 minute and final extension 72°C for 5 minutes. The second round of PCR was as follow: initial denaturation 94°C for 2 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of: denaturation 94°C for 30 seconds, annealing 58°C for 1 minute, extension 72°C for 1 minute and a final extension 72°C for 5 minutes. Negative and positive controls were included in each PCR.

In addition to PCR, the SYBR Green qPCR method that amplifies a segment of the 18S rRNA genes of P. vivax [27], was used to quantify parasite density of the samples. Amplification was performed in a 20μL reaction containing 10μL of 2x SYBR Green qPCR Master Mix (Thermo Scientific), 0.5 μM of primer (forward: 5’AGAATTTTCTCTTCGGAGTTTATTCTTAGATTGCT-3’; reverse: 5’GCCGCAAGCTCCACGCCTGGTGGTGC-3’), and 1μL of genomic DNA. PCR conditions were as follow: initial denaturation of 95°C for 3 minutes, followed by 45 cycles of: denaturation at 94°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 55°C for 30 seconds, extension at 68°C for 1 minute immediately followed by 95°C hold step for 10 seconds and a final melting curve step with temperatures increasing from 65°C to 95°C in 0.5°C increments. Each assay included a positive plasmid control for the 18S rRNA P. vivax gene (MRA-178; BEI Resources) to ensure primer specificity in addition to negative controls. A ten-fold dilution series was used to estimate the standard curve and thus amplification efficiency. Patient samples which yielded Ct values higher than 40 were considered negative. P. vivax parasitemia was calculated with the following equation: Parasite DNA (per/μL) = [2E×(40−Ctsample)/10]; where Ct is the threshold cycle of the individual sample and E is the amplification efficiency [28].

Duffy blood group genotyping

All P. vivax positive samples were included in Duffy blood group genotyping based on TaqMan qPCR assays. The primers (forward: 5’GGCCTGAGGCTTGTGCAGGCAG-3’; reverse: 5’ CATACTCACCCTGTGCAGACAG-3’) and dye-labeled probes (FAM: CCTTGGCTCTTA[C]CTTGGAAGCACAGG-BHQ; HEX: CCTTGGCTCTTA[T]CTTGGAAGCACAGG-BHQ) amplified the GATA1 transcription factor-binding site of the DARC gene promoter. Amplification was performed in a 20μL reaction containing 7μL TaqMan Fast Advanced Master mix (Thermo Scientific), 0.5 μM of forward and reverse primers, 0.5 μM of each of the dye-labeled probes, and 1μL of DNA template. PCR conditions were as follows: initial denaturation of 95°C for 2 minutes, followed by 45 cycles of: denaturation at 95°C for 3 seconds and annealing at 58°C for 30 seconds. The fluorescent signals emitted by the dye-labeled probes provided the data for allelic discrimination and determination of the Duffy genotype. The DARC gene from a subset of Duffy-positive (C/T and T/T) and all Duffy-negative (C/C) individuals were amplified and sequenced to confirm the genotyping results.

Detection of PvDBP duplications

Five separated amplifications were conducted using published primers designed to detect the different types of PvDBP duplications. They included primers as positive controls (BF/BR, AF/AR and AF2/AR2), primers specific for the Malagasy duplication (BF/AR), and primers specific for the Cambodian duplication (BF/AR2) (Table 1).

Table 1. Information of primers used for PCR and qPCR detection of PvDBP duplications based on previous study [11].

Primer Primer sequence (5′→3′)
BF TCATCGAGCATGTTCCTTTG
BR TTGCACGTACTCGAAACTCAG
AF CCATAAAAGGTAGGAAATTGGAAA
AR GCATTTTATGAAAACGGTGCT
AF2 ACGCGATGTATCTTCTTTTCA
AR2 TAGAACGCACAGTTATTGGC
PvDBP: forward AGGTGGCTTTTGAGAATGAA
PvDBP: reverse GAATCTCCTGGAACCTTCTC
PvAldolase forward GACAGTGCCACCATCCTTACC
PvAldolase reverse CCTTCTCAACATTCTCCTTCTTTCC

PCR conditions were as follow: initial denaturation 94°C for 2 minutes, followed by 35 cycles of: denaturation 94°C for 20 second, annealing 56°C for 30 second and extension 72°C for 1 minutes, followed by a final extension 72°C for 5 minutes. The PCR condition was based on the published protocol with minor modifications [11].

In addition, PvDBP copy number was measured with the SYBR Green qPCR method. The P. vivax aldolase gene, which is known to be a single copy gene, was used as an internal reference to calculate the copy number of PvDBP. The primers for PvDBP duplications amplified between region II and region III of PvDBP [6]. Amplification was performed in a 20μL reaction containing 10μL of 2x SYBR Green qPCR Master Mix (Thermo Scientific), 0.5 μM of forward and reverse primers (Table 1), and 1μL of genomic DNA that was standardized to ~50 genomes/μL. PCR conditions were as follow: initial denaturation of 95°C for 3 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of: denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 55°C for 30 seconds, extension at 68°C for 1 minute immediately followed by 65°C hold step for 5 seconds and a final melting curve step with temperatures increasing from 65°C to 95°C in 0.5°C increments. Each assay included a positive plasmid control for PvDBP and Pv adolase (known to be single copy) along with negative controls. Samples were run in triplicate and the average Ct values for Pv aldolase (CtPvaldo) and PvDBP (CtPvDBP) were calculated for each sample. CtPvaldo cal and CtPvDBP cal were the average difference between CtPvaldo and CtPvDBP obtained from the positive control that contained a single copy of Pv aldolase and PvDBP gene fragments. Quantification of PvDBP duplication was calculated based on the equation from previous studies [6, 29, 30], as follow: N = 2ΔΔCt±SD, where ΔΔCt = (CtPvaldolase- CtPvDBP)-(CtPvAldolase cal-CtPvDBP cal). The standard deviation was calculated to be used for the calibrator with the following equation: SD = √(S2pvdbp+S2pvaldo+S2cal). For each sample, the assessment of PvDBP copy number was repeated twice for validation.

Statistical analyses

The normality of data was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For data that departed from normality, nonparametric methods were used for pairwise comparison among groups. All potential significance of differences in parasitemia levels among age groups (under 5 years old, 5–12 years old, and above 12 years old), Duffy groups (C/T, T/T and C/C), as well as infections with and without PvDBP duplications were assessed using a one-way non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. For each categorical variable (age, Duffy group, and PvDBP duplications), we employed a non-parametric multiple comparison procedure using Dunn’s test with the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment to control for false discovery rate. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine significance between groups.

Results

Characteristics of the study populations

The age of study participants ranged from 3 months to 70 years old (mean = 21 years old). Males represented 60.2% and females represented 39.8% of the study participants. Patients displayed malaria symptoms including fever, headache, vomiting, fatigue, chills, and abdominal pain. All malaria-infected individuals were microscopic-positive and had parasitemia based on microscopy ranged from 182–38,400 (average 6,863±5,911) parasites per microliter of blood. A significant difference was detected in parasitemia levels across age groups. Individuals above 12 years old showed a significantly lower parasitemia than those under 5 years old (p = 0.001) as well as those aged 5–12 (p = 0.005; Fig 1A).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Comparisons of parasitemia levels among (A) age groups; (B) Duffy genotypes; and (C) PvDBP duplication types based on PCR analysis.

Of the 200 samples, 145 were confirmed to be P. vivax, of which 134 were monoinfection and 11 were coinfected with P. falciparum (S1 File). Based on Duffy genotyping and DARC gene sequencing, among these 145 P. vivax-infected patients, 127 (87.6%) were heterozygous Duffy-positive (C/T), 15 (10.3%) were homozygous Duffy-positive (T/T), and 3 (2.1%) were homozygous Duffy-negative (C/C). Heterozygous Duffy-positive (C/T) individuals were the most prevalent. Significant differences were found in parasitemia levels between the Duffy-positive and Duffy-negative groups. The parasitemia was significantly lower in the Duffy-negatives (C/C) than the homozygous Duffy-positive (T/T; p = 0.002) and heterozygous Duffy-positive (C/T; p = 0.001; Fig 1B), despite small samples of Duffy negatives. No significant difference was detected in parasitemia between the homozygous and heterozygous Duffy-positives (p>0.05). More samples are needed in future study to draw confident comparisons.

Frequency of PvDBP duplications among Duffy groups and study sites

Of the 145 P. vivax-infected samples, 43 (29.7%) were detected with more than one copies of PvDBP based on PCR analysis. For these 43 samples with multiple PvDBP copies, both the Malagasy and the Cambodian types of PvDBP duplication were detected (Fig 2). Samples with the Malagasy-type duplications yielded a 612bp band and those with the Cambodian-type duplications yielded a 736bp band, respectively, using primers BF/AR and BF/AR2 (Fig 2). Three out of the 43 samples with more than one copies of PvDBP were observed in P. vivax and P. falciparum coinfected samples and the rest were P. vivax monoinfection.

Fig 2. Gel identification of PvDBP duplication types of three selected P. vivax-infected samples based on PCR assays.

Fig 2

The three positive controls (AF/AF, BF/BR, and AF2/AR2) showed approximately 650bp band, while no bands in the negative controls. Sample (1) indicated Malagasy-type duplication with 613bp band; sample (2) indicated Cambodian-type duplication with 736bp band; and sample (3) indicated a single copy of the PvDBP gene with no duplication.

Of the 43 P. vivax samples detected with multiple PvDBP copies, 23 (53.5%) have the Cambodian-type and 20 (46.5%) had the Malagasy-type PvDBP duplication based on PCR analysis. Approximately 30% of the homozygous and heterozygous Duffy-positives had multiple PvDBP copies. The frequency of PvDBP duplication was not significantly different between heterozygous (C/T; 36/127 = 28.3%) and homozygous Duffy-positives (T/T; 5/15 = 33.3%) (p = 0.19; Table 2). However, only 2 out of the 3 Duffy-negatives (66%) had multiple PvDBP copies, and the number of Duffy-negative samples was too small to draw any confident comparisons. For all three Duffy groups, nearly half of the samples with multiple PvDBP copies had the Cambodian-type duplications and the other half had the Malagasy-type duplications (Table 2). No significant difference was observed between the two types of duplications among Duffy groups (p = 0.29; Table 2).

Table 2. Prevalence of PvDBP duplications in Duffy-positives (C/T and T/T) and Duffy-negative (C/C) individuals (N = 145) based on PCR analysis.

Duffy genotype Sample size Single copy DBP Multicopy DBP
Total Cambodian-duplication Malagasy-duplication
T/T 15 10 (66.7%) 5 (33.3%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%)
C/T 127 91 (71.7%) 36 (28.3%) 20 (55.6%) 16 (44.4%)
C/C 3 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
Total 145 102 (70.3%) 43 (29.7%) 23 (53.5%) 20 (46.5%)

The parasitemia was significantly higher in samples with the Malagasy-type duplication than those with no duplication (p = 0.002; Fig 1C). No significant difference was observed in parasitemia between samples with the Cambodian- and Malagasy-type duplications as well as samples with the Cambodian-type and those without duplication (Fig 1C). When stratified by age group, samples with the Malagasy-type duplications have significantly higher parasitemia than the single-copy ones for individuals of age under 5 and over 12 years old (S1 Fig). No significant difference was observed in parasitemia between samples with Cambodian duplication type and those with Malagasy-type or no-duplication. No samples under 5 years old were detected with the Cambodian-type duplications (S1 Fig).

No significant difference was detected in the frequency of PvDBP duplications among study sites based on PCR analysis (Table 3). About 36% (13/36) of the P. vivax samples in Alsarorab, 33% (6/18) in El Obeid, 30% (11/37) in Gezira Slang, 33% (2/6) in Khartoum, and 23% (11/48) in River Nile were shown with multiple PvDBP copies. Based on qPCR analysis, most of the samples with PvDBP duplications had 2–3 gene copies (Fig 3). For examples, in Alsarorab, 25% of the samples had 2–3 PvDBP copies and 5.6% had 4 copies or higher. In El Obeid, 16.7% and 5.5% had 2–3 copy and 4 or higher copies, respectively. In Gezira Slang, 16.2% and 13.5% had 2–3 copy and 4 or higher copies. In River Nile, 16.7% and 8.35% had 2–3 copy and 4 or higher copies, respectively. By contrast, in Khartoum, all samples with PvDBP duplications (33.3%) had 2–3 copies (Fig 3). Both the Malagasy- and the Cambodian-type duplications were detected in each of the study sites (Table 3). The estimations of PvDBP duplications by PCR were, for most part, consistent with the estimations by qPCR, with the exception of three samples that showed Cambodian/Malagasy-type duplications by PCR but a single-copy by qPCR and four samples that showed high copies by qPCR but no duplication by PCR.

Table 3. Prevalence of single and multiple PvDBP duplications among the five study sites in Sudan based on PCR analysis.

Study site Duffy genotype Sample size Single copy DBP Multicopy DBP Multicopy DBP
Cambodian-duplication Malagasy-duplication
Alsarorab
T/T 2 0 2 (100%) 1(50%) 1 (50%)
C/T 33 22 (66.7%) 11 (33.3%) 4 (36.4%) 7 (63.6%)
C/C 1 1 (100%) 0 - -
El Obeid
T/T 1 1 (100%) 0 - -
C/T 16 11 (86.8%) 5 (31.2%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
C/C 1 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (100%)
Gezira Slang
T/T 6 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
C/T 30 22 (73.3%) 8 (26.7%) 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%)
C/C 1 0 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0
Khartoum
T/T 0 - - - -
C/T 6 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
C/C 0 - - - -
River Nile
T/T 6 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) 0 1 (100%)
C/T 42 32 (76.2%) 10 (23.8%) 7 (70%) 3 (30%)
C/C 0 - - - -
Total 145 102 (70.3%) 43 (29.7%) 23 (53.5%) 20 (46.5%)

Fig 3. Distribution of single and multiple PvDBP copy parasites among the five study sites in Sudan based on qPCR analysis.

Fig 3

Discussion

Malarial parasite genomes are highly variable, containing mutations ranging from simple small changes in DNA sequences to complex large-scale changes in gene structure such as the number of copies of individual genes [11]. These genetic changes allow the parasites to adapt to and/or evade the human immune system and successfully transmit from one to another individual. Information on the structure of genes that involve in red blood cell invasion provides clues for the pathways and mechanisms of parasite invasion. PvDBP plays a key role in erythrocyte invasion by P. vivax and duplications of this gene might influence the efficiency of the invasion process [11, 31]. This study investigated the prevalence and characteristics of PvDBP gene duplications in the Sudanese P. vivax.

PvDBP duplications occurred in ~30% of the Sudanese P. vivax. Both the Malagasy- and the Cambodian-type duplications were detected in the isolates. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the presence of the Cambodian-type PvDBP duplication in the Sudanese P. vivax. Previous study indicated only the presence of Malagasy-type duplication in Sudan with a relatively low frequency (4/32; 12.5%) [16]. A broader coverage of study areas and larger sample size in this study, as well as the use of specific primer sets that target the Cambodian- and Malagasy-type PvDBP duplications may explain such discrepancy. The frequency of the PvDBP duplication observed in this study was consistent with a previous study conducted in Cambodia (29%) [11], but lower than that reported in Madagascar (52.9%) [16] and Ethiopia (65.5%) [6]. Given that the same two types of PvDBP duplications have been observed among P. vivax clinical isolates from Ethiopia and Madagascar [31], it is not surprising that P. vivax parasites carrying these duplications have been circulating widely in East Africa [11]. Although the urban and rural areas of Khartoum as well as areas in Northern and Central Sudan are similar in P. vivax malaria incidence and transmission intensity [25], the PvDBP duplication prevalence was fairly similar among study sites. The discrepancy in PvDBP duplications observed in seven samples between PCR and qPCR may be explained by the presence of duplications other than the Cambodian- or Malagasy-type detected by the published primers. Alternatively, mutations at the priming sites may also result in inaccurate assessment of copy number by qPCR. Our ongoing analyses of whole genome sequences from the Sudanese P. vivax will provide confirmations to these predictions.

The significantly lower parasitemia observed in individuals over 12 years old compared to other age groups was consistent with earlier studies that younger children are less immune to plasmodial infections [32]. Previous studies showed that the parasite densities were not significantly different between parasites with one or two PvDBP copies nor between the two types of PvDBP duplications [6, 11]. Nevertheless, we found higher parasitemia in infections with the Malagasy- and Cambodian-type duplications, though the later one is not significantly different from those with no duplication. Such difference prevails when parasitemia was stratified by age group, indicating that age is unlikely a confounding factor for the comparisons. Given only limited samples were detected with Malagasy- or Cambodian-type duplication, future study should expand broader samples to verify these findings. Individuals infected with P. vivax parasites carrying multiple copies of PvDBP have been shown with high levels of anti-DBPII antibody [23]. PvDBP gene amplification leads to increased mRNA levels, and thus it is plausible that high-copies PvDBP allows more production of PvDBP proteins that confer to stronger binding with DARC and thus better invasion efficiency than with single-copy parasites [31]. Parasites with high-copies PvDBP may also well mediate immune evasion mechanism to enhance erythrocyte invasion [23]. Given only 43 samples were detected with PvDBP duplications, the association of parasitemia with duplication types needs to be further verified with larger samples.

Among the P. vivax infected samples, heterozygous Duffy-positive (C/T) individuals were the most prevalent, consistent with previous findings [33]. By contrast, the prevalence of Duffy-negative (C/C) individuals (2.1%) was much lower than that reported in Abdelraheem et al. (4/48 = 8.3%) [2] and Albsheer et al. (34/190 = 17.9%) [33] in Sudan. Individuals of the three Duffy genotypes were also significantly different in parasitemia, with the highest found in heterozygous Duffy-positives (C/T) and lowest in the Duffy-negatives (C/C). We are currently expanding the number of Duffy-negative samples for copy number assays with the goal to draw confident comparisons with Duffy-positive ones as shown in this study. Low parasitemia in the Duffy-negative individuals has been documented previously [19, 27, 33], and this finding supports the notion that P. vivax invasion to human red blood cells is reduced with little to no Duffy antigen expression.

Because of the high adaptability of Plasmodium species, PvDBP duplications within the parasite genome was likely evolved in response to variations in human Duffy blood group across malaria-endemic settings [31]. The frequency of PvDBP duplication was not significantly different between heterozygous Duffy positives (C/T) and homozygous Duffy-positive (T/T), consistent with earlier studies that found no significant difference in the prevalence of PvDBP duplications by Duffy genotypes [13, 21, 27]. Previous study on the Ethiopian P. vivax showed that the proportion of parasites with PvDBP duplications was higher in individuals carrying the FY*A allele than those carrying the FY*B one [27]. PvDBP duplications could be a mechanism that increases recognition and/or binding to erythrocytes expressing the FY*A allele through increasing the amount of PvDBP protein on the surface of the merozoites. Though the number of Duffy-negative samples in this study is very small, this result was consistent with an earlier study in Ethiopia where two-third of these infections had PvDBP duplications [27]. Arguably, PvDBP duplications may not be selected in response to Duffy negativity [29] nor there is a specific sequence polymorphism in PvDBP associates with Duffy-negative erythrocyte invasion [34]. PvDBP duplications are much more widespread and complex, and the polymorphic nature of PvDBP certainly allows P. vivax to colonize diverse ecological niches as well as to evade host immune system. Recent studies have shown that PvDBP duplications allow P. vivax to evade host anti-PvDBP humoral immunity [23], reassuring PvDBP region II as a promising candidate for a blood-stage vaccine against P. vivax; but whether such structural change influences the PvDBP vaccine efficiency and/or facilitates binding to the weakly expressed DARC on Duffy-negative reticulocytes remain unclear. Further studies are needed to clarify the functional role of PvDBP duplications in Duffy-negative erythrocyte invasion.

To conclude, findings of this study allow comparisons of the distribution and prevalence of PvDBP duplications with other African P. vivax isolates. The origin and functional significance of the Cambodian- and Malagasy-type PvDBP duplications merit further investigations. Future study should expand sampling of Duffy-negative infected individuals to test the association between PvDBP duplication and Duffy genotypes. It is necessary to determine if PvDBP duplication (in relative to single-copy PvDBP) is associated with a significant increase in the levels of PvDBP protein expression. More importantly, future studies will be needed to determine if PvDBP duplications enable this protein to interact with different invasion receptors on the human RBC surface.

Supporting information

S1 File. Information of samples included in this study and PvDBP duplication estimations by PCR and qPCR assays.

(XLSX)

S2 File. The result of seven P. vivax-infected samples which showed discrepancy result between PCR and qPCR.

Gel images of PvDBP duplication types of these samples based on PCR were included.

(XLSX)

S1 Fig. Comparisons of parasitemia levels across PvDBP duplication types stratified by age groups based on PCR analysis.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Gel identification of PvDBP duplication types of seven P. vivax-infected samples that showed discrepancy result between PCR and qPCR.

(A) A 613bp band observed in samples 124, 162, 167 and 168 using the duplication primer BF/AR for Malagasy-type duplication and a 736bp band in samples 18, 55, 99, 133 and 143 using primer BF/AR2 for Cambodian-type duplication. No bands were shown in the negative controls. (B) A ~650bp band observed in all samples using the controls primers AF/AR and AF2/AR2. No bands were shown in the negative controls. (C) A 650bp band observed in all samples using the controls primer BF/BR. No bands were shown in the negative controls.

(PDF)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful for the enrolled participants in all study areas for their participation in this study. M.M.A.H, S.A and E.L kindly provided all materials and consumables for the study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work

References

  • 1.Howes RE, Reiner RC Jr., Battle KE, Longbottom J, Mappin B, Ordanovich D, et al. Plasmodium vivax transmission in Africa. PLos Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(11):e0004222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Abdelraheem MH, Albsheer MM, Mohamed HS, Amin M, Mahdi Abdel Hamid M. Transmission of Plasmodium vivax in Duffy-negative individuals in central Sudan. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016;110(4):258–60. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trw014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.world malaria report 2021.
  • 4.Price RN, Douglas NM, Anstey NM. New developments in Plasmodium vivax malaria: severe disease and the rise of chloroquine resistance. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009;22(5):430–5. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32832f14c1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Anstey NM, Russell B, Yeo TW, Price RN. The pathophysiology of vivax malaria. Trends Parasitol. 2009;25(5):220–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2009.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lo E, Hostetler JB, Yewhalaw D, Pearson RD, Hamid MMA, Gunalan K, et al. Frequent expansion of Plasmodium vivax Duffy binding protein in Ethiopia and its epidemiological significance. PLos Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(9):e0007222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Niang M, Sane R, Sow A, Sadio BD, Chy S, Legrand E, et al. Asymptomatic Plasmodium vivax infections among Duffy-negative population in Kedougou, Senegal. Trop Med Health. 2018;46:45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Oboh MA, Singh US, Ndiaye D, Badiane AS, Ali NA, Bharti PK, et al. Presence of additional Plasmodium vivax malaria in Duffy negative individuals from Southwestern Nigeria. Malaria Journal. 2020;19(1):229. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03301-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gunalan K, Niangaly A, Thera MA, Doumbo OK, Miller LH. Plasmodium vivax infections of Duffy-negative erythrocytes: Historically undetected or a recent adaptation? Trends Parasitol. 2018;34(5):420–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2018.02.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Poirier P, Doderer-Lang C, Atchade PS, Lemoine J-P, de l’Isle M-LC, Abou-bacar A, et al. The hide and seek of Plasmodium vivax in West Africa: report from a large-scale study in Beninese asymptomatic subjects. Malaria Journal. 2016;15(1):570. doi: 10.1186/s12936-016-1620-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hostetler JB, Lo E, Kanjee U, Amaratunga C, Suon S, Sreng S, et al. Independent origin and global distribution of distinct Plasmodium vivax Duffy binding protein gene duplications. PLos Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(10):e0005091. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fang XD, Kaslow DC, Adams JH, Miller LH. Cloning of the Plasmodium vivax Duffy receptor. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1991;44(1):125–32. doi: 10.1016/0166-6851(91)90228-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Batchelor JD, Zahm JA, Tolia NH. Dimerization of Plasmodium vivax DBP is induced upon receptor binding and drives recognition of DARC. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2011;18(8):908–14. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Batchelor JD, Malpede BM, Omattage NS, DeKoster GT, Henzler-Wildman KA, Tolia NH. Red blood cell invasion by Plasmodium vivax: structural basis for DBP engagement of DARC. PLos Pathog. 2014;10(1):e1003869. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Weiss GE, Crabb BS, Gilson PR. Overlaying molecular and temporal aspects of malaria parasite invasion. Trends Parasitol. 2016;32(4):284–95. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2015.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Menard D, Chan ER, Benedet C, Ratsimbasoa A, Kim S, Chim P, et al. Whole genome sequencing of field isolates reveals a common duplication of the Duffy binding protein gene in Malagasy Plasmodium vivax strains. PLos Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(11):e2489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Menard D, Barnadas C, Bouchier C, Henry-Halldin C, Gray LR, Ratsimbasoa A, et al. Plasmodium vivax clinical malaria is commonly observed in Duffy-negative Malagasy people. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(13):5967–71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912496107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Carlton JM, Adams JH, Silva JC, Bidwell SL, Lorenzi H, Caler E, et al. Comparative genomics of the neglected human malaria parasite Plasmodium vivax. Nature. 2008;455(7214):757–63. doi: 10.1038/nature07327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lo E, Russo G, Pestana K, Kepple D, Abagero BR, Dongho GBD, et al. Contrasting epidemiology and genetic variation of Plasmodium vivax infecting Duffy-negative individuals across Africa. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;108:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zimmerman PA. Plasmodium vivax infection in Duffy-negative people in Africa. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97(3):636–8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gunalan K, Lo E, Hostetler JB, Yewhalaw D, Mu J, Neafsey DE, et al. Role of Plasmodium vivax Duffy-binding protein 1 in invasion of Duffy-null Africans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(22):6271–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606113113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Twohig KA, Pfeffer DA, Baird JK, Price RN, Zimmerman PA, Hay SI, et al. Growing evidence of Plasmodium vivax across malaria-endemic Africa. PLos Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(1):e0007140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Popovici J, Roesch C, Carias LL, Khim N, Kim S, Vantaux A, et al. Amplification of Duffy binding protein-encoding gene allows Plasmodium vivax to evade host anti-DBP humoral immunity. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):953. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14574-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gruszczyk J, Kanjee U, Chan LJ, Menant S, Malleret B, Lim NTY, et al. Transferrin receptor 1 is a reticulocyte-specific receptor for Plasmodium vivax. Science. 2018;359(6371):48–55. doi: 10.1126/science.aan1078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Elagali A, Ahmed A, Makki N, Ismail H, Ajak M, Alene KA, et al. Spatiotemporal mapping of malaria incidence in Sudan using routine surveillance data. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Snounou G. Detection and identification of the four malaria parasite species infecting humans by PCR amplification. Methods Mol Biol. 1996;50:263–91. doi: 10.1385/0-89603-323-6:263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lo E, Yewhalaw D, Zhong D, Zemene E, Degefa T, Tushune K, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum malaria among Duffy-positive and Duffy-negative populations in Ethiopia. Malar J. 2015;14:84. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0596-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Murphy SC, Prentice JL, Williamson K, Wallis CK, Fang FC, Fried M, et al. Real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR for monitoring of blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum infections in malaria human challenge trials. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86(3):383–94. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.10-0658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roesch C, Popovici J, Bin S, Run V, Kim S, Ramboarina S, et al. Genetic diversity in two Plasmodium vivax protein ligands for reticulocyte invasion. PLos Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(10):e0006555. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Suwanarusk R, Russell B, Chavchich M, Chalfein F, Kenangalem E, Kosaisavee V, et al. Chloroquine resistant Plasmodium vivax: in vitro characterisation and association with molecular polymorphisms. PLos One. 2007;2(10):e1089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Golassa L, Amenga-Etego L, Lo E, Amambua-Ngwa A. The biology of unconventional invasion of Duffy-negative reticulocytes by Plasmodium vivax and its implication in malaria epidemiology and public health. Malar J. 2020;19(1):299. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03372-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Koepfli C, Robinson LJ, Rarau P, Salib M, Sambale N, Wampfler R, et al. Blood-stage parasitaemia and age determine plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax gametocytaemia in Papua New Guinea. PLos One. 2015;10(5):e0126747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ali Albsheer MM, Hussien A, Kwiatkowski D, Hamid MMA, Ibrahim ME. The Duffy T-33C is an insightful marker of human history and admixture. Meta Gene. 2020;26:100782. doi: 10.1016/j.mgene.2020.100782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hoque MR, Elfaki MMA, Ahmed MA, Lee S-K, Muh F, Ali Albsheer MM, et al. Diversity pattern of Duffy binding protein sequence among Duffy-negatives and Duffy-positives in Sudan. Malaria Journal. 2018;17(1):297. doi: 10.1186/s12936-018-2425-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luzia H Carvalho

7 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-28855Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodiumvivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in SudanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahmed,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we felt that your manuscript requires substantial revision, following which it can possibly be reconsidered, thus governing the decision of a “major revision”. As requested by the reviewers, the authors need to address several concerns, particularly related to the data analysis, methods and results. For example, considering the discrepancy between methods, it is unclear which results (qPCR vs genotype-specific PCR) were used for data analysis.   In addition, a significant number of issues should be clarified and/or adjust otherwise the MS’s results may be compromised. For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia H Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"Authors declare that no competing interests exist."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map/satellite image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript PONE-D-22-28855 reports on prevalence and distribution of Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein (PvDBP) duplications among 145 isolates from diverse areas in Sudan. The main findings are (i) identification of both Malagasy and Cambodian types of PvDBP duplications with almost comparable prevalence, (ii) significantly higher parasite density in patients infected with parasites bearing Malagasy type (but not Cambodian type) than those infected with single-copy PvDBP parasites and (iii) significantly higher parasitemia in parasites having Malagasy-type duplication of PvDBP than those without gene amplification. The manuscript is generally well-written and the information may add some knowledge on this vaccine candidate molecule regarding geographic distribution of PvDBP duplication.

Comments/Suggestions

1. The main concern of this manuscript, as also stated by the authors, is the high discrepancy rate of PvDBP copy number determination between quantitative real time PCR and genotype-specific PCR (16 discrepancy samples out of 43 concordant samples). It is unclear which results (qPCR vs genotype-specific PCR) were used for subsequent analysis. With small sample size in this study, such discrepancy and potentially incorrect determination of copy number variation in this locus may preclude meaningful statistical analysis.

2. Please include the range of parasitemia and standard deviation of the average parasitemia (line 216). The mean parasitemia determined by qPCR would be approximately equivalent to 0.001% by microscopy detection which is around the microscopy detection limit. Did most patients have submicroscopic parasitemia? In P. vivax endemic areas outside Africa, most infected individuals have symptomatic malaria. Please describe the clinical status of the patients recruited in this study and parasitemia status of vivax malaria in Africa and outside Africa since parasitemia is an important parameter in this study.

3. There is no sufficient statistical power to draw a conclusion for the Duffy-negatives (n = 3) (lines 228-230).

4. It is confusing that the magnitudes of parasitemia for Malagasy-type and Cambidian-type bearing parasites are not significantly different while only parasites with the former genotype has significantly higher parasitemia than those having single copy of PvDBP. Please explain.

5. In this study, individuals above 12 years old showed a significantly lower parasitemia than those under 5 years old as well as those aged 5-12 (lines 218-220). Please verify that the analysis of parasitemia among patients infected with single-copy, Malagasy-type and Cambodian-type parasites is not affected by the age of the patients.

6. Line 87, increased mRNA levels per se may not always directly indicate protein expression. Please revise.

7. The references need some attention regarding the format and upper-case/lower-case letters.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Ahmed et al. presents a more comprehensive data about the prevalence of PvDBP gene duplication and its implication for P. vivax infection in the Sudanese population. The manuscript needs small improvements to clarify some points to the reader.

Major comments:

1. Provide a brief description about malaria incidence in the areas of study, because this information is relevant to understanding of PvDBP duplication prevalence in the different areas.

2. Line 196. There is an error in the formula presented. The delta CT should be calculated by: ΔCT = CT target – CT reference (Livak & Schmittgen 2001, METHODS 25, 402–408). Then, the delta, delta CT is calculated by ΔΔCT = ΔCT test sample – ΔCT calibrator sample. Please make sure that it is a typo and not an error in the formula used to estimate copy number of pvdbp.

3. Line 243. The authors claim that the parasitemia was significantly higher in samples with the Malagasy-type duplication compared to those without duplication. Have you checked if the age (i. e. confounding factor) could explain this difference since parasitemia is significantly different among age groups? This analysis will be important to support the manuscript´s main finding of higher parasitemia in infections with the Malagasy-type duplication.

4. Lines 325-327. This is contrary to the result that has been shown in Lines 247-249 (“The frequency of PvDBP duplication was not significantly different between heterozygous Duffy positives (C/T; 36/127=28.3%) and homozygous Duffy-positive (T/T; 5/15=33.3%) individuals (p-value=0.19; Table 2), …”). Please clarify this part of the Conclusion session.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0287668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287668.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Feb 2023

February 15, 2023

Dear Editor,

We submit the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in Sudan”. We are thankful to the reviewers’ constructive comments/suggestions and have taken all comments to improve this manuscript. All gel image data are provided as Supporting Information. We believe that this manuscript is scientifically valid and technically sound. In this revised version, we address the reviewers’ queries point-by-point. All changes can be viewed by track-changes in the uploaded word file. Our responses to the reviewers’ comments are detailed below in this response letter (reviewers’ comments in italic and our responses in bold).

We sincerely look forward to receiving your decision on this revised manuscript.

Yours Sincerely,

Safaa Ahmed

Editor: Comments/Suggestions

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Our Response: We have revised the manuscript following PLOS ONE requirements.

2.Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"Authors declare that no competing interests exist."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Our Response: We have inserted the no-conflict statement towards the end of the manuscript and in the online submission form.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Our Response: We have provided the original uncropped and unadjusted gel images as Supporting Information in S1_raw_images.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Our Response: The full ethics statement is now inserted in the Material & Method section.

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map/satellite image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Our Response: The License (CC BY 4.0) is provided in online submission.

Reviewer #1: Comments/Suggestions

1. The main concern of this manuscript, as also stated by the authors, is the high discrepancy rate of PvDBP copy number determination between quantitative real time PCR and genotype-specific PCR (16 discrepancy samples out of 43 concordant samples). It is unclear which results (qPCR vs genotype-specific PCR) were used for subsequent analysis. With small sample size in this study, such discrepancy and potentially incorrect determination of copy number variation in this locus may preclude meaningful statistical analysis.

Our Response: We used genotype-specific PCR for all subsequent analysis as stated in the result, especially for Figure 3 qPCR was used (P11 to 16. L229-309). We have repeated PCR and qPCR for 16 samples twice and confirm that 7 out of 43 samples showed discrepancy results. We provide the genotype-specific PCR gel images and qPCR data in NEW Supplementary File 2.

2. Please include the range of parasitemia and standard deviation of the average parasitemia (line 216). The mean parasitemia determined by qPCR would be approximately equivalent to 0.001% by microscopy detection which is around the microscopy detection limit. Did most patients have submicroscopic parasitemia? In P. vivax endemic areas outside Africa, most infected individuals have symptomatic malaria. Please describe the clinical status of the patients recruited in this study and parasitemia status of vivax malaria in Africa and outside Africa since parasitemia is an important parameter in this study.

Our Response: Yes, most patients have microscopic parasitemia, and the range, mean and standard deviation of microscopic parasitemia have been added. The clinical symptoms of the patients are also described (P11; L221-224).

3. There is no sufficient statistical power to draw a conclusion for the Duffy-negatives (n = 3) (lines 228-230).

Our Response: Because only 3 Duffy-negatives (C/C) were included in this study, the sample size is too small for any statistical testing. We are currently expanding Duffy-negative samples for DBP copy number assays with the goal to draw confident comparisons with Duffy-positive ones as described in this study (P19 L373-375).

4. It is confusing that the magnitudes of parasitemia for Malagasy-type and Cambidian-type bearing parasites are not significantly different while only parasites with the former genotype has significantly higher parasitemia than those having single copy of PvDBP. Please explain.

Our Response: We stratify the parasitemia of infections with single, Cambodian, and Malagasy copies by age groups. Among all comparisons, only infections with the Malagasy duplications have significantly higher parasitemia than single-copy ones in age under 5 and over 12 years old (Supplementary Figure 1; P14 L284). Limited samples with the Cambodian and Malagasy duplications may explain such differences.

5. In this study, individuals above 12 years old showed a significantly lower parasitemia than those under 5 years old as well as those aged 5-12 (lines 218-220). Please verify that the analysis of parasitemia among patients infected with single-copy, Malagasy-type and Cambodian-type parasites is not affected by the age of the patients.

Our Response: We have addressed this comment by stratifying the parasitemia analyses by age group as mentioned in the above response.

6. Line 87, increased mRNA levels per se may not always directly indicate protein expression. Please revise.

Our Response: We agree with this comment, and thus we stated that ‘Increased PvDBP copy number may lead to increased mRNA levels’. We also add reference #23: Popovici et al. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):953 to support this statement.

7. The references need some attention regarding the format and upper-case/lower-case letters.

Our Response: All references are revised.

Reviewer #2:

Major comments:

1. Provide a brief description about malaria incidence in the areas of study, because this information is relevant to understanding of PvDBP duplication prevalence in the different areas.

Our Response: We have included a brief description on malaria incidence in the study areas in the M&M (P5 L106)

2. Line 196. There is an error in the formula presented. The delta CT should be calculated by: ΔCT = CT target – CT reference (Livak & Schmittgen 2001, METHODS 25, 402–408). Then, the delta, delta CT is calculated by ΔΔCT = ΔCT test sample – ΔCT calibrator sample. Please make sure that it is a typo and not an error in the formula used to estimate copy number of pvdbp.

Our Response: We have cited three references for the calculation of copy number (refs# 6,29 and 30 and checked the accuracy of the equations.

3. Line 243. The authors claim that the parasitemia was significantly higher in samples with the Malagasy-type duplication compared to those without duplication. Have you checked if the age (i. e. confounding factor) could explain this difference since parasitemia is significantly different among age groups? This analysis will be important to support the manuscript´s main finding of higher parasitemia in infections with the Malagasy-type duplication.

Our Response: We stratify the parasitemia of infections with single, Cambodian, and Malagasy copies by age groups. Among all comparisons, only infections with the Malagasy duplications have significantly higher parasitemia than single-copy ones in age under 5 and over 12 years old (Supplementary Figure 1; P14 L284). Limited samples with the Cambodian and Malagasy duplications may explain such differences.

4. Lines 325-327. This is contrary to the result that has been shown in Lines 247-249 (“The frequency of PvDBP duplication was not significantly different between heterozygous Duffy positives (C/T; 36/127=28.3%) and homozygous Duffy-positive (T/T; 5/15=33.3%) individuals (p-value=0.19; Table 2), …”). Please clarify this part of the Conclusion session.

Our Response: We have clarified that the frequency of PvDBP duplication was not significantly different between heterozygous Duffy positives (C/T) and homozygous Duffy-positive (T/T) in the Discussion (P19 L381-384).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Luzia H Carvalho

27 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-28855R1Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodiumvivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in SudanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahmed,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for review to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if the authors revise it to address additional points raised by the reviewer.  

According to reviewers, there are some specific areas where further improvements would be of substantial benefit to the readers, including methods and data analysis. For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia H Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Additional comments

1. The paper requires revision, both in content and language. Results are frequently reported in a confused way. For example, in “Frequency of PvDBP duplications among Duffy groups…” the initial description of PCR results (gels, etc) was presented after showing complete data in Table 2.

2. This reviewer could not find Suppl. Figure 1. Thus, I could not evaluate one of the points raised by this reviewer concerning age as a confounding factor.

3. Indicate the statistical test performed for each analysis.

4. Please, replace “Multi-DBP” with multicopy DBP, “Single-DBP” to single copy DBP to become clear to the readers.

5. Provide the relative frequencies for Table 2 and 3 to make it easier the comparison between groups.

6. Suppl. Figure 2A presents an error in primers nomenclature.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 20;18(7):e0287668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287668.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 May 2023

May 10, 2023

Dear Editor,

We submit the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in Sudan”. We are thankful to the reviewers’ constructive comments/suggestions and have taken all comments to improve this manuscript. In this revised version, we address the reviewers’ queries point-by-point. All changes can be viewed by track-changes in the uploaded word file. Our responses to the reviewers’ comments are detailed below in this response letter (reviewers’ comments in italic and our responses in bold).

We sincerely look forward to receiving your decision on this revised manuscript.

Yours Sincerely,

Safaa Ahmed

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Our Response:

All references are checked and revised. Reference 32 was mistakenly deleted in the last submitted version due to sentence rearrangement but has now inserted back in this revision.

Reviewer #2: Additional comments

1. The paper requires revision, both in content and language. Results are frequently reported in a confused way. For example, in “Frequency of PvDBP duplications among Duffy groups…” the initial description of PCR results (gels, etc) was presented after showing complete data in Table 2.

Our Response:

We have carefully checked and modified the content and language throughtout the text in this version. We have made substantial reorganization of text, tables, and figures in the Results based on to the suggestion (P12-13).

2. This reviewer could not find Suppl. Figure 1. Thus, I could not evaluate one of the points raised by this reviewer concerning age as a confounding factor.

Our Response:

Suppl. Figure 1 was uploaded again in this revision

3. Indicate the statistical test performed for each analysis.

Our Response:

We have described in detail the statistical tests used for age, Duffy groups, and PvDBP duplication comparisons (P10 L202-210).

4. Please, replace “Multi-DBP” with multicopy DBP, “Single-DBP” to single copy DBP to become clear to the readers.

Our Response:

The words are now replaced in Tables 2 and 3.

5. Provide the relative frequencies for Table 2 and 3 to make it easier the comparison between groups.

Our Response:

All relative frequencies are now added in Tables 2 and 3.

6. Suppl. Figure 2A presents an error in primers nomenclature.

Our Response:

Primer nomenclature was corrected in Supplementary Figure 2A and 2B.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Decision Letter 2

Luzia H Carvalho

12 Jun 2023

Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in Sudan

PONE-D-22-28855R2

Dear Dr. Ahmed,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luzia H Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Luzia H Carvalho

11 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-28855R2

Prevalence and distribution of Plasmodium vivax Duffy Binding Protein gene duplications in Sudan

Dear Dr. Lo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luzia H Carvalho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Information of samples included in this study and PvDBP duplication estimations by PCR and qPCR assays.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. The result of seven P. vivax-infected samples which showed discrepancy result between PCR and qPCR.

    Gel images of PvDBP duplication types of these samples based on PCR were included.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Fig. Comparisons of parasitemia levels across PvDBP duplication types stratified by age groups based on PCR analysis.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Gel identification of PvDBP duplication types of seven P. vivax-infected samples that showed discrepancy result between PCR and qPCR.

    (A) A 613bp band observed in samples 124, 162, 167 and 168 using the duplication primer BF/AR for Malagasy-type duplication and a 736bp band in samples 18, 55, 99, 133 and 143 using primer BF/AR2 for Cambodian-type duplication. No bands were shown in the negative controls. (B) A ~650bp band observed in all samples using the controls primers AF/AR and AF2/AR2. No bands were shown in the negative controls. (C) A 650bp band observed in all samples using the controls primer BF/BR. No bands were shown in the negative controls.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES