Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Nov 10;18(11):e0293590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293590

Genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites collected from 2012 to 2016 and anti-malaria resistance along the China-Myanmar border

Mei Li 1,2,3, Hui Liu 4,*, Linhua Tang 1,2,3, Henglin Yang 4, Maria Dorina Geluz Bustos 5, Hong Tu 1,2,3, Pascal Ringwald 6
Editor: Himanshu Gupta7
PMCID: PMC10637670  PMID: 37948402

Abstract

Backgrounds

The therapeutic efficacy studies of DHA-PIP for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum patients were implemented from 2012 to 2016 along China (Yunnan province)-Myanmar border, which verified the high efficacy of DHA-PIP. With the samples collected in these studies, the genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites based on in vivo parasite clearance time (PCT) was investigated to explore if these parasites had developed resistance to DHA and PIP at molecular level.

Methods

The genetic characteristics were investigated based on K13 genotypes, copy numbers of genes pfpm2 and pfmdr1, and nine microsatellite loci (Short Tandem Repeats, STR) flanking the K13 gene on chromosome 13. The PCT 50s were compared based on different K13 genotypes, sites, periods and copy numbers.

Results

In the NW (North-West Yunnan province bordering with Myanmar) region, F446I was the main K13 genotype. No significant differences for PCT 50s presented among three K13 genotypes. In SW (South-West Yunnan province bordering with Myanmar) region, only wild K13 genotype was detected in all parasite isolates whose PCT 50s was significantly longer than those in NW region. For the copy numbers of genes, parasite isolates containing multiple copies of pfmdr1 gene were found in both regions, but only single copy of pfpm2 gene was detected. Though the prevalence of parasite isolates with multiple copies of pfmdr1 gene in SW region was higher than that in NW region, no difference in PCT 50s were presented between isolates with single and multiple copies of pfmdr1 gene. The median He values of F446I group and Others (Non-F446I K13 mutation) group were 0.08 and 0.41 respectively. The mean He values of ML group (Menglian County in SW) and W (wild K13 genotype in NW) group were 0 and 0.69 respectively. The mean Fst values between ML and W groups were significantly higher than the other two K13 groups.

Conclusions

P. falciparum isolates in NW and SW regions had very different genetic characteristics. The F446I was hypothesized to have independently appeared and spread in NW region from 2012 and 2016. The high susceptibility of PIP had ensured the efficacy of DHA-PIP in vivo. Multiple copy numbers of pfmdr1 gene might be a potential cause of prolonged clearance time of ACTs drugs along China-Myanmar border.

Trial registration

Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN 11775446. Registered 17 April 2020—Retrospectively registered, the registered name was Investigating resistance to DHA-PIP for the treatment of Plasmodium falciparum malaria and chloroquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria in Yunnan, China. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11775446.

Backgrounds

Yunnan Province is located on the southwestern border of China, with 25 counties/cities bordering Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam. Suitable climate, unobstructed geographical environment and relatively low economic development, weak health and disease prevention capabilities make these areas the epidemic areas of multiple infectious diseases [1]. Malaria is one of the infectious diseases with quite severe incidence in these areas. During 2010–2016, from the launch of the National Malaria Elimination Action Plan in China to the last reported local case in China, both total and local cases in Yunnan province were the most among all provinces in China [28]. Most of them (78.02%, 4099/5254) were imported from Myanmar [9]. So, it is important to effectively and timely cure malaria patients there for achieving Malaria Elimination in China. However, the emergence and spread of malaria parasite resistance to anti-malaria drugs in these regions was a great challenge to this program.

Earlier in vitro assays detected a trend of declining sensitivity to artemisinins in the border area of Yunnan following a long history of unilateral application of artemisinin monotherapy since the 1970s [1015]. Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) was recommended for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria worldwide to counter the threat of resistance of P. falciparum to monotherapies [1618]. In China, ACTs were used as the official first-line drugs to treat uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria starting in 2006. The recommended ACTs included Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine (DHA-PIP), artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ), artimisinin-naphthoquine phosphate (ART-NQ), and artemisininpiperaquine (ART-PPQ). From 2007 to 2013, DHA-PIP sensitivity in P. falciparum had not significantly changed though an increasing trend of fever clearance time (FCT) and asexual parasite clearance times (APCT) presented in treating uncomplicated P. falciparum along China-Myanmar border [19]. Treatment with DHA-PIP initially demonstrated prolonged parasite clearance time (PCT), but began to fail as the partner drugs began failing in the GMS around 2010 [2033]. The decreasing efficiency of DHA-PIP here involved resistance to both DHA and PIP [2030].

To monitor the resistance of P. falciparum parasites to ACTs, in vivo, in vitro methods and various molecular markers were developed and applied. Therapeutic efficacy studies (TES) along the China-Myanmar border, supported by WHO (World Health Organization), had been implemented since 2008 [19,34]. Overall, the clinical follow-ups indicated that DHA-PIP remained highly efficacious for treating uncomplicated P. falciparum between 2007–2013 [19]. However, the molecular data based on the in vivo study during 2012–2016 remained unknown, which were expected to explore the potential spread and development of malaria resistance. So, a retrospective genetic characterization of P. falciparum isolates collected in this period was carried out.

Method

Study sites

From 2012 to 2016, malaria patients were enrolled at four surveillance sites, Menglian county, Tengchong county, Yingjiang county, and Ruili city, all of which share a border with Myanmar. Among them, Menglian county belongs to the Pu’er prefecture located in the South-West (SW) Yunnan province. The other three sites are all part of the Baoshan and Dehong Prefecture, both of which are in the North-West (NW) Yunnan province.

Study population

People who had traveled to Myanmar or had settled along the China-Myanmar border, and were infected with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria, met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were recruited. However, unmarried women between 12 and 18 years of age were excluded. The qualifying participants that attended the study health clinic and aged between six months and 60 years old, were enrolled in the TES, treated on site with 3-day DHA-PIP, and were monitored weekly for 42 days. The follow-up was on a fixed schedule and consisted of check-up visits and along with clinical and laboratory examinations in accordance with the WHO protocol [35]. All adult patients signed an informed consent form for participation. Parents or guardians gave informed consent on behalf of their children. Children over 12 years of age signed the informed consent form.

Treatment

P. falciparum patients were treated with DHA-PIP once daily for three consecutive days with a dose of 2 mg/kg/day DHA and 16 mg/kg/day PIP. One tablet of DHA-PIP contained 40 mg of DHA and 320 mg of PIP. DHA-PIP drugs were purchased from Chongqing Holley Healthpro Pharmaceutical CO., Ltd and supplied by the National Malaria Project of China. All doses of medicine were supervised, and patients were observed for adverse reactions for 30 min after medicine administration. The individual providing treatment signed the Case Report Form treatment sheet after every drug administration.

Microscopic blood examination and blood collection

Thick and thin films of blood were made on slides on days D0, D1, D2, D3, D7, D14, D28, D35, D42. According to the WHO guidelines, treatment outcomes were classified based on an assessment of the parasitological and clinical outcome of antimalarial treatment [19]. All patients were classified as having early treatment failure, late clinical failure, late parasitological failure, or an adequate clinical and parasitological response [35]. Two to three drops of blood were collected on filter paper on D0, D42, and on the day of failure.

Calculating Parasite clearance time (PCTs)

Based on parasitemia data from D0 to D3 collected during the following-up of each case, PCTs for each case was calculated using the WHO parasite clearance estimator WHOApplication-6-18 [36]. Data of Slope of Half-life (HL) and duration when 50%, 75%, 90%, 95% and 99% of the parasites was cleared (PCT 50, PCT 75, PCT 90, PCT 95, and PCT 99) were collected. Only the PCT 50 data were compared among different genetic types and sites.

Sequencing the K13-propeller domain

The K13-propeller domain was amplified according to the methods described by Ariey, et al [37]. The high-fidelity Taq DNA polymerase (Takara 9158A) was purchased from Takara Biomedical Technology (Da Lian) Co., Ltd. The PCR products were sequenced by Map Biotech Co, Ltd. (Shanghai) and the sequences were aligned with that of wild Pf3D7 to confirm the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). All parasite isolates with PCTs data were divided into different groups according to their K13 genotypes.

Estimation of copy number pfpm2 and pfmdr1

DNA sequences of the pfpm2 and pfmdr1 genes were amplified and detected according to the methods described by Witkowski, et al [38]. The TB Green™ Premix Ex Taq™ II (Tli RNaseH Plus) used in the test was purchased from Takara Biomedical Technology (Da Lian) Co., Ltd. The copy numbers of pfpm2 were estimated by the following equation [38]:

Y=0.4583x+0.7109,(x=2ΔCt,ΔCt=Ctpfpm2CtPfβtubulin).

The copy numbers of pfmdr1 were estimated by the following equitation [38]:

Y=0.4497x+0.8976,(x=2ΔCt,ΔCt=CtPfmdr1CtPfβtubulin).

Samples with estimated copy numbers ≥1.56 (≈1.60) were defined as containing multiple copies, the others as single copy [38].

Microsatellite loci genotyping

Nine microsatellite loci (−56.0Kb, −50Kb, −6.36Kb, 1.70Kb, −0.15Kb, 8.60Kb, 11Kb, 15.10Kb, 31.50Kb) flanking the K13 gene on chromosome 13 were tested according to the method described by Talundzic, et al. [16] and analyzed in Excel 2016 with method of GenAlEx 6501 [39]. Genetic diversity was estimated using expected heterozygosity (He) and coefficient of gene differentiation (Fst) following the Chinese guideline (S1 File) introduced by Wang in 2016 [39].

Data analyses

The data were calculated and compared in software SPSS 23. They were firstly treated with tests of normality (Shapiro-Wilk test). Values of PCTs and Hes were presented in median and percentiles (25% Per and 75% Per), while Fst values were in mean and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) according to different results of normality tests. Comparing methods of Kruskal Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon test and Fisher Exact test were applied in the data of Non-normal distribution. Method of Paired T-test was applied in the data of normal distribution. Results with p-values of 0.05 or less were considered significant.

Ethical approval

According to the Helsinki Declaration, ethical approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee of National Institute of Parasitic Diseases, China CDC and the Ethics Committee of the Yunnan Institute of Parasitic Diseases. The purpose of the study was explained and then approval was sought from patients and their caretakers. Informed written consent was obtained from patient or carers of Child patients. All results were kept confidential and were unlinked to any identifying information.

Results

General briefing of samples testing

In total, 198 recruited volunteers completed follow-ups between 2012 and 2016 and three were lost after D7 (partial data of their sample were used in the study). In the NW region, eight patients (5.00%, 8/160) were positive at D3 compared to one patient (2.44%,1/41) in the SW region. 174 isolates were successfully genotyped at K13, including 169 with PCTs data and 5 without. Of these, 134 were from the NW region and 40 were from the SW region. Among the 169 isolates, copy numbers of pfpm2 gene and pfmdr1 gene were obtained in 164 and 159 isolates, respectively. STR data from 139 isolates were successfully detected and further analyzed (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flow chart of sample test.

Fig 1

Genotypes of K13 mutations

Among the 174 parasite isolates that were successfully genotyped at K13, 46.90% (99/174) presented with K13 mutations. All 99 isolates with positive K13 mutations were collected from the NW region with a total K13 mutation rate of 73.88% (99/134) and a F446I prevalence of 58.96% (79/134). Most of the isolates in the NW region were collected from Yingjiang county (59.20%, 103/134), which indicated a K13 mutation prevalence of 85.44% (88/103) (See Table 1). There were 40 isolates from the SW region with the K13 wild type.

Table 1. Distribution of K13 mutations among different years and sites in the NW region.

K13 genotypes 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sum
Yingjiang Tengchong Ruili Yingjiang Yingjiang Menglian Yingjiang Tengchong Yingjiang
C447S 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
F446I 9 6 1 35 24 0 1 1 1 79
N458Y 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
P574L 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 7
C447R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
G495C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
F483S 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
A676D 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
C580Y 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
C469Y 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
S466I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Wild 10 18 2 0 2 40 0 0 3 75
Total 29 25 5 39 30 40 1 1 4 174

Note: This isolate showed double K13 mutations of N458Y and F446I. For the convenience of statistics and comparison, it recorded as N458Y.

A total of 11 K13 mutants were found, of which most of them were F446I (79.80%, 79/99), followed by P574L (7.07%, 7/99). The other mutants showed very low prevalence of 1.00–2.02%, such as C469Y (2.02%, 2/99), C580Y (2.02%, 2/99), N458Y (2.02%, 2/99). Most of the K13 mutants were found in Yingjiang County. In Tengchong county and Ruili city, only two K13 mutants were detected at each site (Table 1).

Based on the K13 mutants, 129 isolates with PCTs data in the NW region were divided into three groups. In detail, 34 isolates with the K13 wild type were classified as the W group, 75 with F446I as the F446I group, and 20 with other K13 mutational genotypes as the Others group. Forty isolates with the K13 wild genotype in Menglian county in the SW region were defined as the ML group.

Comparison of PCT 50 based on K13 genotypes

The PCT data of four groups were shown in Table 2. The median values of HL, PCT50, PCT75, PCT9 and PCT99 in the NW region were 3.60, 12.89, 18.23, 23.56, 26.89 and 33.60 hours, respectively. The differences between different groups in NW region were not significant (Kruskal Wallis H test). The median values of HL and PCTs in the SW region (ML group) were 5.22, 15.81, 22.34, 28.75, 32.73 and 40.10 hours, respectively. The differences among 4 groups were significant (Kruskal Wallis H test). The difference presented both between ML and W group (Z = -3.09, -2.77,- 3.15, -3.20, -3.25, -3.28; P = 0.00, 0.01, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00; Mann-Whitney U test), and between ML and F446I group (Z = -2.24, -2.17,- 2.24, -2.24, -2.22, -2.23; P = 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03; Mann-Whitney U test), but not between ML and Others group (Z = -1.04, -0.82,- 0.96, -0.86, -0.74, -0.71; P = 0.30, 0.42, 0.34, 0.39, 0.46, 0.48; Mann-Whitney test). However, median values of PCT 99 in all groups were less than 49 hours.

Table 2. PCTs data based on K13 genotypes.

Regions Groups Values HL PCT50 PCT75 PCT90 PCT95 PCT99
NW region W Group
(n = 34)
Median values 3.49 12.61 17.83 23.03 26.50 32.99
25% Percentile 2.21 2.21 4.42 7.33 9.53 14.52
75% Percentile 4.03 13.56 19.18 24.72 28.19 34.90
F446I Group
(n = 75)
Median values 3.55 12.89 18.23 23.58 27.11 33.60
25% Percentile 3.01 11.85 16.75 21.59 24.63 30.53
75% Percentile 4.95 14.16 20.06 26.56 30.86 38.73
Others Group
(n = 20)
Median values 4.64 13.29 19.07 24.99 28.84 36.60
25% Percentile 2.04 2.04 4.07 6.75 8.78 13.42
75% Percentile 8.45 21.18 30.59 40.48 47.06 58.08
Subtotal Median values 3.60 12.89 18.23 23.56 26.89 33.60
25% Percentile 2.74 2.85 5.70 9.41 11.91 17.67
75% Percentile 5.02 14.38 20.34 26.56 30.59 38.90
χ 2 1.79 2.35 2.46 2.68 2.89 3.24
df 2 2 2 2 2 2
P 0.41 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.20
SW region ML Group
(n = 40)
Median values 5.22 15.81 22.34 28.75 32.73 40.10
25Th Percentile 2.10 2.10 4.20 6.98 9.07 13.86
75 Th Percentile 9.71 21.83 30.71 39.39 44.81 54.41
χ 2 8.17 9.77 9.95 10.22 10.36 10.73
df 3 3 3 3 3 3
P 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

PCT: Parasites Clearance Time.

Comparison of PCT 50 based on period for parasite isolates in the NW region

Details of K13 mutations of isolates collected in 2012 and between 2013 and 2014 were shown in Table 3. Among parasites collected in 2012, 48.15% (26/54) had K13 mutations, and 57.69% (15/26) of the mutations were F446I. The total F446I prevalence was 27.78% (15/54) in 2012. For isolates in 2013 and 2014 (2013–2014 isolate), 95.65% (66/69) of them had the K13 mutation and 86.36% (57/66) of the mutations were F446I. The total F446I prevalence was 82.61% (57/69) in this 2-year period, higher than that in 2012 (Fisher’ exact test, P = 0.00). The comparison of median PCT 50 between isolates in 2012 (13.14, 25% Per = 2.33, 75% Per = 13.96, N = 54) and between 2013 and 2014 (12.89, 25% Per = 11.48, 75% Per = 15.63, N = 69) in the NW region demonstrated no difference (Z = -1.24, P = 0.21; Mann-Whitney U test).

Table 3. K13 genotypes in different years for parasite isolates in NW region.

Total No. of cases with PCT50 Data No. of Cases with K13 mutations No. of cases with F446I mutation F446I prevalence
(%)
2012 54 26 15 27.78
2013–2014 69 66 57 82.61

Comparison of PCT 50 based on sites in the NW region

The median PCT 50s of isolates in Tengchong and Yingjiang were 13.21 (25% Per = 6.76, 75% Per = 14.03, N = 28) and 12.87 ((25% Per = 2.88, 75% Per = 15.05, N = 102), respectively. No significant difference was present between these 2 surveillance sites (Z = -0.04, P = 0.97, Mann-Whitney test), but both lower than that in Menglian County (Z = -0.56, P = 0.01; Z = -2.51, P = 0.01;Mann-Whitney U test). Data from the Ruili site were not analyzed because only six cases were included.

Amplification of pfpm2 and pfmdr1 gene

We did not observe any amplification of the pfpm2 gene in samples both in the NW region (N = 126) and in SW region (N = 16). Among the tested copy numbers of pfmdr1 gene from 159 samples, 14.63% (18/123) isolates from the NW region and 62.5% (10/16) from the SW region contained multiple copies (N = 16), respectively. The prevalence of isolates with multiple pfmdr1 copies in the SW region was significantly higher than that in the NW region (P = 0.00, Fisher exact test). The prevalence of isolates with multiple copies of pfmdr1 gene based on K13 genotypes were 19.35% (6/31), 13.04% (9/69) and 10% (2/20) in W group, F446I group and Others group, respectively. There was no difference between each 2 of them (Between W and F446I groups: P = 0.76; Between W and Others groups: P = 0.69; Between F446I and Others groups: P = 1.00; Fisher exact test). Totally, 13.48% (12/89) isolates presented both K13 mutations and multiple copies of pfmdr1 gene.

There was no significant difference in PCT 50s between isolates with single (Median = 13.17, 25% Per = 11.12, 75% Per = 15.32, N = 111) and multiple (Median = 13.48, 25% Per = 4.99, 75% Per = 19.33, N = 28) copies of pfmdr1 gene (Z = -0.76, P = 0.45). For the isolates with both K13 mutant and multiple copies, there was no significant difference observed in their PCT 50s (Median = 12.91, 25% Per = 2.81, 75% Per = 20.48, N = 12) with those presenting with single copy of pfmdr1 gene and wide K13 type (Median = 13.00, 25% Per = 2.16, 75% Per = 13.70, N = 25) (Z = -0.36, P = 0.72; Mann-Whitney U test).

Reduced genetic He of the mutational K13 propeller allele and increased Fst between parasites of ML group and W group

According to mean He values, the four groups were arranged as ML group, F446I group, Others group and W group from low to high (See Fig 2). In ML group from the SW region, He values of parasites at all loci sites was 0 while those in the NW region were all more than 0. The median He value of the F446I isolates at 9 microsatellite loci was 0.08 (25% Per = 0.03, 75% Per = 0.27, N = 9) with each individual value of less than 0.30 at all loci except of one that, which was 0.52 and located at upstream −56Kb of the K13 gene. The He values in the Others group fluctuated greatly from 0 to 0.65 with a median value of 0.41 (25% Per = 0.20, 75% Per = 0.61, N = 9). The mean He value in the W group was the highest among four groups, which was 0.69 (25% Per = 0.53, 75% Per = 0.78, N = 9). All the mean He values showed significant difference with one another (Between W and F446I groups: Z = -2.67, P = 0.01; Between W and Others groups: Z = -2.67, P = 0.01; Between F446I and Others groups: Z = -2.10, P = 0.04; Wilcoxon test).

Fig 2. He variation of different groups based on K13 genotypes.

Fig 2

All Fst values at nine different loci (See Table 4 [40]) between different groups were higher than or equal to 0.05. The mean Fst values among four groups at nine different loci (0.41±0.07) were significantly higher than that among three NW groups (0.24±0.04) (Paired-T Test: t = −3.22, df = 8, P = 0.01). The highest difference between them presented at the sites of −0.15Kb (0.74 and 0.14) and 1.70Kb (0.47 and 0.21), which were closest to K13 genes among nine loci along chromosome 13. The mean Fst values between the W group and each of other three groups at nine loci were also detailed in Table 4. The Fst values between ML and W groups were significantly higher than other two pairs (Paired-T Test: t = − 2.66, df = 8, P = 0.03; t = −4.97, df = 8, P = 0.001), except that between the F446I and W groups at site of 1.70Kb to K13 gene show a higher value than that between the ML and W groups.

Table 4. Fst values at different loci and between different groups.

Loci Among all 4 Groups Among 3 NW Groups Between F446I and W Between Others and W Between ML and W
−56.0Kb 0.24 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.19
−50Kb 0.24 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.19
−6.36Kb 0.55 0.42 0.15 0.26 0.47
−0.15Kb 0.74 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.56
1.7Kb 0.47 0.21 0.30 0.08 0.26
8.6Kb 0.54 0.43 0.31 0.20 0.39
11Kb 0.37 0.27 0.20 0.10 0.31
15.1Kb 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06
31.5Kb 0.44 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.45
Mean values 0.41 d 0.24 ac 0.16 bc 0.12 b 0.32 a
SE 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05

a, b, c, d: If the same letter is present, no difference was found between the mean values according to paired T-Test; If the letters are different, significant differences were found between the mean values.

Differentiation Degree [40]: 0 ≤ Fst <0.05, little genetic differentiation.

0.05 ≤ Fst <0.15, moderate differentiation.

0.15 ≤ Fst <0.25, great differentiation.

0.25 ≤ Fst, very great genetic differentiation.

Discussion

Drug resistant parasites tend to appear among neighboring countries where different drug policies are typically applied and parasite populations at borders would experience divergent drug selection pressures [32,4146]. In Yunnan province, Dehong, Baoshan and Pu’er Prefectures located at NW and SW region bordering Myanmar. During 2011–2019, imported malaria cases from Myanmar in these 3 prefectures accounted for 45.09% (2,369/5,254), 27.41% (1,440/5,254) and 2.97% (156/5,254) of the total imported cases in Yunnan province, respectively. So, malaria patients were mainly enrolled in these Prefectures in those days.

Based on the SNPs examination and correction analysis using genomic tools, K13 mutants, such as C580Y, R539T, Y493H, and I543T, were verified to be correlated with the spread of resistance in west Cambodia and other GMS countries [37]. Consequently, F446I were identified as artemisinin partial resistance markers that affected only ring-stage parasites [47].

Previous molecular studies verified an outstanding genetic characteristic of P. falciparum isolates in the NW region, that F446I was the dominant K13 mutation allele, but no F446I isolates were found in the SW region [10,4850]. Our findings in NW P. falciparum isolates supported these findings and revealed a wide spread of F446I in 2013 and 2014 following with civil war in Kachin, Myanmar based on the accumulation in 2012 or/and earlier. We presumed the F446I in NW region was a recent drug-mediated mutation due to ACTs used in the region to a new arrival since no F446I had been reported in the SW region. This genetic mutation was distinctly different from other GMS countries, such as in Cambodia and Thailand where the dominant K13 mutation was C580Y, though F446I allele was sporadically reported there. This difference might be due to the parasites’ accumulative adaptations to their sustained different host environments [51]. In addition, between 2014 and 2016, a new mutation (G533S), which showed significantly higher ring survival rates than the wide type appeared and reached a prevalence of 44.1% along the China-Myanmar border [52]. The K13 mutant R561H, which was confirmed as driving artemisinin resistance, was identified in 19 of 257 (7.4%) patients at Masaka in Rwandan and phylogenetic analysis revealed they were indigenous lineage [53]. Based on this evidence, it seemed that with the exception of long-distance spreading because of migrant population, new mutations related to artemisinini resistance often appear independently among P. falciparum isolates at the locations where they received accumulative pressures from different human populations, anti-malaria medicines, and even vectors, and then spread around the hot points. In our study, the mean Fst value of 0.161 (±0.032) at nine microsatellite loci suggests that F446I had significantly differentiated genetically from the W group. However, the lowest mean He value (0.15, 0.014–0.28, N = 71) was observed in F446I isolates. This value was also lower than that of C580Y (0.35±0.08) in Thailand [16]. Low He values meant low diversity within these isolates, thus indicating that F446I isolates had experienced short selection pressure or little gene exchanges with other genotypes since they emerged. This result gave more evidence to the hypothesis that, F446I isolates have independently emerged in those years in the process of adapting to its environmental pressures, which then spread along the NW Yunnan-Myanmar border. This inference agreed with the consecutive and dramatic increase of prevalence of K13 mutations in different years in this region [50]. With the global application of artemisnin, this pattern of interaction between P. falciparum parasites and artemsinin drugs warranted more attention.

In this study, the high prevalence of mutant K13 was mainly due to F446I, suggested that PIP had undergone more pressure in the NW region during 2012–2016, though no great influence to the therapeutic efficacy of DHA-PIP in vivo appeared, which was due to the high susceptibility of PIP [19,54]. Therefore, monitoring the efficacy of antimalarial drugs in vivo, using molecular surveillance of both artemisinin and long-acting partner drugs, must be sustained. However, this study was not planned for PCT (6 hr smear preparation and examination), so that it perhaps was unable to provide the actual data to the association between PCT and mutations. Thus, no significantly different PCT 50s between isolates of the F446I and W groups was observed, which was various from other reports [50].

The pfmdr1 genotype is correlated with resistance of P. falciparum to Chloroquine (CQ), Mefloquine (MQ), and artemisinins, whereas knockdown of pfmdr1 expression leads to increased susceptibility [55]. In the 1990s, a series of in vitro assays demonstrated that resistance to multiple antimalarial drugs was present in the South and West Yunnan Province bordering with Myanmar, which included both PIP and some artemisinin drugs [1114]. In our study, the multiple copies appeared in both NW and SW regions. These findings were different from other reports before 2012 in the NW region [56,57] in which only isolates with single pfmdr1 copy detected. They were also different from the reports in eastern Cambodia where DHA-PIP treatment failures increased steadily in 2014 to reach a high frequency by 2015[38]. According to that report, most treatment failures had a single gene copy of mdr1 (112 [94·1%] of 119), confirming earlier reports of failures [38]. So artesunate plus mefloquine was suggested a viable option to treat DHA-PIP failures in Cambodia. Obviously, this suggestion was not applicable in China-Myanmar border, though MQ had never been deployed in the NW region, and neither in vivo or in vitro MQ resistance had been detected in the SW region before 2000 [5861]. Quite a few studies revealed that parasites with increased pfmdr1 copies would significantly reduce in vitro susceptibility to artemisinin derivatives, such as artesunate, which affected the treatment effect seriously in the GMS [6266]. The emergence of pfmdr1 amplification trend in China-Myanmar border might imply falciparum isolates had adopted this mechanism to cope with stress from artemisinin (DHA) besides of K13 mutations in the NW region. This adaption was also different from the F32-ART5 lineage which undergoing 5-year selection of artemisinin derivatives but showed negative pfmdr1 amplification [37]. This once again proves the diversity of ways in which falciparum malaria parasites fight against artemisinin. Though isolates with both K13 mutant and pfmdr1 amplification were observed in the NW region, no synergistic effect on resistance to atimisinin was observed between them.

In the SW region, though no K13 mutants detected, the higher PCTs and prevalence of isolates with multiple copies of pfmdr1 gene might indicate they resisted artemisinin (DHA) by this mechanism and achieved success within a certain range. Unfortunately, no correlation between PCT 50 values and copy numbers of the pfmdr1 gene was found. So, more studies, such as in vitro assays of these isolates based on single drug were placed in high hopes to be able to reveal the truth. Multiple copy numbers of pfmdr1 genes should be considered as one of potential causes of decreased prolonged clearance time of P. falciparum parasites along China-Myanmar border [50,67]. Thus, testing the copy number of pfmdr1 gene can be used as a molecular marker to monitor the susceptibility of artemisinin derivatives to imported P. falciparum and as part of a surveillance network of anti-malarial drugs in China [54].

Because the resistance of P. falciparum to the fast-acting artemtisinin component means longer exposure of the parasite to the long-acting partner drugs, there is an increased probability of parasite survival [2030]. Genome-wide associated studies revealed that amplification of two protease genes, plasmepsinII–III (pfpm2/3), were associated with clinical resistance to PIP in Cambodia. Based on this achievement, a test system with the pfpm2 gene, as a marker for resistance of parasites to PIP, was established [38,68]. The negative results in our study ensured the efficacy of DHA-PIP in vivo. STR data also revealed that isolates in the ML group showed that there was low diversity within the group but had a higher genetic differentiation from the other groups. The former was consistent with their background that a malaria outbreak occurred in that region in 2014 [69]. The latter indicated the genetic characteristics of P. falciparum isolates in the NW and SW regions diverged remarkably. This result supported the point that isolates in SW have applied a different ways to resist the pressure from artemisinin.

Conclusions

According to our study, P. falciparum isolates in the NW and SW regions have very different genetic characteristics. Artemisinin partial resistance, inferred from the genetic marker F446I, had independently appeared and spread in the NW region during 2012 and 2016. With the global application of ACTs, this pattern of emerging artemisinin resistance is worth further investigation. PIP-resistant featured markers, based on genetic analysis (pfpm2), showed negative results, which ensured the efficacy of DHA-PIP in vivo. In addition to monitoring the efficacy of antimalarial drugs in vivo, molecular surveillance of both artemisinin and long-acting partner drugs was strongly advised to be sustained. To monitor susceptibility of artemisinin derivatives to P. falciparum parasites, with the exception of the K13 mutation, the application of the copy number of the pfmdr1 gene was recommended in the anti-malarial drug surveillance network in China.

Limitations

In this study, HL and PCT values were calculated using the WHO parasite clearance estimator, WHO Application, based on a schedule of 24-hourly sampling, which was not as accurate as that of 6 or 8-hourly sampling. Thus, a comparison of HL or PCT values with data in other studies could not be made, and association between PCT and mutation may not provide the actual data. Gene amplification is more frequent than point mutation in P. falciparum parasites. Mdr1 mutation analysis might give more information about the different PCTs between NW and SW region. However, this study was not carried out because of limitation of sample quantity. To obtain accurate copy number of pfpm2 and pfmdr1 gene, amplification efficiency for DNA fragments detection of pfpm2, pfmdr1and pfβ-tubulin gene, and new equation curve between copy number and 2-Δt values based on 90–110% amplification efficiency are recommended in new laboratory before sample test. Negative control (Pf 3D7) should be included in each run that might clear the difference of Ct values between different genes as being pointed [38,70].

Supporting information

S1 File. Guideline for calculating He and Fst (In Chinese).

Photos of relevant content in reference 39.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants for their contribution of time and patience in the study. We also thank staff of National Institute of Parasitic Diseases (NIPD) for logistic support, and clinical and laboratory staff of Menglian, Tengchong, Ruili and Yingjiang County Center for Disease Control and Prevention for their hard work. We are also grateful for the support provided by the provincial health directors and the local health staff at the four sentinel sites. The opinions and recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official decisions, policy, or views of WHO, USAID-PMI, GFATM, NIPD and YIPD.

We also thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for linguistic assistance and pre-submission expert review.

Abbreviations

TES

Therapeutic Efficacy Studies

DHA-PIP

Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine

PCT

Parasite Clearance Time

STR

Short Tandem Repeats

NW area

North-West Yunnan province bordering with Myanmar

SW area

South -West Yunnan province bordering with Myanmar

W group

P. falciparum isolates with K13 wild genotype in NW area

Others group

P. falciparum isolates with Non-F446I K13 mutation

ML group

P. falciparum isolates from Menglian County in SW area

CQ

Chloroquine

ACT

Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy

GMS

Greater Mekong sub-region

SNP

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The recruitment, treatment of volunteers and samples collection was supported by the WHO Mekong Malaria Programme (WP/10/MVP/005837) from a Consolidated Grant from USAID-PMI to WHO; the Round 6 (CHN-607-G09-M) and 10 (CHN-011-G15-M) Global Fund grant to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) in China. The study design, samples test, data collection and analysis, decision to publish and preparation of the manuscript was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 81673113). We thank all participants for their contribution of time and patience in the study. We also thank staff of National Institute of Parasitic Diseases (NIPD) for logistic support, and clinical and laboratory staff of Menglian, Tengchong and Yingjiang County Center for Disease Control and Prevention for their hard work. We are also grateful for the support provided by the provincial health directors and the local health staff at the four sentinel sites. The opinions and recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of WHO/USAID-PMI, GFATM, NIPD and YIPD.

References

  • 1.Jia YC, Huang T, Zheng ED, Wu ZW, Peng X, He JB. Epidemiological characteristics of public health emergencies of communicable diseases in cross border area of Yunnan, 2008–2017. Mod Prevent Med. 2019;46(11):1936–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhou SS, Wang Y, Li Y. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2010. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2011;29(6):401–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xia ZG, Yang MN, Zhou SS. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2011. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2012;30(6):419–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Xia ZG, Feng J, Zhou SS. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2012. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2013;31(6):413–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang L, Feng J, Xia ZG. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2013. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2014;32(6):407–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang L, Zhou SS, Feng J, Fang W, Xia ZG. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2014. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2015;33(5):319–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhang L, Feng J, Zhang SS, Xia ZG, Zhou SS. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2015. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2016;34(6):477–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhang L, Feng J, Zhang SS, Jiang B, Xia ZG, Zhou SS. Malaria situation in the People’s Republic of China in 2016. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2017;35(6):515–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhou YW, Lin ZR, Yang HL, Sun XD, Zhou XT, Lv Q, et al. Analysis of the epidemiological characteristics of malaria elimination in Yunnan Province from 2011–2019. J Patho Bio. 2020;15(11):1328–31(in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Feng J, Zhou DL, Lin YX, Xiao HH, Yan H, Xia ZG. Amplification of pfmdr1, pfcrt, pvmdr1, and K13 Propeller Polymorphisms Associated with Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax Isolates from the China-Myanmar Border. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(5):2554–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yang HL, Liu DQ, Dong Y, Yang PF, Liu RJ, Zhan B, et al. Sensitivity of Plasmodium falciparum to seven antimalarial in China-Laos border. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 1995;13(2):111–3 (in Chinese). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yang HL, Yang PF, Liu DQ, Liu RJ, Dong Y, Zhang CY, et al. Sensitivity in vitro of Plasmodium falciparum to Chloroquine, Pyronaridine, Artesunate and Piperaquine in South Yunnan. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 1992;10(3):198–200 (in Chinese). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yang HL, Liu DQ, Huang KQ, Dong Y, Yang PF, Yang YM, et al. In vitro sensitivity of Plasmodium falciparum to derivatives of Artesimisin. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 1997;15(5):292–6 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu DQ, Liu RJ, Zhang CY, Cai XZ, Tang X, Yang HL, et al. Present status of the sensitivity of Plasmodium falciparum to antimalarials in China. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 1996;14(1):37–41 (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yang HL, Liu DQ, Yang YM, Fan B, Yang PF, Li XL, et al. Changes in susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum to artesunate in vitro in Yunnan Province, China. T Roy Soc Trop Med H. 2003;97(2): 226–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Talundzic E, Okoth SA, Congpuong K, Plucinski MM, Morton L, Goldman IF, et al. Selection and Spread of Artemisinin-Resistant Alleles in Thailand Prior to the Global Artemisinin Resistance Containment Campaign. PLOS Pathog. 2015;10:1371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wichai S, Prayuth S, Saowanit V, Amnat K. Artemisinin resistance containment project in Thailand. II: Responses to mefloquine artesunate combination therapy among falciparum malaria patients in provinces bordering Cambodia. Malar J. 2012;11:300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.World Health Organization. Malaria case management: operational manual, 1st ed. Geneva, 2009.
  • 19.Liu H, Yang HL, Tang TL, Li XL, Huang F, Wang JZ, et al. In vivo monitoring of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine sensitivity in Plasmodium falciparum along the China-Myanmar border of Yunnan Province, China from 2007 to 2013. Malaria J. 2015;14:47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kheang ST, Sovannaroth S, Ek S, Chy S, Chhun P, Mao S, et al. Prevalence of K13 mutation and Day-3 positive parasitaemia in artemisinin-resistant malaria endemic area of Cambodia: a cross-sectional study. Malar J. 2017;16:372. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-2024-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Parobek CM, Parr JB, Brazeau NF, Lon C, Chaorattanakawee S, Gosi P, et al. Partner-Drug Resistance and Population Substructuring of Artemisinin-Resistant Plasmodium falciparum in Cambodia. Genome Biol Evol. 2017;9(6):1673–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mukherjee A, Bopp S, Magistrado P, Wong W, Daniels R, Demas A, et al. Artemisinin resistance without pfkelch13 mutations in Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Cambodia. Malar J. 2017;16:195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Duru V, Witkowski B, Ménard D. Plasmodium falciparum Resistance to Artemisinin Derivatives and Piperaquine: A Major Challenge for Malaria Elimination in Cambodia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(6):1228–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Amato R, Lim P, Miotto O, Amaratunga C, Dek D, Pearson RD, et al. Genetic markers associated with dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine failure in Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Cambodia: a genotype-phenotype association study. Lancet Infect Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Aug 21.Published in final edited form as: Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(2): 164–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Amaratunga C, Lim P, Suon S, Sreng S, Sivanna Mao S, Sopha C, et al. Dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Cambodia: a multisite prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Mar 1.Published in final edited form as: Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(3):357–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Duru V, Khim N, Leang R, Kim S, Domergue A, Kloeung N, et al. Plasmodium falciparum dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine failures in Cambodia are associated with mutant K13 parasites presenting high survival rates in novel piperaquine in vitro assays: retrospective and prospective investigations. BMC Med. 2015;13:305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cox J, oley LD, Bunkea T, Sovannaroth S, Ty KS, Ngak S, et al. Evaluation of community-based systems for the surveillance of day three-positive Plasmodium falciparum cases in Western Cambodia. Malar J. 2014;13:282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lon C, Manning JE, Vanachayangkul P, So M, Sea D, Se Y, et al. Efficacy of Two versus Three-Day Regimens of Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Uncomplicated Malaria in Military Personnel in Northern Cambodia: An Open-Label Randomized Trial. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3): e93138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Leang R, Barrette A, Denis Bouth DM, Menard D, Abdur R, Duong S. Efficacy of Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Treatment of Uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in Cambodia, 2008 to 2010. Pascal Ringwald Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(2):818–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chaorattanakawee S, Lon C, Jongsakul K, Gawee J, Sok S, Sundrakes S, et al. Ex vivo piperaquine resistance developed rapidly in Plasmodium falciparum isolates in northern Cambodia compared to Thailand. Malar J. 2016;15:519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Phyo AP, Nkhoma S, Stepniewska K, Ashley EA, Nair S, McGready R, et al. Emergence of artemisinin-resistant malaria on the western border of Thailand: a longitudinal study. Lancet. 2012;379(9830): 1960–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60484-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Song J, Socheat D, Tan B, Seila S, Xu Y, Ou F, et al. Randomized trials of artemisinin-piperaquine, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine phosphate and artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of multi-drug resistant falciparum malaria in Cambodia-Thailand border area. Malar J. 2011;10:231. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tarning J, Ashley EA, Lindegardh N, Stepniewska K, Phaiphun L, Day NPJ, et al. Population Pharmacokinetics of Piperaquine after Two Different Treatment Regimens with Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine in Patients with Plasmodium falciparum Malaria in Thailand. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(3): 1052–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liu H, Yang HL, Tang LH, Li XL, Huang F, Wang JZ, et al. Monitoring Plasmodium vivax chloroquine sensitivity along China-Myanmar border of Yunnan Province, China during 2008–2013. Malaria J. 2014;13:364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.World Health Organization. Susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum to antimalarial drugs. Report on global monitoring 1996–2004.2005. [cited 2022 Mar 8]. Available from: http://www.who.int/malaria/resistance [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Flegg JA, Guérin PJ, Nosten F, Ashley EA, Phyo AP, Dondorp AM, et al. Optimal sampling designs for estimation of Plasmodium falciparum clearance rates in patients treated with artemisinin derivatives. Malar J. 2013;12:411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ariey F, Witkowski B, Amaratunga C, Beghain J, Langlois AC, Khim N, et al. A molecular marker of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature. 2014; 505(7481):50–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Witkowski B, Duru V, Khim N, Ross LS, Saintpierre B, Beghain J, et al. A surrogate marker of piperaquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a phenotype–genotype association study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(2):174–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang ZF ed. Molecular ecology and fundamentals of data analysis. 1st ed. Beijing: Science Press;2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Balloux F, Lugon-Moulin N. The estimation of population differentiation with microsatellite markers. Mol Ecol. 2002;11:155–65. doi: 10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01436.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Roper C. Intercontinental spread of pyrimethamine-resistant malaria. Science. 2004;305: 1124. doi: 10.1126/science.1098876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Imwong M, Suwannasin K, Kunasol C, Sutawong K, Mayxay M, Rekol H, et al. The spread of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in the Greater Mekong subregion: a molecular epidemiology observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:491–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pongvongsa T, Ha H, Thanh L, Marchand RP, Nonaka D, Tojo B, et al. Joint malaria surveys lead towards improved cross-border cooperation between Savannakhet province, Laos and Quang Tri province, Vietnam. Malar J. 2012;11:262. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Carrara CI, Lwin KM, Phyo AP, Ashley E, Wiladphaingern J, Sriprawat K, et al. Malaria Burden and Artemisinin Resistance in the Mobile and Migrant Population on the Thai–Myanmar Border, 1999–2011: An Observational Study. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3): e1001398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hao MM, Jia DD, Li Q, He YS, Yuan LL, Xu SH, et al. In vitro Sensitivities of Plasmodium falciparum Isolates from the China-Myanmar Border to Piperaquine and Association with Polymorphisms in Candidate Genes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(4): 1723–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bhumiratana A, Intarapuk A, Sorosjinda-Nunthawarasilp P, Maneekan P, Koyadun S. Border Malaria Associated with Multidrug Resistance on Thailand-Myanmar and Thailand-Cambodia Borders: Transmission Dynamic, Vulnerability, and Surveillance. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:363417. doi: 10.1155/2013/363417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.World Health Organization. Artemisinin resistance and artemisinin-based combination therapy efficacy. 1st ed. Geneva, 2018.
  • 48.Xu JW, Li JJ, Guo HP, Pu SW, Li SM, Wang RH, et al. Malaria from hyperendemicity to elimination in Hekou County on China–Vietnam border: an ecological study. Malar J. 2017;16:66. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-1709-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pickard AL, Wongsrichanalai C, Purfield A, Kamwendo D, Emery K, Zalewski C, et al. Resistance to antimalarials in Southeast Asia and genetic polymorphisms in pfmdr1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(8):2418–23. doi: 10.1128/AAC.47.8.2418-2423.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Huang F, Takala-Harrison S, Jacob CG, Liu H, Sun XD, Yang HL, et al. A Single Mutation in K13 Predominates in Southern China and Is Associated With Delayed Clearance of Plasmodium falciparum Following Artemisinin Treatment. Journal Of Infectious Diseases. 2015;212: 1629–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zhu L, Tripathi J, Rocamora FM, Miotto O, Pluijm Rvd, Voss TS, et al. , Tracking Resistance to Artemisinin Collaboration I. The origins of malaria artemisinin resistance defined by a genetic and transcriptomic background. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang J, Li N, Siddiqui AS, Shi L, Xu SL, Geng JT, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from the China-Myanmar border area to artemisinins and correlation with K13 mutations. Drugs and Drug Resist. 2019;10:20–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Uwimana A, Legrand E, Stokes BH, Ndikumana JL, Warsame MM, Umulisa N, et al. Emergence and clonal expansion of in vitro artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum kelch13 R561H mutant parasites in Rwanda. Nat Med. 2020;26: 1602–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Huang F, Shrestha B, Liu H, Tang LH, Zhou SS, Zhou XN, et al. No evidence of amplified Plasmodium falciparum plasmepsin II gene copy number in an area with artemisinin-resistant malaria along the China–Myanmar border. Malar J. 2020;19:334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sidhu AB, Uhlemann AC, Valderramos SG, Valderramos JC, Krishna S, Fidock DA. Decreasing pfmdr1 copy number in Plasmodium falciparum malaria heightens susceptibility to mefloquine, lumefantrine, halofantrine,quinine, and artemisinin. J Infect Dis. 2006;194: 528–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Meng H, Zhang R, Yang H, Fan Q, Su X, Miao J, et al. In vitro sensitivity of Plasmodium falciparum clinical isolates from the China-Myanmar border area to quinine and association with polymorphism in the Na+/H+ exchanger. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010;54: 4306–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wang Z, Parker D, Meng H, Wu L, Li J, Zhao Z, et al. In vitro sensitivity of Plasmodium falciparum from China-Myanmar border area to major ACT drugs and polymorphisms in potential target genes. PLoS One. 2012;7:e30927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Advisory Committee of Malaria Expert, Chinese Ministry of Health. Principle and scheme for use of antimalarial drug in China. Chin J parasite Dis. 2002;15(3):1–2.
  • 59.Advisory Committee of Malaria Expert, Chinese Ministry of Health (Trial Version). Principle and scheme for use of antimalarial drug in China. Disease Control Bureau, Ministry of health. 2007-4-24, (MH/DCB, 2007:60). City:Beijing.
  • 60.Advisory Committee of Malaria Expert, Chinese Ministry of Health (Revised Version). Principle and scheme for use of antimalarial drug in China. Disease Control Bureau, Ministry of health. 2009-4-24, (MH/DCB, 2009:106). City:Beijing.
  • 61.Wang Z, Parker D, Meng H, Wu L, Li J, Zhao Z, et al. In vitro sensitivity of Plasmodium falciparum from China-Myanmar border area to major ACT drugs and polymorphisms in potential target gene. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e30927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Veiga MI, Ferreira PE, Jörnhagen L, Malmberg M, Kone A, Schmidt BA, et al. Novel polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum ABC transporter genes are associated with major ACT antimalarial drug resistance. PLoS One. 2011; 6(5): e20212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chavchich M, Gerena L, Peters J, Chen N, Cheng Q, Kyle DE. Role of pfmdr1 amplification and expression in induction of resistance to artemisinin derivatives in Plasmodium falciparum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(6): 2455–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lim P, Alker AP, Khim N, Shah NK, Incardona S, Doung S, et al. Pfmdr1 copy number and artemisinin derivatives combination therapy failure in falciparum malaria in Cambodia. Malar J. 2009;8:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Price RN, Cassar C, Brockman A, Duraisingh M, van Vugt M, White NJ, et al. The pfmdr1 gene is associated with a multidrug-resistant phenotype in Plasmodium falciparum from the western border of Thailand. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(12): 2943–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Sidhu ABS, Uhlemann AC, Valderramos SG, Valderramos JC, Krishna S, Fidock DA. Decreasing pfmdr1 Copy Number in Plasmodium falciparum Malaria Heightens Susceptibility to Mefloquine, Lumefantrine,Halofantrine, Quinine, and Artemisinin. J Infect Dis. 2006;194(4):528–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wang Y, Yang Z, Yuan L, Zhou G, Parker D, Lee MC, et al. Clinical efficacy of dihydroartemisinin‑piperaquine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria at the China–Myanmar border. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015; 93:577–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Bopp S, Magistrado P, Wong W, Schaffner SF, Mukherjee A, Lim P, et al. Plasmepsin II–III copy number accounts for bimodal piperaquine resistance among Cambodian Plasmodium falciparum. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Liu H, Xu JW, Yang HL, Li M, Sun CD, Yin YJ, et al. Investigation and control of a Plasmodium falciparum malaria outbreak in Shan Special Region II of Myanmar along the China-Myanmar Border from June to December 2014. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2016;5: 32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2-ΔΔ Ct Method. Methods. 2001;25(4): 402–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Himanshu Gupta

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

15 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-03162

Genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites collected from 2012 to 2016 and anti-malaria resistance along the China-Myanmar border

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We encourage you to submit your revision by Apr 28 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,

Himanshu Gupta

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   " WHO Mekong Malaria Programme (WP/10/MVP/005837) from a Consolidated Grant from USAID-PMI to WHO; the Round 6 (CHN-607-G09-M) and 10 (CHN-011-G15-M) Global Fund grant to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) in China. It was also supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 81673113)" 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. 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. 

7. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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/

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

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: No

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: Overview:

Li et al’s manuscript titled Genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites collected from 2012 to 2016 and anti-malaria resistance along the China-Myanmar border examined the frequencies of several molecular markers associated with delayed artemisinin clearance and measured clearance times of P. falciparum strains collected along the China-Myanmar border. This study is interesting, as it takes place in the decade immediately preceding China’s malaria-free certification in 2021.

The primary purpose of the study was to assess the level of delayed artemisinin clearance at the China-Myanmar border. To do this, they assessed SNPs in the K13-propellar domain microsatellites flanking the K13 gene on chromosome 13, and copy number variation of pfmdr1 and pfpm2. Clearance times following DHA-PIP treatment were also measured.

Overall, the actual results appear to be sound, and I recommend publication. The observation of different genetic structure in the NW and SW collection sites is interesting and appears to be consistent with the fragmented parasite populations seen in SE Asia.

However, the language style will need to be revised before final acceptance. The manuscript is understandable but awkward in too many areas to list. I have, however, left some recommendations specific recommendations to improve the presentation of the paper.

Major comments

Introduction

1) The introduction should be refocused to provide greater epidemiological context to the importance of the China-Myanmar border. It is obvious that a major motivation for the study was to study the drug resistance profiles of individuals moving between China and Myanmar, which was important because China was actively applying for malaria-free certification in this time period

a. The introduction can be improved by explaining the status of malaria transmission in Yunnan province between 2012-2016, and the drug resistance profile in Myanmar (or possibly Laos), as these are likely where the parasites seen at the China-Myanmar border are coming from.

2) Too much time is spent describing CQ resistance and its spread. --CQ is not relevant to this study and I would advise focusing specifically on describing what is known about ACTs and DHA-PIP. For example, much of lines 68-75 can be cut.

3) Line 61 – “In response to widespread resistance….” is technically correct but skips a lot of steps. ACTs were used after many drugs, including CQ began to fail due to the emergence of drug resistance.

Methods

1) The map used in Fig 1 should be rescaled so that it is zoomed into the China-Myanmar border. The actual study sites are too small to see.

2) Line 179 – “all data were collected in Excel 2016” – I don’t think this is relevant detail

3) Line 181 – “Column statistics Method in Column Analysis” is uninformative and the name/description of the exact test being used should be used instead

Results

1) The description of the sampling design could be improved by including a flow chart or some other visualization to help the reader understand and remember

2) Line 195 – The term “K13 genotype” is misleading—I think it can be clarified to state “Samples that were successfully genotyped at K13”. Same at Line 200 – It should be rephrased as “Among the 175 parasites that were successfully genotyped at K13…”

3) Table 1 is confusing because it is unclear which regions correspond to which year. Example: was Ruili collected in 2012 or 2013? Some shading or coloring would help clarify

4) Were any parasites observed with multiple K13 mutations?

5) Line 262 replace with “We did not observe any amplification of the pfpm2 gene in our samples”.

6) Line 263 – It is strange that the estimated CNV for pfpm2 is less than 1, as this would imply a deletion in some of the samples. I am guessing this is because the equations used to estimate CNV are not completely accurate—but if there truly are deletions of pfpm2 in the data that would be useful to report

a. Line 263 – “NW region significantly lower…” – this might be technically true, but I doubt that this is due to actual biology… I think it is more likely to be because the equation used is not completely accurate

7) Line 278: the name of the test should be used (I think it is an ANOVA?)

Discussion

1) Line 325-326 – “Following the spread of chloroquine….”, Technically true, but ultimately irrelevant. Would suggest this first section focus more on the specific implications of drug resistance of at the China-Myanmar border. Lines 329-331 should be expanded upon

2) The most interesting finding to me is that PCTs in the W group are much lower than the PCT values in the ML group. Both groups are wild type at K13, which would imply that the ML group has other mutations contributing to delayed clearance—I think this is an important finding and should be discussed more

3) Lines 347-350 – I think the phrasing can be improved. The low He observed in F466I could be due to strong, recent drug-mediated positive selection for the mutation due to ACT use in the region. It could also indicate that F466I arrived at in Yunnan border from a recent importation event that rapidly expanded in NW Yunnan province – both could result in extremely low He.

4) Lines 353-357 – This is also interesting and should be expanded. Given that the samples in SW Yunnan were collected during an outbreak, it is entirely possible that the parasites in the ML group are all clonal or extremely clonal to one another and derived from a recent importation event.

5) It is curious that C580Y was not found at high frequencies in this study. Some discussion about why this might be would be useful. Additional discussion for why F446I is so prevalent would also be interesting

Minor Comments

1) In general, the name of the statistical test used to estimate p-values should be included when reporting p-values

2) Line 160 – Pf3D7 is misspelled (Pf37D)

3) lines 167 and 169-Equation is misspelled (“equitation”) in

4) Line 176-177: The equations used for He and Fst could be useful

5) The results from SW region should also be included in Table 1, even though there were no K13 mutants observed. Alternatively, Table 1 should be renamed “Distribution of K13 genotypes in NW Yunnan”

6) Line 268 – the section starting with “The prevalence of isolates with multiple pfmdr1 copies…” should be made into its own paragraph

7) The language style of the manuscript should be reviewed by a dedicated editor

Reviewer #2: 1. It would be worth mentioning about the drug policy in the different study area. Although author mentioned the drug of choice in line no. 98-101 but if possible then mentioned the specific drug used in the study area.

2. Since the study follows the standard WHO protocol for efficacy monitoring, the sample size as per WHO protocol was not adequate to conclude for each site vs each year which need to explain.

3. The study was not planned for PCT (6 hr smear preparation and examine) so association between PCT and mutation may not provide the actual data. Therefore, author needs to clarify in starting while discussing the associations.

4. Author did analyse only the copy number variation in MDR1 gene and explained on the association of SW region vs NW region however, author did not perform the mdr1 mutation analysis so that the statement may be more conclusive as mutation along with CNV play a role in artemisinin resistance. If not possible then it should come into the study limitation.

5. F446I mutation are found particularly one study sites (Yingjiang) with lower frequency in 2012 (35%) and subsequently it raised to 90% in 2013 and 2014. Please discuss the possible cause of the spread particularly in one site. If possible, the corelate the epidemiological data of the study site for recombination point of view.

6. What were the QA/QC procedures for K13 sequencing? Were the sequences of the F446I containing samples confirmed; either by re-sequencing, or any other method?

**********

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: Yes: Praveen K Bharti

**********

[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 Nov 10;18(11):e0293590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293590.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Jul 2023

Response to Reviewers

1. Response to academic editor

1.1 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

Response: The style of the manuscript has revised according to the templates.

1.2 We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response: Have done as your advice

1.3 Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

" WHO Mekong Malaria Programme (WP/10/MVP/005837) from a Consolidated Grant from USAID-PMI to WHO; the Round 6 (CHN-607-G09-M) and 10 (CHN-011-G15-M) Global Fund grant to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) in China. It was also supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 81673113)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response:The recruitment of volunteers, diagnosis, treatment, samples collection and molecular test (K13 gene) were supported by WHO Mekong Malaria Programme. Molecular tests (other genes), expert review and publication supported by National Science Foundation of China.

1.4 We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response: Supply as appendix 1

1.5 PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Response: Have done

1.6 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.

Response: Yes, all required information had been included in the ‘Methods’ section.

1.7 We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images 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.

Response: The figure was deleted. The information of surveillance sites were supplied alongside K13 sequences (Appendix 1).

1.8 Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Have done as guidelines.

2. Response to Reviewers

2.1 Response to Reviewer1

2.1.1 Intoduction

1) The introduction should be refocused to provide greater epidemiological context to the importance of the China-Myanmar border. It is obvious that a major motivation for the study was to study the drug resistance profiles of individuals moving between China and Myanmar, which was important because China was actively applying for malaria-free certification in this time period

Response: The introduction (background) have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

a. The introduction can be improved by explaining the status of malaria transmission in Yunnan province between 2012-2016, and the drug resistance profile in Myanmar (or possibly Laos), as these are likely where the parasites seen at the China-Myanmar border are coming from.

Response: The introduction (background) have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

2) Too much time is spent describing CQ resistance and its spread. --CQ is not relevant to this study and I would advise focusing specifically on describing what is known about ACTs and DHA-PIP. For example, much of lines 68-75 can be cut.

Response: The introduction (background) have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

3) Line 61 – “In response to widespread resistance….” is technically correct but skips a lot of steps. ACTs were used after many drugs, including CQ began to fail due to the emergence of drug resistance.

Response: The introduction (background) have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

2.1.2 Methods

1) The map used in Fig 1 should be rescaled so that it is zoomed into the China-Myanmar border. The actual study sites are too small to see.

Response: The figure was deleted because of copyright. The information of surveillance sites were supplied alongside K13 sequences (Appendix 1).

2) Line 179 – “all data were collected in Excel 2016” – I don’t think this is relevant detail

Response: This sentence has been deleted.

3) Line 181 – “Column statistics Method in Column Analysis” is uninformative and the name/description of the exact test being used should be used instead

Response: The statistics methods were re-considered. The data were re-analyzed in SPSS 23. So some data in Results section are different from previous version. For example, PCT values were presented in median and percentiles (25% Per and 75% Per) replacing of mean and CI, because the data was non-normal distributed. All these changes had not influenced the conclusion.

2.1.3 Results

1) The description of the sampling design could be improved by including a flow chart or some other visualization to help the reader understand and remember

Response: Have added “CONSORT flowchart” as Fig.1 to describe this part. Previous Fig 2, Fig 3 and Fig 4 were deleted, because their information had included in tables.

2) Line 195 – The term “K13 genotype” is misleading—I think it can be clarified to state “Samples that were successfully genotyped at K13”. Same at Line 200 – It should be rephrased as “Among the 175 parasites that were successfully genotyped at K13…”

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

3) Table 1 is confusing because it is unclear which regions correspond to which year. Example: was Ruili collected in 2012 or 2013? Some shading or coloring would help clarify

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice. Samples in Ruili were collected in 2013.

4) Were any parasites observed with multiple K13 mutations?

Response: Yes, one multiple K13 mutations N458Y+F446I was found. However, it was record as N458Y in this manuscript because N458Y was verified to be connected with resistance of falciparum parasite to artimisinin, also for the convenience of comparative analysis.

5) Line 262 replace with “We did not observe any amplification of the pfpm2 gene in our samples”.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

6) Line 263 – It is strange that the estimated CNV for pfpm2 is less than 1, as this would imply a deletion in some of the samples. I am guessing this is because the equations used to estimate CNV are not completely accurate—but if there truly are deletions of pfpm2 in the data that would be useful to report

Response: Yes, we agree with reviewer’s view that CNV are not completely accurate because we deduce them from the equation curve in other report directly. But we are unable to ensure if there are deletions because of our shortage in more professional knowledge to explain it. To ensure accurate judgement, we re-check and re-calculate the original data. We draw a conclusion that CNV might be not completely accurate, but the judgement of single or multiple copies was right. So, the results were compared based on positive or negative amplification replacing of numerical value and the values of the copies were not shown.

Here was the supporting information of reference sample Pf3D7

The PCR results (Ct Values) of Pf 3D7 isolate

Pfmdr1 PfPM2 Pfβ-tubulin

Repeat 1 17.42 17.08 17.20

Repeat 1 17.15 16.64 17.03

Repeat 1 17.15 17.09 17.09

Average 17.24 ±0.16(CV 0.90%) 16.94±0.26 (CV 1.52%) 17.11±0.09 (CV 0.50%)

a. Line 263 – “NW region significantly lower…” – this might be technically true, but I doubt that this is due to actual biology… I think it is more likely to be because the equation used is not completely accurate

Response: Since the data is not accurate, we use positive and negative amplification to compare the difference in different region or groups.

7) Line 278: the name of the test should be used (I think it is an ANOVA?)

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice. However, it is not ANOVA but Kruskal Wallis H test applied in comparing multiple groups of independent samples when their data non-normally distributed.

2.1.4 Discussion

1) Line 325-326 – “Following the spread of chloroquine….”, Technically true, but ultimately irrelevant. Would suggest this first section focus more on the specific implications of drug resistance of at the China-Myanmar border. Lines 329-331 should be expanded upon

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice. Most of the statement about CQ was deleted in this manuscript.

2) The most interesting finding to me is that PCTs in the W group are much lower than the PCT values in the ML group. Both groups are wild type at K13, which would imply that the ML group has other mutations contributing to delayed clearance—I think this is an important finding and should be discussed more.

Response: I have tried my best to revise the discussion according to reviewer’s advice. I am not sure if it is full.

3) Lines 347-350 – I think the phrasing can be improved. The low He observed in F466I could be due to strong, recent drug-mediated positive selection for the mutation due to ACT use in the region. It could also indicate that F466I arrived at in Yunnan border from a recent importation event that rapidly expanded in NW Yunnan province – both could result in extremely low He.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice. For the F446I has not detected in South-West Yunnan province. We prefer recent drug-mediated positive selection to new arrival.

4) Lines 353-357 – This is also interesting and should be expanded. Given that the samples in SW Yunnan were collected during an outbreak, it is entirely possible that the parasites in the ML group are all clonal or extremely clonal to one another and derived from a recent importation event.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

5) It is curious that C580Y was not found at high frequencies in this study. Some discussion about why this might be would be useful. Additional discussion for why F446I is so prevalent would also be interesting

Response: In fact, I could not ensure the reason. However, according to the C580Y in Cambodia, G533S in NW region in 2014-2016, F446I in NW region in 2012-2016, and R561H in Africa, we include that this might the character of falciparum parasites to artimisinin in different place with different background.

2.1.5 Minor Comments

1) In general, the name of the statistical test used to estimate p-values should be ncluded when reporting p-values

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

2) Line 160 – Pf3D7 is misspelled (Pf37D)

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

3) lines 167 and 169-Equation is misspelled (“equitation”) in

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

4) Line 176-177: The equations used for He and Fst could be useful

Response: Yes, we agree with reviewer’s opinion that equations could be useful for other researchers. So we recheck the reference book “Wang ZF ed. Molecular ecology and fundamentals of data analysis. Science Press. Beijing:2016.” Unfortunately, this book was focused on the software operation process, not the theory. No concerned equations were found. And none of the partners of this study were good at analysis of genetic data. So, here could not supply the equations. If it was accessible to us one day, we are willing to share it.

5) The results from SW region should also be included in Table 1, even though there were no K13 mutants observed. Alternatively, Table 1 should be renamed “Distribution of K13 genotypes in NW Yunnan”

Response: Have revised to “Distribution of K13 genotypes in the NW region” according to reviewer’s advice.

6) Line 268 – the section starting with “The prevalence of isolates with multiple pfmdr1 copies…” should be made into its own paragraph

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

7) The language style of the manuscript should be reviewed by a dedicated editor

2.2 Response to Reviewer 2:

2.2.1 It would be worth mentioning about the drug policy in the different study area. Although author mentioned the drug of choice in line no. 98-101 but if possible then mentioned the specific drug used in the study area.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

2.2.2 Since the study follows the standard WHO protocol for efficacy monitoring, the sample size as per WHO protocol was not adequate to conclude for each site vs each year which need to explain.

Response: Yes, the sample size was not adequate, because of the decreased incidence of malaria cases in this area. However, we have enroll as many as we can. Otherwise, because this study was focus on the genetic characteristics of Pf in this area, not a report of the TES results, no explain for the sample size presented in this manuscript. Perhaps, our partner would give some interpret in a new manuscript.

2.2.3 The study was not planned for PCT (6 hr smear preparation and examine) so association between PCT and mutation may not provide the actual data. Therefore, author needs to clarify in starting while discussing the associations.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

2.2.4 Author did analyse only the copy number variation in MDR1 gene and explained on the association of SW region vs NW region however, author did not perform the mdr1 mutation analysis so that the statement may be more conclusive as mutation along with CNV play a role in artemisinin resistance. If not possible then it should come into the study limitation.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice.

2.2.5 F446I mutation are found particularly one study sites (Yingjiang) with lower frequency in 2012 (35%) and subsequently it raised to 90% in 2013 and 2014. Please discuss the possible cause of the spread particularly in one site. If possible, the corelate the epidemiological data of the study site for recombination point of view.

Response: Have revised according to reviewer’s advice. The high prevalence happened alongside a civil war in 2013 in north Myanmar. However, why it was F446I, but not C580Y or the other K13 genotype be the protagonist during this period was yet unknown, and no other hypothesis could be concluded based on our study.

2.2.6 What were the QA/QC procedures for K13 sequencing? Were the sequences of the F446I containing samples confirmed; either by re-sequencing, or any other method?

Response: Firstly, our result agreed with others which sample were collected nearly in same sites and sites. Secondly, each mutant site was recheck in the sequencing figures to ensure each peak plot was single. If double, compare upstream and downstream 10bp around the site with wild type to determine it was a real mutation or misreading codon.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Himanshu Gupta

16 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-03162R1Genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites collected from 2012 to 2016 and anti-malaria resistance along the China-Myanmar borderPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 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,

Himanshu Gupta

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #1: (No Response)

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #1: Overall, I find the paper much improved and am satisfied with the changes. I have a few minor points though:

Introduction & Discussion – The wording needs to be checked by a dedicated editor for grammar and phrasing. I have included grammatical and phrasing suggestions where I could but I probably did not catch all them all.

Line 206-225: There is no reason to have all the statistics (the 25% per = 2.74, per = 5.02, etc etc) reported in the main text—They are all already Table 2. I suggest using the main text to highlight only the key results.

Minor comments

• Line 39: Missing a the: In (the) NW (north-west Yunnan…)

• Line 47: Change phrasing: no difference in PCT50s were present between…

• Line 47-50: having the actual values of He for each of the groups could be useful

• Line 52: would change the word inferred to hypothesized—I am more used to being used in the statistical sense (ie for model selection or statistical parameter inference)

• Line 63: backward economic development – would advise a rephrase to avoid offending people

• Line 65: Malaria is one of <the> infectious diseases – missing a the

• Line 67: “last reported local case” instead of last report oflocal <sic> case

• Line 68: Most of them (78.02, 4099/5254) were missing –missing a were

• Line 70: The emergence and spread

• Line 74: suggest replacing “because” with “following”

• Line 77-80: Rephrase as: In China, ACTs were used as the official first-line drugs to treat uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria starting in 2006.

• Line 84: Rephrase: Treatment with DHA-PIP initially demonstrated prolonged parasite clearance time( PCT), but began to fail as the partner drugs began failing in the GMS around 2010.

• Line 171: replace treated with examined

• Line 306: Rephrase “ so surveillalnce sites are usually set in these Prefectures in those days.” The phrasing is too casual for a scientific paper in my opinion

• Line 401: oppression is not the right word—advise selective pressure</sic></the>

Reviewer #2: Author have addressed all the concern and revised the manuscript accordingly. The revised version of the manuscript may accept for the publications.

**********

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 #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 Nov 10;18(11):e0293590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293590.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Oct 2023

I have revised the manuscript according to reviewers and editors' suggestions. The details are in the file "Response to Reviewers"

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Himanshu Gupta

17 Oct 2023

Genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites collected from 2012 to 2016 and anti-malaria resistance along the China-Myanmar border

PONE-D-23-03162R2

Dear Dr. Li,

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, as well as improves the English throughout the manuscript, as pointed out by the reviewer.

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,

Himanshu Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): There is a requirement to improve the English throughout the manuscript.

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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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 #1: (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 #1: (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 #1: Line 323: “following with [the] civil war in Kachin” – remove “the”

Line 324: “We [preferred] the F446I…” -- “preferred” is the wrong word

Line 351: the high prevalence of mutant K13 [which] was …” – remove “which”

Line 356: “[Besides], this study was not planned…” replace besides with However

Line 363 “resistance to [multiply]” – replace multiply with multiple

Line 386 multiply should be replaced with multiple

Line 389 “which perhaps were interfered by PIP…” is awkward, suggest a rephrase

Line 391 remove “ayway”

Line 429-431 – “Otherwise the values of copy number…” is awkward, suggest a rephrase

**********

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 #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Himanshu Gupta

2 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-03162R2

Genetic characteristics of P. falciparum parasites collected from 2012 to 2016 and anti-malaria resistance along the China-Myanmar border

Dear Dr. Li:

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. Himanshu Gupta

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. Guideline for calculating He and Fst (In Chinese).

    Photos of relevant content in reference 39.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES