Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2025 Aug 19;19(8):e0013374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013374

Leprosy in skeletons from archaeological sites: A systematic review

Hugo Pessotti Aborghetti 1, Simon M Collin 1, Julienne Dadalto dos Santos 1, Pamela Barbosa dos Santos 1, Taís Loureiro Zambon 1, Rafael Maffei Loureiro 2, Patrícia D Deps 1,2,3,*
Editor: Katharina Röltgen4
PMCID: PMC12364322  PMID: 40828789

Abstract

Background

Leprosy (Hansen’s disease) is an ancient stigmatising infectious disease that remains endemic in many countries. Leprosy-related bone changes that cause disabilities in affected persons are evident in skeletons from archaeological sites. The aim of our synthesis of paleopathological data was to gain insights into the disease’s historical distribution and presentation.

Methodology

Systematic review of paleopathological studies describing human remains with signs of leprosy published up to December 2023. Extracted data on bone features from skulls and limbs, including rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) in cranial bones and post-cranial bone changes (PCBC) in hands and feet, were summarised, together with genomic data from studies of Mycobacterium leprae ancient DNA.

Findings

The 297 skeletons described in 67 studies comprised 264 skeletons from sites in modern-day Europe (117 from England, 68 from Denmark); 23 skeletons from Asia (10 from India), 5 from The Americas, and 4 from the African continent (all from Egypt); 174 (58.6%) were from leprosaria, 255 (85.9%) were adults, 28 (9.4%) adolescent, 14 (4.7%) of indeterminate age. Skeletons dated from 3715 BCE to 1839 CE, peaking around the 15th Century. Probable and possible RMS were identified in 85 (30.5%) and 153 (54.8%) of 279 skeletons with cranial data, respectively. Lower limb pathological PCBC were most prevalent in tarsals (76.6%), metatarsals (81.5%), and feet phalanges (85.6%). In upper limbs, 75.8% of humeri, 65.8% of radii, 61.0% of ulnae and 75.8% of hand phalanges exhibited pathological alterations. From 73 skeletons from 19 genomic studies, M. leprae single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) type 3 was identified in 59 skeletons (80.8%), SNP type 2 in 11 (15.1%), type 4 in two, and type 1 in one.

Conclusions

Four out of five archaeological skeletons with leprosy exhibited some degree of RMS, which is pathognomonic of the most severe form of the disease, irrespective of whether the skeleton was excavated from a leprosarium (leprosy hospital) or from a public cemetery or other burial site. The relatively small numbers of remains excavated over a wide geographical area and a long time period, and the focus of archaeological studies on skeletons already identified as having leprosy, mean that it is difficult to prove or disprove theories that aim to explain the decline and eventual disappearance of leprosy as a disease in Europe.

Author summary

The study of leprosy in human remains from archaeological sites has the potential to improve our understanding of the disease in the present day. Our review presents a summary of bone changes caused by leprosy in ancient skeletons, based on studies conducted mainly in the region of modern-day Europe. We found that changes to the skull corresponding to a severe form of leprosy were very common, affecting 4 out of 5 skeletons, irrespective of whether the skeleton was excavated from a leprosarium (leprosy hospital) or from a public cemetery or other burial site. The relatively small numbers of remains excavated over a wide geographical area and a long time period, and the focus of archaeological studies on skeletons already identified as having leprosy, mean that it is difficult to prove or disprove theories that aim to explain the decline and eventual disappearance of leprosy as a disease in Europe. Newer techniques such as those that test for genetic evidence of the bacteria that causes leprosy or that look at microscopic bone changes have the potential to provide information about how the disease progresses in people affected by leprosy in countries where it still occurs today and about how leprosy is transmitted from infected animals to the human population and the role of this ‘zoonotic’ transmission of the disease in sustaining leprosy as a major public health problem in countries such as Brazil.

Introduction

Leprosy, known today by the non-stigmatising name of Hansen’s disease, is a chronic infectious disease that primarily affects the skin and peripheral nerves. It is caused by the bacilli Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis with an incubation period that ranges from 3 to 7 years [1]. The Ridley-Jopling clinical immunological classification of leprosy describes two poles [2], ranging from the non-infectious tuberculoid (TT) paucibacillary (PB) form to the infectious lepromatous (LL) multibacillary (MB) form, the latter being implicated in most transmission of the disease [1]. Leprosy is classified as a Neglected Tropical Disease, with approximately 200,000 new cases diagnosed annually and at least 4 million people living with lifelong physical disabilities [3,4].

Leprosy has been well-explored in paleopathology, with dozens of excavations since the late 1950s [59], mostly in northern and western Europe, describing bone alterations in skeletons dating back several millennia [10,11]. Leprosy is an ancient human disease documented in historical texts from various regions and, until the 16th century, it was a significant and widespread health issue in Europe [1113]. However, the medieval period saw a drastic decline in the incidence of leprosy in European populations [11,12]. The exact reasons for this decline remain undetermined, though several hypotheses exist, suggesting a multifactorial cause. These include the gradual elimination of MB forms of leprosy in favour of PB leprosy [14], protective cross-immunity between the main causative agent of leprosy (M. leprae) and M. tuberculosis [15], and competing effects on mortality attributed to leprosy and tuberculosis co-infection [1619]. Another hypothesis links the decline of leprosy to climatic changes, such as the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (950–1250 AD) followed by the ‘Little Ice Age’ (1275–1455 AD) [2022]. Regardless of the underlying causes, it is generally accepted that the prevalence of leprosy in Europe peaked around the 11th-13th centuries, when many leprosaria (lazar houses/hospitals) were established, declined during the 14th-15th centuries, and had mostly disappeared by the 18th century, although a small number of autochthonous cases have occurred in southern Europe in the 21st Century [23,24]. As seen in the modern era, improved living conditions [2527] and better nutrition [28,29] may have also contributed to this decline.

Bone changes in leprosy are categorized as specific, non-specific, and osteoporotic [30], and subsequent disabilities occur mainly in the hands, feet, and face [31]. Non-specific bone lesions are the most common, resulting in osteoarthropathy in hands and feet [32], whereas specific bone changes, caused by bacillary invasion in facial bones [33], occur in 3–5% of clinical cases [34]. Oral and nasal involvement is observed more frequently in MB leprosy, especially in LL cases. The nasal mucosa, which serves as the primary entry point for infection [35], is invaded by M. leprae in 95% of LL cases, whereas invasion of oral mucosa is observed in up to 60% of LL cases [36]. Leprosy-related oral lesions can create an environment conducive to bacterial infection, potentially leading to dental abscesses [37]

Rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) was defined by Johs Andersen and Keith Manchester in 1992 based on examination of skulls from medieval archaeological sites in England [38]. Maxillary and nasal bone changes are considered pathognomonic of the LL form of leprosy, in which M. leprae infection of the nasal passages and palate leads to the collapse of the nasal bridge, resorption of the central part of the maxilla, inflammation of the floor and walls of the nasal cavity and, ultimately, perforation of the hard palate [8,39]. Andersen and Manchester systematised these changes into seven criteria defining RMS. These alterations manifest as facial profile changes, including a ‘saddle’ nose, concave middle-third of the face, reduced maxillary projection, and inverted upper lip [40,41].

The primary objective of this systematic review was to characterize leprosy-related bone changes reported in archaeological studies, quantifying as primary outcomes the proportion of human remains in which probable or possible RMS and/or post-cranial alterations could be identified. Our secondary objectives were to describe variation in RMS over time in Europe, to investigate correlations of RMS with post-cranial alterations, to describe the frequency of bone alterations by age group, and to summarize M. leprae genotypes identified from ancient DNA (aDNA). Our underlying aim is to use knowledge acquired from paleopathology to better understand the history of leprosy and its impact on societies and affected individuals from ancient times to the present day.

Results

Included studies

Searches returned 1,831 unique references (Fig 1 and S1 Appendix), of which 237 were screened in full; 86 were included for analysis, comprising 70 non-genomic studies, of which 3 were rated as ‘C’ quality and not carried forward for data extraction; 19 references, all rated ‘A’ or ‘B’, reported genomic analysis of human remains previously described in non-genomic studies.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of studies describing skeletons with leprosy from archaeological sites.

Fig 1

Geographic and demographic data (non-genomic studies)

The 67 non-genomic studies described 297 individual skeletons; 53 studies described 264 skeletons from sites in modern-day Europe, including 1 study in Austria [42], 1 Croatia [43], 1 Cyprus [44], 2 Czech Republic [45,46], 5 Denmark [57,47,48], 15 England [4963], 2 France [64,65], 2 Germany [66,67], 7 Hungary [6773], 2 Ireland [74,75], 8 Italy [7683], 1 Norway [84], 3 Portugal [8587], 1 Slovakia [88], 2 Sweden [89,90]) (Table 1). Sixteen studies were outside Europe: 3 in Armenia [9193], 1 Easter Island [94], 1 Egypt [95], 1 Georgia [96], 2 India [97,98], 2 Japan [99,100], 1 former Netherlands Antilles [101], 1 Suriname [102], 1 St. Vincent and the Grenadines [103], 1 Thailand [104], 1 Turkey [81], 1 Uzbekistan [105] (Table 1). The 264 skeletons from sites located in modern-day Europe included 117 from England and 68 from Denmark. Studies from sites in Asia described 23 skeletons, of which 10 were from India. Studies from The Americas described 5 skeletons, including 3 in the Netherlands Antilles. The African continent’s 4 skeletons were all from Egypt (Table 1).

Table 1. Geographic and chronological range of skeletons with leprosy by continent.

Country Number of skeletons Continent Earliest to most recent age Reference
Egypt 4 Africa
(4 skeletons)
2nd century BCE [95]
Netherlands Antilles 3 America
(5 skeletons)
St. Vincent and the Grenadines: ~ 1806 CE
Suriname: 1866–1896 CE
[103]
[102]
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1
Suriname 1
Armenia 3 Asia
(23 skeletons)
India: 2550–2030 BCE
Japan: mid18th/ early 19th C
[98]
[100]
Cyprus 1
Georgia 2
India 10
Japan 3
Thailand 2
Turkey 1
Uzbekistan 1
Austria 1 Europe
(264 skeletons)
Hungary: 3780–3650 BCE*
England: 1839 CE
[70]
[59]
Croatia 2
Czechia 3
Denmark 68
England 117
France 24
Germany 3
Hungary 11
Ireland 4
Italy 13
Norden Ireland 1
Norway 1
Portugal 8
Slovakia 1
Sweden 7
Easter Island 1 Oceania
(1 skeleton)
Late 19th/ early 20th CE [94]

Legend. In the table, the asterisk (*) denotes the earliest reported case of leprosy across all geographic regions and time periods; BCE = Before Common Era; CE = Common Era.

Of the 297 individual skeletons, 14 (4.7%) had an undefined age at death, 23 (7.7%) were adolescent (10–18 years old based on mid-point of estimated age if no burial record), 5 (1.6%) were <10 years old, and 255 (85.9%) were adults (19 + years old); 46 (15.5%) had undefined sex, 81 (27.3%) were female, and 170 (57.2%) were male (Table 2). The median age of the 23 adolescents was 15.5 years; the 5 children comprised one infant (age 4–5 months) [106], three children aged 4–5 years and one aged 8–9 years old. Leprosaria contributed 174 (58.6%) skeletons, while 123 (41.4%) were from general cemeteries or burial sites (Table 2).

Table 2. Frequency of skeletons with leprosy (N = 297, from 67 studies) showing sex, age at death and type of burial site.

Frequency %
Sex Male 170 57.2
Female 81 27.3
Undefined 46 15.5
Age* Infant 1 0.3
Child (<10 years) 4 1.3
Adolescent (10–18 years) 23 7.7
Adult (≥19 years) 255 85.9
Undefined 14 4.7
Origin Leprosarium 174 58.6
General Cemetery/Burial 123 41.4

* Based on mid-point of estimated age range if no burial record.

Cranial changes

The number of skeletons that provided data for specific cranial bones ranged from n = 45 for posterior alveolar margins of the maxilla to n = 279 for maxilla (of N = 297 skeletons) (Table A in S1 Table). Pathological changes were most commonly observed in maxilla (247/255, 96.9%), followed by the alveolar process of maxilla (220/233, 94.4%), anterior nasal spine (185/198, 93.4%), palatine process of maxilla oral surface (161/176, 91.4%), palatine process of maxilla nasal surface (168/185, 90.8%), and nasal aperture (141/165, 85.5%); the zygomatic bone had the lowest proportion of pathological alterations at 8.3% (3/36) (Figs 2 and 3). Differences in cranial changes by age were evident only for palatine process of maxilla oral surface, with a higher proportion with irregular perforation of the palate in the ≥ 50 years age group (80%, 8/10) compared with 37.8% (17/45) and 32.3% (20/62) in the 0–24 and 25–49 years age groups, respectively (p = 0.024) (Table B in S1 Table).

Fig 2. Percentage of pathological alterations of cranial bones in skeletons with leprosy (see Table A in S1 Table for numerator/denominator).

Fig 2

Fig 3. Percentage of pathological alterations of rhinomaxillary bones in skeletons with leprosy (see Table A in S1 Table for numerator/denominator).

Fig 3

Dental abscesses

Data on dental abscesses in skeletons with leprosy shows that abscesses are most commonly found in the molar region of the maxilla, followed by the premolar region of the maxilla and the molar region of the mandibula (Table C in S1 Table). Across the three age groups, dental abscesses were observed in 10.3% (6/58) of those aged 0–24 years, 18.0% (16/89) of those aged 25–49 years, 21% (4/19) of those aged ≥50 years (Table B in S1 Table), although these differences were not supported by statistical evidence (p = 0.309).

Nasal structures

The anterior nasal spine was evaluated in 198 skeletons, and resorption and reduction occurred in 107 (54.0%) and 78 (39.4%), respectively (Table A in S1 Table). Nasal aperture was evaluated in 165 skeletons, appearing normal in 24 (14.5%), with progressive smooth resorption with recession of the normal sharp basal lateral margins the most frequent alteration, occurring in 83/165 skeletons (50.3%), followed by progressive smooth resorption with recession of the nasal sharp basal in 32/165 skeletons (19.4%). Presence of pitting only and pitting and progressive resorption with recession of the normal sharp basal and lateral margins were observed in 11/165 (6.7%) and 15/165 skeletons (9.1%), respectively. Pathological alterations at the middle and inferior nasal conchae were found in 39.6% (19/48) and 67% (61/91) of skeletons. The nasal bone was evaluated in 73 skeletons, with pathological alterations observed in 51 (69.9%).

Rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS)

Of 279 individuals with sufficient cranial data to assess bone changes defining RMS, 153 (54.8%) were identified as possible RMS, 85 (30.5%) probable RMS, and 41 (14.7%) without RMS. Excluding alterations in the nasal conchae and posterior margins of the maxilla (due to difficulty in identification), 60 out of 85 individuals (70.6%) with probable RMS exhibited a degree of alteration in each of the 5 remaining criteria (I, II, III, IV, and VI).

The age distribution of possible and probable RMS (Table D in S1 Table) indicates that probable RMS was more frequent in the age group ≥50 years (57.9%, 11/19) compared to the 25–49 years (29.7%, 27/91) and ≤24 years groups (29.6%, 178/601). However, these apparent differences were not supported by statistical evidence (p = 0.153). There was no difference in RMS by gender, with females constituting 69.6% (32/46) of the non-RMS group and 67.9% (1,320/1,945) of the RMS group (p = 0.739). Similarly, females represented 67.7% (90/133) of skeletons with possible RMS and 65.4% (400/612) of those with probable RMS (p = 0.773).

Possible and probable RMS were equally likely to be observed in remains from general cemeteries and other burial sites (possible 42.1% (48/114), probable 43.0% (49/114)) whereas, in skulls from leprosaria, possible RMS was more frequently observed (63.0% (104/165)) than probable RMS (22.4% (37/165)). The proportions of skulls without RMS were the same in leprosaria (14.5% (24/165)) as in non-leprosaria sites (14.9% (17/114)).

The oldest skeleton diagnosed with leprosy (individual 257 S20) dated back to 3780–3650 BCE from the Abony-TurjaÂnyos dű site in Hungary [70]. Despite being negative for M. leprae and missing parts of the skull and with fragmented post-cranial bones, this individual met the criteria for probable RMS, showing resorption of the anterior nasal spine, alveolar processes of the maxilla, and piriform aperture, alongside partial post-cranial bone loss. Skeletons ‘263 S29’ and ‘263 S39’ from the same site and period met the criteria for possible RMS due to alterations in the piriform aperture.

Post-cranial bone changes (PCBC)

PCBC are summarised in Fig 4 (from data in Table E in S1 Table). In leg bones, 14.3% (24/168) of tibias, 14.6% (24/164) of fibulas, and 54.3% (25/46) of femurs showed pathological alterations. In foot bones, 76.6% (85/111) of tarsals, 81.5% (106/130) of metatarsals, and 85.6% (101/118) of foot phalanges exhibited pathological alterations. In arm bones, 75.8% (25/33) of humeri, 65.8% (25/38) of radii, and 61% (25/41) of ulnas exhibited pathological alterations. In hand bones, 27.9% (17/61) of carpals, 45.8% (38/83) of metacarpals, and 75.8% (69/91) of hand phalanges exhibited pathological alterations.

Fig 4. Percentage of pathological alterations of post-cranial bones in skeletons with leprosy (see Table E in S1 Table for numerator/denominator).

Fig 4

Correlations of PCBC with age

There were no associations of specific PCBC namely, long bone diaphysis, diaphysis destructive remodelling, and acroosteolysis with age (Tables F-H in S1 Table). Severe bone infections (septic bone changes) like osteomyelitis tended to be slightly more common in older individuals (≥ 50 years old) with leprosy, while younger age groups (0–24 and 25–49 years old) showed a lower incidence of such infections, with periostitis being more frequent in the middle age group (25–49 years old), although numbers are small and apparent differences unsupported by statistical evidence (p = 0.140) (Table I in S1 Table); increasing prevalence of inflammation with age is also likely regardless of leprosy.

Correlations of RMS with PCBC

Of the 85 individuals classified as probable RMS cases, 70 had information on PCBC (Fig 5). Of these, 52 individuals (74.3%) exhibited alterations in the PCBC studied in this review, with 7.7% (4/52) showing changes only in the upper limbs, 36.5% (19/52) only in the lower limbs, and 55.8% (29/52) in both upper and lower limbs. Of the 59 individuals with cranial bone alterations corresponding to RMS criteria I, II, III, IV, and VI, 49 had information on PCBC, of whom 42 (85.7%) had at least one PCBC. Associations of long bone diaphysis, diaphysis destructive remodelling, and acroosteolysis with possible or probable RMS are summarised in Tables J-L in S1 Table, respectively. These tables show higher proportions of PCBC in skeletons without RMS, for example, diaphyseal destructive remodelling of tarsals (p = 0.011) and hand phalanx (p = 0.001) (Table K in S1 Table) and acroosteolysis in these bones (p = 0.003, p = 0.010, respectively) and in metatarsals (p = 0.050) and metacarpals (p = 0.020) (Table L in S1 Table), but this statistical evidence needs to be interpreted in the context of small numbers of bones available for analysis and multiple statistical tests.

Fig 5. Post-cranial bone changes in skeletons with probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS).

Fig 5

Overall, acroosteolysis was observed in feet localised in 70.6% (77/109) of tarsals, 78.9% (101/128) of metatarsals, and 83.6% (97/116) of foot phalanges. In hands, acroosteolysis was found in 25.0% (15/60) of carpals, 44.4% (36/81) of metacarpals, and 75.8% (69/91) of hand phalanges (Table L in S1 Table).

Skeletons from the region of modern-day Europe

Skeletons from Europe were dated from 3715 BCE to 1839 CE (Fig 6), with a peak around the 15th century corresponding mainly to studies of skeletons from Denmark (St. Jorgen’s Hospital, Naestved, n = 67) [57,47,48] and the UK (Hospital of St. James and St. Mary Magdalene, Chichester, n = 86) [55], where skeletons were dated from 1250-1550 CE and 1300–1700 CE, respectively. Of the 264 skeletons from Europe, 54 (20.5%) presented only PCBC, 68 (25.8%) probable RMS, and 142 (53.8%) possible RMS. Distribution over time suggests relatively constant proportions of possible or probable RMS during the peak periods covered by archaeological investigations (1301 CE to 1500 CE), with approximately 1 in 5 skeletons without RMS, a similar proportion with probable RMS, and half to two-thirds showing possible RMS. In the earlier period (-3800 BCE to 1300 CE), the proportions with probable RMS or without RMS were higher, while in the later period (1501 CE to 1900 CE), the proportion with possible RMS was higher (three-quarters of skeletons) and the proportion without RMS was lower (fewer than 1 in 10) (Table 3).

Fig 6. Rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) by century of dating of skeletons from archaeological sites in Europe*.

Fig 6

* Before Common Era (BCE) centuries are shown on horizontal axis only if remains were dated during that century.

Table 3. Probable and possible rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) from archaeological sites in Europe by century of dating (N = 264 skeletons from 53 studies).

Century Possible RMS Probable RMS Without RMS
-3800–1300 22 (32.4%) 25 (36.8%) 21 (30.9%)
1301–1400 41 (64.1%) 13 (20.3%) 10 (15.6%)
1401–1500 54 (55.1%) 23 (23.5%) 21 (21.4%)
1501 to 1900† 25 (73.5%) 7 (20.6%) 2 (5.9%)
Overall 142 (53.8%) 68 (25.8%) 54 (20.5%)

† Rows combined due to small numbers: 1501–1600, possible n = 24 (80.0%), probable n = 5 (16.7%), without RMS n = 1; 1601–1900, possible n = 1, probable n = 2, without RMS n = 1.

Genomic studies

The 19 genomic studies [12,13,50,75,107121], of which 7 were from sites outside Europe (2 Egypt [110,118], 1 Japan [100], 1 Russia [111], 1 Suriname [102], 1 Turkey [115] and 1 Uzbekistan [116]) described M. leprae genotypes in 73 skeletons (Fig 7), most of which had previously been described in an earlier non-genomic study. Of the 73 skeletons analysed, single- nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) type 1 was identified in one, SNP subtype 2F in 11 (15.1%), SNP type 3 in 59 (80.8%), and SNP types 3Q and 4 each in one (S1 Appendix). Of the 59 SNP type 3, 13 were subtype 3I, 18 were 3I-1, 11 were 3K, two were 3L and two were 3M. Six of the genomic studies attempted to identify M. lepromatosis, but none yielded positive results [50,75,102,111,117,121].

Fig 7. Geographical distribution of Mycobacterium leprae genotypes from archaeological sites.

Fig 7

* Genotype from lkeleton K2-B116 did not show an exact match. ** Probable new Subtype (3Q). Source: this figure was created in ArcGIS and its shapefile was obtained in Natural Earth via the following link: https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/110m-cultural-vectors/110m-admin-0-countries.

In 2018 [13], a skeleton described in 2005 [78] (individual T.74, 350–300 BCE) from Bologna, Italy was the oldest to test positive for M. leprae. In 2015 [12], SNP type 3L was identified in a skeleton (individual Kurgan 5b, 80–240 CE) from Devkesken, Uzbekistan, first described in 2005 [105], becoming the oldest remains to be genotyped. The oldest European skeleton to be genotyped (individual CG96, 415–545 CE, SNP type 3I) was from Great Chesterford, Essex, United Kingdom [54].

Discussion

This systematic review provides an in-depth examination of the geographic and chronological distribution of paleopathological cases of leprosy, offering a perspective on the disease’s historical impact across various continents, albeit mainly in the region of modern-day Europe where archaeological sites were concentrated. In addition to mapping archaeological sites where remains with leprosy were studied, the review provides a thorough analysis of bone alterations, both cranial and post-cranial. Paleopathological studies have long depended on these physical alterations to identify cases, and our review highlights the importance of M. leprae ancient DNA and genotyping analyses in providing confirmatory evidence for individual skeletons and in exploring hypotheses for the decline of leprosy in Europe. Beyond attempting to elucidate the historical trajectory of leprosy, paleopathological research has relevance to present-day societies where the disease remains endemic, including contextualising societal attitudes to a disease which still carries a burden of stigma and where outmoded public health responses such as segregation of affected persons live in recent memory [122].

Direct examination of bone changes in paleopathology specimens can improve understanding of clinical manifestations of M. leprae infection in living persons affected by Hansen’s disease [41]. For example, we previously used computed tomography (CT) scans to assess the prevalence of RMS among elderly former patients of a ‘colony’ hospital in Brazil [40]. We also used CT imaging combined with otorhinolaryngological examinations to assess maxillofacial and nasal manifestations of leprosy in current patients [123]. Findings from these studies suggest that clinical protocols for Hansen’s disease could be extended to include otorhinolaryngological evaluation, supported by imaging where necessary, to improve the assessment and overall care of persons affected by Hansen’s disease. This systematic review synthesizes evidence from palaeopathological studies, characterising cranial and post-cranial bone alterations associated with leprosy, serving as a reference point for clinical research and practice today.

Geographical and temporal distribution of leprosy genotypes

Phylogenetic analysis has revealed a high degree of genomic conservation within M. leprae, characterized by four primary SNP types divided into at least 16 subtypes [118]. This allows analyses of ancient DNA to generate hypotheses regarding the geographic and temporal spread of the disease over historical time period, Prior to 501 CE, leprosy was primarily found in the Middle East and parts of Europe, with SNP genotypes 3I and 3L recorded in regions such as the Dakhleh Oasis [118] and Abusir el-Meleq [110] in Egypt. Between 501 and 1000 CE, the disease expanded into Central and Northern Europe, evidenced by genotypes such as 3K, 3M and 2F in areas like Prušánky, Czechia [13], and Lauchheim, Germany [66]. From 1001 to 1500 CE, there was an increased presence of leprosy in Western Europe, with a predominance of branch 3 strains in Western and late Medieval Europe, with branch 2 the next most common strain, but against a background of high genetic diversity of M. leprae across the region and even within leprosaria [111,124]. Accordingly, our review found that the majority of identified M. leprae genotypes were SNP type 3, accounting for 81% of cases, followed by SNP type 2 (15%). However, the small numbers of cases that have been genotyped across a large geographic region that witnessed continual movement and mixing of people over a long time period only serve to generate rather than test hypotheses regarding the phylogeography of M. leprae.

Rhinomaxillary syndrome in leprosy

Although RMS was initially identified based on Andersen and Manchester’s seven criteria, this review scrutinized cases by examining the presence or absence of a subset of cranial changes that characterize possible or probable RMS. The definition of probable and possible LL based on a subset of the RMS criteria was an adaption from a study carried out in the Paris Catacombs, where skulls were fixed in position providing access only from the front [64]. In the present review, in which we have access only to secondary information (data extracted from published studies), we adopted the same subset as synonymous with probable and possible RMS. This is because we consider criteria I (resorption of the anterior nasal spine), II (resorption of the alveolar processes of maxilla), and VI (enlarged pyriform aperture) as the key cranial bone alterations in leprosy where information is limited, and RMS is likely to occur only in severe (LL) forms of leprosy, as we see in present day clinical studies [40,41]. The pathognomonic nature of RMS as described by Andersen & Manchester [38] is not universally accepted, because other diseases of relevance to paleopathology, including venereal syphilis, tuberculosis, mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, and malignant tumors can lead to maxillofacial and cranial bone lesions [125]. Our review found that approximately 80% of skeletons from archaeological sites across various centuries exhibit some degree of RMS. Notably, RMS appeared more frequently in remains from the 16th century onwards (94%) compared to earlier periods, as has been observed in recent decades as countries move towards elimination [126,127].

Three-quarters of the skeletons diagnosed with RMS also presented PCBC. The presence of PCBC suggests a very advanced stage of the disease with grade 2 disability (G2D) as suggested by Moller-Christensen [5]. The most significant PCBC affect the tubular bones of the hands and feet. These lesions manifest as acroosteolysis and destructive remodelling of diaphysis [7,9,128,129]. Although less specific regarding aetiology, osteomyelitis, interphalangeal fusions, tarsal disintegration, secondary fractures and proliferative lesions in the tibia and fibula are also observed [130,131]. Associations of PCBC with age and sex were not evident, possibly due to the limited sample sizes. Conversely, among 70 individuals with RMS and available data on the bones of the hands and feet, 18 exhibited RMS without corresponding alterations in these bones. Although limited by modest numbers of skeletons, we found some evidence for higher proportions of PCBC in skeletons without RMS, for example, diaphyseal destructive remodelling of tarsal and hand phalanx and acroosteolysis in these bones and in metatarsals and metacarpals. Asymmetric PCBC without RMS may indicate a tuberculoid or borderline tuberculoid case, while symmetric PCBC without RMS may suggest a multibacillary borderline form, such as borderline-borderline or lepromatous-borderline, with the caveat that small numbers of bones were available for analysis and we performed multiple statistical tests.

Our finding that 54% of femurs were reported as affected appears atypical when compared to the lower proportions of affected tibias (14%) and fibulas (15%). Typically, skeletal lesions involve the small bones of the hands and feet, the nasal region, and the tibiae due to their subcutaneous location and proximity to cooler areas of the body, where M leprae tends to localize. Given the relatively small number of femurs examined (n = 46), the high percentage (54%) may reflect sampling bias, preservation bias, or reporting bias in the available osteoarchaeological studies. For instance, femurs may be better preserved or more frequently recovered than smaller bones in certain burial contexts or studies may have focused on femoral lesions when they occurred given their relative rarity.

According to Møller-Christensen [5], cranial bone changes associated with leprosy were strongly correlated with nasal alterations, such as an increased nasal aperture in 100% of cases, and atrophy of the anterior nasal spine in 76%. Additionally, usura orbitae was observed in 63% of individuals who had inflammation of the nasal cavity. The findings in this review emphasise changes in the nasal area as indicators of leprosy in skeletal remains, with 70–80% of nasal bones showing pathological alterations.

Cases of leprosy in childhood

Among the skeletons assessed, 12 were of adolescent age and six were under 10 years old [5,7,58,81], including two skeletons age under 5 years old at the time of death [81]. The youngest was an infant age 4–5 months who, although harbouring M. leprae aDNA in the occipital bone, lacked skeletal manifestations of leprosy. This indicated an absence of clinical signs typically associated with the disease. It is important to note that the extraction and analysis of leprosy aDNA from skeletons does not necessarily imply that these individuals experienced overt clinical symptoms of the disease; they may have had subclinical leprosy without apparent signs or symptoms of infection [106]. The skeleton identified as a child aged 4–5 years old exhibited profound cranial alterations, including complete resorption of the anterior nasal spine, intense erosive activity in the alveolar processes of the maxilla, and bilateral symmetrical resorption and remodelling of the piriform aperture. These features align with possible RMS and indicate an advanced lepromatous form of the disease. Advanced bone changes due to LL, such as RMS, are exceptionally rare in young individuals. Among the six cases studied, a plausible explanation could involve genetic susceptibility to M. leprae infection coupled with significant exposure to high bacillary loads, potentially exacerbated by conditions such as severe malnutrition or underlying bone malformations [132].

Leprogenic odontodysplasia is a manifestation of multibacillary leprosy that affects the normal development of tooth roots, particularly of the maxillary incisors, in conjunction with RMS, described first by Danielsen in the skeletons of four children aged 8–11 years from the medieval leprosy cemetery at Næstved, Denmark [133]. There are no records of clinical cases. We did not extract data on leprogenic odontodysplasia, but three of the studies included in our review described other cases, namely: a child aged 9–11 years from the St Mary Magdalen leprosy hospital in England [61], a juvenile aged 13–19 years from St. Jørgen’s leprosarium cemetery at Odense, Denmark [48], and a child aged 11–12 years from Sigtuna, Sweden [89].

Decline of leprosy in Europe

The limited and selective nature of data from archaeological sites cannot substantiate the various theories regarding the disappearance of leprosy in Europe. Studies that have reported M. leprae and M. tuberculosis co-infection [17,18] lend some support to epidemiological models that suggest that, as the prevalence of tuberculosis increased, the prevalence of leprosy may have declined due to temporal changes in immune status influenced by bacterial exposure [128], but this hypothesis is complicated by gaps in our contemporary understanding of cross-immunity [134], including with other non-tuberculous mycobacterial species in the environment [135], and by the impact of other historical factors such as urbanization [136] and population movements [19]. Testing such hypotheses is constrained by the small numbers of geographically and temporally dispersed remains for paleopathological research, as characterised in our review.

In South Korea, where leprosy has been eliminated, the process revealed a shift towards an increased proportion of multibacillary cases and older age groups [126]. Data from Norway’s epidemiological records show an increase in the proportion of affected persons over 50 years old preceding leprosy elimination [127]. A decline in leprosy driven by a shift from the paucibacillary forms (tuberculoid and borderline tuberculoid forms) towards the multibacillary end of the leprosy spectrum (borderline-borderline, lepromatous-borderline and LL) would manifest in skeletal evidence in a concomitant increase of RMS cases. Our review suggested more frequent RMS in the relatively small number of remains from the 16th century onwards, but this was unsupported by statistical evidence and may reflect the state of preservation of remains and increased longevity (hence, more time for disease to progress).

Leprosaria in Europe have been crucial sites for the advancement of paleopathological research on leprosy. In our data there was a predominance of burials in non-leprosarium cemeteries across the earlier time periods, with a notable increase in leprosarium burials beginning around the 11th century CE, peaking during the 14th to 16th centuries, and reflecting the increasing number of specialized leprosy ‘hospitals’ during this period. Roberts suggests that the rise of M. leprae infections in Europe after the 10th century, followed by their decline after the mid-16th century, was neither gradual nor uniformly distributed, indicating regional differences in the impact and influence of underlying factors [11]. As we saw in our review, much of the palaeopathological evidence on European leprosy has been generated from three medieval leprosaria – Chichester [55] and Winchester [58] in England, and Naestved [5] in Denmark – which limits broader regional generalisations.

Limitations of data aggregated from paleopathological studies include varying states of preservation of human remains and the absence of radiocarbon dating for many skeletons. The lack of a standardized investigative protocol for identifying leprosy-related bone changes means that the secondary data summarised in our review may be susceptible to intra- and inter-observer error made by the original researchers. We presented post-cranial bone changes in aggregate, but significant variability likely exists in the recovery and documentation of hand and foot bones, influenced by the specific objectives of archaeological excavations and the availability of osteological expertise at different sites. Although the location and type of archaeological site might be expected to influence the types of bone alterations in remains, we found equal proportions (15%) of skulls without RMS from leprosaria and from general cemeteries or other burial sites. This observation challenges the assumption that leprosaria served as focal destinations and final resting places for people in advanced disease stages, who would presumably exhibit distinctly identifiable facial deformities [41,40] or that individuals within leprosaria necessarily experienced prolonged survival, allowing more time for such deformities to develop. However, we also recognise that the entire paleopathological population in our review is pre-selected for the more severe forms of leprosy that result in visible bone changes, regardless of site of exhumation, which explains the overall high frequency of RMS in our study.

Despite these challenges, the data presented in our review are consistent with leprosy being present in the European region for over five millennia, with prevalence increasing after the 10th century and peaking around the 14th-15th centuries. After this period, the number of skeletons presenting signs of the disease abruptly decreased. Notably, no skeleton was retrospectively diagnosed and dated after 1850 in Europe.

Leprosy outside Europe

Leprosy is endemic in several countries of South Asia and South America, with 80% of the 200,000 new cases each year diagnosed in India, Indonesia and Brazil [3,4]. There are no descriptions of leprosy in the pre-colonial American continent, consistent with importation of the disease from Europe and Africa during that period [137]. However, one of the few individuals retrospectively diagnosed with leprosy in the 19th-20th centuries was an adolescent, of unknown sex, from Suriname, with cranial and post-cranial alterations compatible with advanced leprosy [102]. Even though the skeleton dates from 1850-1900 CE, it represents the oldest archaeological identification of M. leprae in the Americas, with aDNA analysis positive for SNP type 4 M. leprae and identification of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 revealing a genetic ancestry from African and/or Middle Eastern populations [102,138].

Studying leprosy as an ancient disease is important for several reasons. It enhances our understanding of the evolution of leprosy and provides insights into how the disease has changed over time, including variations in its manifestations and impact on different populations. Such research also contributes to mapping the historical and potential future global distribution of leprosy, particularly in relation to climate change, human migration, and disease control efforts. One aspect of paleopathological research of relevance to the present day is the role of animal and environmental reservoirs of M. leprae (and M. lepromatosis) and the potential for zoonotic transmission to introduce and sustain infection in human populations [139]. In present day South America, particularly in Brazil where Hansen’s disease remains endemic, M. leprae is prevalent in armadillos, and human contact through hunting and consumption is common, there is a compelling argument for adopting a One Health approach to Hansen’s disease [140], whilst further evidence is needed to assess the zoonotic potential of M. lepromatosis in the region [141]. Phylogenetic evidence from medieval Europe reinforces these links, with a study from Winchester in England showing a close relationship between ancient M. leprae squirrel and human strains and suggesting that M. leprae circulated in non-human hosts in the Middle Ages [142]. Moreover, strains from the Late Medieval period are genetically similar to those now circulating in humans and armadillos in the Americas [111]. These findings underscore how palaeopathological research clarifies historical transmission patterns that remain relevant today, supporting integrated, cross-disciplinary strategies to control leprosy in endemic settings.

The study of leprosy in historical populations presents unique methodological challenges that necessitate continuous refinement of research techniques. Current limitations include the degradation of DNA in ancient samples and the ethical and legal constraints surrounding destructive sampling, and the difficulty in distinguishing leprosy from other diseases based solely on skeletal evidence. Future investigations should focus on improving methods for extracting and analyzing ancient DNA, potentially incorporating next-generation sequencing technologies to provide deeper insights into the genetic makeup of M leprae. Newer imaging modalities such as micro-CT may allow for deeper characterisation of bone alterations and provide a way of confirming leprosy diagnosis in fragmented remains [143]. These techniques may also support age-matched comparisons between individuals from leprosaria and those from general burial sites, enabling researchers to explore the effects of institutional care, treatment access, and disease progression on skeletal pathology. Additionally, interdisciplinary approaches combining archaeology, genetics, radiology, and historical documentation can enhance our understanding of how environmental factors and human migration have influenced the spread and evolution of leprosy. By addressing these challenges, researchers can better reconstruct the historical epidemiology of leprosy and contribute to more effective public health strategies in regions where the disease is still endemic.

In conclusion, the paleopathological evidence synthesised in this systematic review offers insights into the historical distribution and severity of bone changes associated with leprosy, with a focus on cranial changes pathognomonic of the ‘lepromatous’ form of the disease. The integration of genetics and, potentially, biomolecular approaches such as those based on mycolipids, proteins and peptides into paleopathology, will be essential for validating the diagnoses in archaeological specimens and for elucidating the complex interactions between M. leprae and human populations throughout history..

Methods

Databases and searches

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Scopus electronic databases using terms including “leprosy”, “Hansen’s disease”, “paleopathology”, “archaeology”, “burial”, “leprosarium”, “skeletal”, “skeletal lesions”, “remains”, and “medieval”. We also searched references in the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Searches were performed in July 2022 and updated in December 2023.

Inclusion and exclusion

We included articles in Portuguese, English, Spanish, and French that characterized bones with lesions caused by leprosy, with or without the presence of a causative agent. We excluded articles in which the presence of another disease may have caused the lesions. We excluded review articles but searched the bibliographies of these articles to identify further references for potential inclusion.

Data extraction

Data were extracted independently and in parallel by two reviewers. Extracted data were tabulated in Excel in two parts: a) study identifiers, excavation site(s), and other archaeological information; b) skull and bone alterations in individual skeletons, including estimated age at death, year of death (from burial record) else range, sex, presence of bone lesions characteristic of leprosy, M. leprae genotype findings, and other observations related to each individual. A separate round of data extraction was performed for studies that reported new genetic analyses of previously described individuals.

Quality assessment

Quality assessment was performed independently and in parallel by two additional reviewers using separate instruments for original archaeological studies and for studies that reported new genomic findings from these studies. Quality was assessed using a scoring system whereby a score of 1, 0.5, or 0 was assigned to each of 8 criteria (6 for genomic studies) if it was fully, partially, or not met, respectively (S1 Appendix). Original references were graded as A (>6 points), B (>3 and ≤6 points), and C (≤3 points), and genomic references as A (>4 points), B (>2 and ≤4 points), and C (≤2 points), with grade C references excluded from further analyses.

Identification of rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS)

The presence of RMS was identified from extracted data according to Andersen and Manchester’s seven criteria (Box 1 and S1 Fig). We used a previous adaptation of these criteria [64] to classify skulls as showing ‘probable’ RMS if they had an enlarged nasal (piriform) aperture, resorption of the anterior nasal spine, and resorption of the alveolar processes of maxilla, or ‘possible’ RMS if they met one or two of these three criteria (Box 1). Post-cranial bone changes (PCBC) were identified according to the criteria presented by Roberts [144] (Box 2).

Box 1. Rhinomaxillary syndrome in leprosy paleopathology (see also S1 Fig).

Box 2. Post-cranial bone changes in leprosy paleopathology.

Data analysis

Data were described as frequency (%) and plotted by century and age group. When studies reported a range of dates for remains, we used the midpoint for our analysis of trends over centuries in Europe. Our definition of Europe excluded the Eurasian countries, e.g., Turkey, Georgia, Armenia. Differences in frequencies of bone alterations by the presence or absence of RMS and by age group were tested in Stata (StataCorp. 2023. Stata Statistical Software: Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.) using Fisher’s exact test (α = 0.05).

Criterion Bone alterations
I Anterior nasal spine: resorption and ultimate loss with exposure of medullary bone followed, possibly, by cortical remodelling.
II Alveolar processes of maxilla: bilateral and symmetrical resorption and recession commencing centrally at the prosthion and extending to the alveolae of the central and lateral incisors and canines, with loss of these teeth.
III Nasal surface of the palatine process of the maxilla: inflammatory change leading to localised bone destruction and ultimate perforation of the palate, usually in the median or paramedian position.
IV Oral surface of the palatine process of the maxilla: inflammatory change leading to localised bone destruction and ultimate perforation.
V Conchae (turbinate bones) and nasal septum: inflammatory pitting with or without slight irregular periosteal new bone formation or destruction and ultimate loss of the bony nasal septum, and loss of one or more conchae.
VI Piriform aperture: progressive smooth resorption with recession of the normally sharp basal and lateral margins of the piriform aperture, inferiorly.
VII Posterior alveolar margins of the maxilla: resorption in the region of the molar teeth, commencing at the third molars.
I or II or VI Possible RMS
I and II and VI Probable RMS
Location Bone alterations
Hands Carpal, metacarpal, and phalanges: bone extremities resorption (acroosteolysis) and diaphyseal destructive remodelling lesions, such as cortical bone resorption (progressive loss of diameter), concentric diaphyseal remodelling (hourglass appearance), and remodelling, shortening or destruction of distal bones (“knife-edge”, “shark-tooth”, “licked candy stick”, “cup-and-peg” appearances).
Upper Limbs (Long Bones) Humerus, radius, and ulna: presence of septic bone changes (periostitis, osteitis, osteomyelitis, and septic arthritis) and superficial inflammation leading to periosteal new bone formation.
Feet Tarsal, metatarsal, and phalanges: bone extremities resorption and diaphyseal destructive remodelling lesions, such as cortical bone resorption, concentric diaphyseal remodelling, and remodelling, shortening, or destruction of distal bones.
Lower Limbs (Long Bones) Tibia, fibula and femur: presence of septic bone changes (periostitis, osteitis, osteomyelitis, and septic arthritis) and superficial inflammation leading to periosteal new bone formation.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Bone alteration criteria defining rhinomaxillary syndrome in leprosy paleopathology (see Box 1 in main article).

(TIF)

pntd.0013374.s001.tif (2.9MB, tif)
S1 Appendix. Included references.

Quality assessment tool. Quality assessment ratings. Data extraction. Included references (genomic). Quality assessment tool (genomic). Quality assessment ratings (genomic). Data extraction (genomic).

(XLSX)

pntd.0013374.s002.xlsx (173.8KB, xlsx)
S1 Table

Table A. Bone lesions in skeletons with leprosy (N = 297). Table B. Bone lesions in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table C. Position and location of dental abscesses in skeletons with leprosy (N = 60). Table D. Possible and probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 167). Table E. Presence of any pathological alterations in post-cranial bones in skeletons with leprosy (N = 297). Table F. Long bone diaphysis in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table G. Diaphyseal destructive remodelling in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table H. Acroosteolysis in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table I. Septic bone changes in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table J. Long bone diaphysis in skeletons with leprosy by presence/absence of possible or probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) (N = 287). Table K. Diaphyseal destructive remodelling in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by presence/absence of possible or probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) (N = 287). Table L. Acroosteolysis in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by presence/absence of possible or probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) (N = 287).

(XLSX)

pntd.0013374.s003.xlsx (74.1KB, xlsx)
S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

(DOCX)

pntd.0013374.s004.docx (32KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are in the manuscript and its supporting information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Pinheiro RO, de Souza Salles J, Sarno EN, Sampaio EP. Mycobacterium leprae-host-cell interactions and genetic determinants in leprosy: an overview. Future Microbiol. 2011;6(2):217–30. doi: 10.2217/fmb.10.173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ridley DS, Jopling WH. Classification of leprosy according to immunity. A five-group system. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1966;34(3):255–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moonot P, Ashwood N, Lockwood D. Orthopaedic complications of leprosy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(10):1328–32. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B10.16596 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organization. Global leprosy (Hansen disease) update, 2019: time to step-up prevention initiatives. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Møller-Christensen V. Leprosy Changes of the Skull. 1st ed. Odense: Odense University Press. 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Møller-Christensen V. Ten lepers from Naestved in Denmark: A study of skeletons from a medieval Danish leper hospital. First Edition ed. Danish Science Press, Ltd. 1953. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Møller-Christensen V. Bone Changes in Leprosy. Munksgaard. 1961. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Möller-Christensen V. Changes in the anterior nasal spine and the alveolar process of the macillae in leprosy a clinical examination. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1974;42(4):431–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Andersen JG. Studies in the mediaeval diagnosis of leprosy in Denmark: An osteoarchaeological, historical, and clinical study. Costers Bogtrykkeri. 1969. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Spigelman M, Rubini M. Paleomicrobiology of leprosy. Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4(4):10.1128/microbiolspec.poh-0009–2015. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.poh-0009-2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Roberts CA. Leprosy: Past and Present. 1a ed. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Donoghue HD, Taylor MG, Marcsik A, Molnár E, Pálfi G, Pap I, et al. A migration-driven model for the historical spread of leprosy in medieval Eastern and Central Europe. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;31:250–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schuenemann VJ, Avanzi C, Krause-Kyora B, Seitz A, Herbig A, Inskip S, et al. Ancient genomes reveal a high diversity of Mycobacterium leprae in medieval Europe. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(5):e1006997. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Manchester K. Tuberculosis and leprosy in antiquity: an interpretation. Med Hist. 1984;28(2):162–73. doi: 10.1017/s0025727300035705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Manchester K. Tuberculosis and leprosy: evidence for interaction of disease. In: Ortner DJ, Aufderheide AC. Human paleopathology: current syntheses and future options. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1991. 25–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hohmann N, Voss-Böhme A. The epidemiological consequences of leprosy-tuberculosis co-infection. Math Biosci. 2013;241(2):225–37. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2012.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Donoghue HD, Marcsik A, Matheson C, Vernon K, Nuorala E, Molto JE, et al. Co-infection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae in human archaeological samples: a possible explanation for the historical decline of leprosy. Proc Biol Sci. 2005;272(1561):389–94. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Matheson CD, Vernon KK, Lahti A, Fratpietro R, Spigelman M, Gibson S, et al. Molecular exploration of the first-century Tomb of the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem. PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e8319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Donoghue HD. Tuberculosis and leprosy associated with historical human population movements in Europe and beyond - an overview based on mycobacterial ancient DNA. Ann Hum Biol. 2019;46(2):120–8. doi: 10.1080/03014460.2019.1624822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Marcolefas E, Leung T, Okshevsky M, McKay G, Hignett E, Hamel J, et al. Culture-Dependent Bioprospecting of Bacterial Isolates From the Canadian High Arctic Displaying Antibacterial Activity. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1836. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miller GH, Geirsdóttir Á, Zhong Y, Larsen DJ, Otto-Bliesner BL, Holland MM, et al. Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks: Little ice age triggered by volcanism. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Duncan K. Climate and the decline of leprosy in Britain. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb. 1994;24(1). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ferreira PM, Rato IR, Rigor J, Mota M. Hansen’s disease - a forgotten disease?. JRSM Open. 2021;12(8):20542704211035995. doi: 10.1177/20542704211035995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Suárez-García I, Gómez-Barroso D, Fine PEM. Autochthonous leprosy in Spain: Has the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae stopped? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(9):e0008611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nery JS, Ramond A, Pescarini JM, Alves A, Strina A, Ichihara MY, et al. Socioeconomic determinants of leprosy new case detection in the 100 million Brazilian cohort: a population-based linkage study. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(9):e1226-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ramos AN, Heukelbach J, Oliveira MLWDR. A conditional cash transfer programme in Brazil improves leprosy treatment outcomes. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(5):522–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Emerson LE, Anantharam P, Yehuala FM, Bilcha KD, Tesfaye AB, Fairley JK. Poor WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) Conditions Are Associated with Leprosy in North Gondar, Ethiopia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6061. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rahfiludin MZ, Nugraheni SA, Ametati H, Prihatin A, Purwaningsih E. The difference of anti phenolic glycolipid-1 (PGL-1) immunoglobulin-M (IgM) level and nutritional intake in subclinical leprosy patients who reside at home and in the orphanage. Med J Indones. 2007;16(4):224–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Skinsnes LK, Higa LH. The role of protein malnutrition in the pathogenesis of ulcerative “Lazarine” leprosy. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1976;44(3):346–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kothari SY, Kumar WR, Mks S. Deformities and Bony Changes in Leprosy. Indian J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;25(1):13–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mohammad W, Malhotra SK, Garg PK. Clinico-radiological Correlation of Bone Changes in Leprosy Patients Presenting with Disabilities/Deformities. Indian J Lepr. 2016;88(2):83–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pereira HLA, Ribeiro SLE, Ciconelli RM, Fernandes A da RC. Avaliação por imagem do comprometimento osteoarticular e de nervos periféricos na hanseníase. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2006;46:30–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Job CK. Pathology of leprous osteomyelitis. Int J Lepr. 1963;31:26–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Paterson DE, Rad M. Bone changes in leprosy, their incidence, progress, prevention and arrest. Int J Lepr. 1961;29:393–422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Martins ACC, Castro JC, Moreira JS. A ten-year historic study of paranasal cavity endoscopy in patients with Leprosy. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;71(5):609–15. doi: 10.1016/s1808-8694(15)31265-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bhat R, Sharma VK, Deka RC. Otorhinolaryngologic manifestations of leprosy. Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(6):600–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2007.03163.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dave B, Bedi R. Leprosy and its dental management guidelines. Int Dent J. 2020;63(2):65–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Andersen JG, Manchester K. The rhinomaxillary syndrome in leprosy: a clinical, radiological and palaeopathological study. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 1992;2(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Marks SC Jr, Grossetete G. Facies leprosa: resorption of maxillary anterior alveolar bone and the anterior nasal spine in patients with lepromatous leprosy in Mali. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1988;56(1):21–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.do Espírito Santo RB, Serafim RA, Loureiro RM, Sumi DV, de Mello RAF, Nascimento IF, et al. Clinical and radiological assessment of rhinomaxillary syndrome in Hansen’s disease. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2022;88(4):483–93. doi: 10.25259/IJDVL_1203_20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Deps P, do Espírito Santo RB, Charlier P, Collin SM. Rhinomaxillary syndrome in Hansen’s disease: a clinical perspective. Int J Dermatol. 2020;59(11):e404–6. doi: 10.1111/ijd.15202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gausterer C, Stein C, Teschler-Nicola M. First genetic evidence of leprosy in early medieval Austria. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2015;165(7–8):126–32. doi: 10.1007/s10354-014-0287-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bedić Ž, Šlaus M, Donoghue HD. The earliest recorded case of lepromatous leprosy in continental Croatia. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2019;25:47–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Baker BJ, Bolhofner KL. Biological and social implications of a medieval burial from Cyprus for understanding leprosy in the past. Int J Paleopathol. 2014;4:17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2013.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Likovský J, Urbanová M, Hájek M, Černý V, Čech P. Two cases of leprosy from Žatec (Bohemia), dated to the turn of the 12th century and confirmed by DNA analysis for Mycobacterium leprae. J Archaeol Sci. 2006;33(9):1276–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.HoráČková L, Vargová L. Inflammatory changes in the osteological remains from the Křtiny ossuary (Czech republic). 2001;39(1).
  • 47.Moller-Christensen V, Weiss DL. One of the oldest datable skeletons with leprous bone-changes from the Naestved Leprosy Hospital churchyard in Denmark. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1971;39(2):172–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Matos VMJ, Santos AL. Leprogenic odontodysplasia: new evidence from the St. Jørgen’s medieval leprosarium cemetery (Odense, Denmark). Anthropol Sci. 2013;121(1):43–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Boddington A. Raunds Furnells: the Anglo-Saxon church and churchyard Raunds area project. London: English Heritage. 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Cole G, Taylor GM, Stewart GR, Dawson-Hobbis H. Ancient DNA confirmation of lepromatous leprosy in a skeleton with concurrent osteosarcoma, excavated from the leprosarium of St. Mary Magdalen in Winchester, Hants., UK. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022;41(11):1295–304. doi: 10.1007/s10096-022-04494-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Filipek KL, Roberts CA, Montgomery J, Gowland RL, Moore J, Tucker K, et al. Creating communities of care: Sex estimation and mobility histories of adolescents buried in the cemetery of St. Mary Magdalen leprosarium (Winchester, England). Am J Biol Anthropol. 2022;178(1):108–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Filipek KL, Roberts CA, Gowland RL, Montgomery J, Evans JA. Illness and inclusion: mobility histories of adolescents with leprosy from Anglo-Scandinavian Norwich (Eastern England). Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2021;31(6):1180–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Holst M. Osteological Analysis Dixon Lane and George Street. York: York Osteoarchaeology Ltd. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Inskip SA, Taylor GM, Zakrzewski SR, Mays SA, Pike AWG, Llewellyn G, et al. Osteological, biomolecular and geochemical examination of an early anglo-saxon case of lepromatous leprosy. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0124282. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Magilton J, Lee F, Boylston A. Lepers outside the gate: excavations at the cemetery of the hospital of St. James and St. Mary Magdalene, Chichester. York, England: Council for British Archaeology. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Manchester K. A leprous skeleton of the 7th century from Eccles, Kent, and the present evidence of leprosy in early Britain. J Archaeol Sci. 1981;8(2):205–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mays S. The medieval burials from the Blackfriars Friary, School Street, Ipswich, Suffolk (excavated 1983-85). English Heritage, Centre for Archaeology. 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Roffey S, Tucker K. A contextual study of the medieval hospital and cemetery of St Mary Magdalen, Winchester, England. Int J Paleopathol. 2012;2(4):170–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2012.09.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Walker D. The treatment of leprosy in 19th-century London: a case study from St Marylebone cemetery. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2009;19(3):364–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wells C. A leper cemetery at South Acre, Norfolk. Mediev Archaeol. 1967;11(1):242–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Taylor GM, Tucker K, Butler R, Pike AWG, Lewis J, Roffey S, et al. Detection and strain typing of ancient Mycobacterium leprae from a medieval leprosy hospital. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e62406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Mendum TA, Schuenemann VJ, Roffey S, Taylor GM, Wu H, Singh P, et al. Mycobacterium leprae genomes from a British medieval leprosy hospital: towards understanding an ancient epidemic. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:270. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Taylor GM, Widdison S, Brown IN, Young D, Molleson T. A mediaeval case of lepromatous leprosy from 13–14th century Orkney, Scotland. J Archaeol Sci. 2000;27(12):1133–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Deps PD, Collin SM, Robin S, Charlier P. Leprosy in skulls from the Paris Catacombs. Ann Hum Biol. 2020;47(1):42–7. doi: 10.1080/03014460.2020.1714729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Meffray A, Houriez E, Fossurier C, Thuet A, Biagini P, Ardagna Y. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA from remains of a medieval individual, Amiens, France. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(1):127–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bonczarowska JH, Susat J, Mühlemann B, Jasch-Boley I, Brather S, Höke B, et al. Pathogen genomics study of an early medieval community in Germany reveals extensive co-infections. Genome Biol. 2022;23(1):250. doi: 10.1186/s13059-022-02806-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Haas CJ, Zink A, Pálfi G, Szeimies U, Nerlich AG. Detection of leprosy in ancient human skeletal remains by molecular identification of Mycobacterium leprae. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114(3):428–36. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/114.3.428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Csóri Z, Donoghue HD, Marcsik A. Leprosy in the 10th–13th century AD in Eastern Hungary. Annu Roum Anthropol. 2009;46:3–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Balázs J, Rózsa Z, Bereczki Z, Marcsik A, Tihanyi B, Karlinger K, et al. Osteoarcheological and biomolecular evidence of leprosy from an 11–13th century CE Muslim cemetery in Europe (Orosháza, Southeast Hungary). HOMO. 2019;70(2):105–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Köhler K, Marcsik A, Zádori P, Biro G, Szeniczey T, Fábián S, et al. Possible cases of leprosy from the Late Copper Age (3780-3650 cal BC) in Hungary. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0185966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Pálfi G. The first osteoarchaeological evidence of leprosy in Hungary. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 1991;1(2):99–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Spekker O, Tihanyi B, Kis L, Váradi OA, Donoghue HD, Minnikin DE, et al. The two extremes of Hansen’s disease-Different manifestations of leprosy and their biological consequences in an Avar Age (late 7th century CE) osteoarchaeological series of the Duna-Tisza Interfluve (Kiskundorozsma-Daruhalom-dűlő II, Hungary). PLoS One. 2022;17(6):e0265416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Spekker O, Tihanyi B, Kis L, Szalontai C, Vida T, Pálfi G, et al. Life and death of a leprosy sufferer from the 8th-century-CE cemetery of Kiskundorozsma-Kettőshatár I (Duna-Tisza Interfluve, Hungary)-Biological and social consequences of having Hansen’s disease in a late Avar Age population from Hungary. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Buckley L. Outcasts, or care in the community?. Archaeol Irel. 2008;22(1):26–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Taylor GM, Murphy EM, Mendum TA, Pike AWG, Linscott B, Wu H, et al. Leprosy at the edge of Europe-Biomolecular, isotopic and osteoarchaeological findings from medieval Ireland. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Belcastro MG, Mariotti V, Facchini F, Dutour O. Leprosy in a skeleton from the 7th century necropolis of Vicenne-Campochiaro (Molise, Italy). Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2005;15(6):431–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Fornaciari G, Mallegni F, De Leo P. The leprosy of Henry VII: incarceration or isolation?. Lancet. 1999;353(9154):758. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)76134-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Mariotti V, Dutour O, Belcastro MG, Facchini F, Brasili P. Probable early presence of leprosy in Europe in a Celtic skeleton of the 4th-3rd century BC (Casalecchio di Reno, Bologna, Italy). Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2005;15(5):311–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Rubini M, Zaio P. Lepromatous leprosy in an early mediaeval cemetery in central Italy (Morrione, Campochiaro, Molise, 6th–8th century AD). J Archaeol Sci. 2009;36(12):2771–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Rubini M, Dell’Anno V, Giuliani R, Favia P, Zaio P. The First Probable Case of Leprosy in Southeast Italy (13th-14th Centuries AD, Montecorvino, Puglia). J Anthropol. 2012;2012:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Rubini M, Erdal YS, Spigelman M, Zaio P, Donoghue HD. Paleopathological and Molecular Study on Two Cases of Ancient Childhood Leprosy from the Roman and Byzantine Empires. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2014;24(5):570–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Rubini M, Zaio P. Bone Changes in an Italian Ancient Human Skeleton--Possibly Caused by Leprosy. Indian J Lepr. 2015;87(2):91–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Rubini M, Zaio P, Roberts C. Tuberculosis and leprosy in Italy: new skeletal evidence. Homo. 2014;65(1):13–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jchb.2013.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Fotakis AK, Denham SD, Mackie M, Orbegozo MI, Mylopotamitaki D, Gopalakrishnan S, et al. Multi-omic detection of Mycobacterium leprae in archaeological human dental calculus. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2020;375(1812):20190584. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Antunes-Ferreira N, Matos VMJ, Santos AL. Leprosy in individuals unearthed near the Ermida de Santo André and Leprosarium of Beja, Portugal. Anthropol Sci. 2013;121(3):149–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Ferreira MT, Neves MJ, Wasterlain SN. Lagos leprosarium (Portugal): evidences of disease. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40(5):2298–307. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Melo L, Matos VMJ, Santos AL, Ferreira C, Silva AM. The first probable evidence of leprosy in a male individual (17th-19th century AD) unearthed in Northern Portugal (Travanca, Santa Maria da Feira). Int J Paleopathol. 2021;32:80–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2020.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Hukeľová Z, Nováček J, Daňová K, Ruttkay M. First reported archaeological case of leprosy in Slovakia. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2021;31(5):881–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Kjellström A. Possible cases of leprosy and tuberculosis in medieval Sigtuna, Sweden. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2010;22(3):261–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Petersen M. Leprosy in Medieval Helsingborg: An Osteological Analysis of the St Clement Cemetery. Lund: Lund University. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Khudaverdyan AY. Resorption of the alveolar region in facies leprosy: a paleoanthropological and paleopathological analysis. Bull Int Assoc Paleodont. 2019;13(1):1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Khudaverdyan AY. The probable evidence of leprosy in a male individual unearthed in medieval Armenia (Angeghakot). Bull Int Assoc Paleodont. 2021;15(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Khudaverdyan AY. Bioarcheology of bone remains from medieval burials from Armenia. Bull Int Assoc Paleodont. 2022;16(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Polet C. Health and diet of ancient Easter Islanders: contribution of paleopathology, dental microwear and stable isotopes. In: 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Dzierzykray-Rogalski T. Paleopathology of the Ptolemaic inhabitants of Dakhleh Oasis (Egypt). J Hum Evol. 1980;9(1):71–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Neil B. Anglo-Georgian Nokalakevi expedition. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Robbins G, Tripathy VM, Misra VN, Mohanty RK, Shinde VS, Gray KM, et al. Ancient skeletal evidence for leprosy in India (2000 B.C.). PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Robbins Schug G, Blevins KE, Cox B, Gray K, Mushrif-Tripathy V. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e84814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Suzuki K, Saso A, Hoshino K, Sakurai J, Tanigawa K, Luo Y, et al. Paleopathological evidence and detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA from archaeological skeletal remains of Nabe-kaburi (head-covered with iron pots) burials in Japan. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Suzuki K, Takigawa W, Tanigawa K, Nakamura K, Ishido Y, Kawashima A, et al. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA from archaeological skeletal remains in Japan using whole genome amplification and polymerase chain reaction. PLoS One. 2010;5(8):e12422. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Gilmore JK. Leprosy at the Lazaretto on St Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2008;18(1):72–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Van Dissel JT, Pieters T, Geluk A, Maat G, Menke HE, Tió-Coma M, et al. Archival, paleopathological and aDNA-based techniques in leprosy research and the case of Father Petrus Donders at the Leprosarium ‘Batavia’, Suriname. Int J Paleopathol. 2019;27:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Nelson GC, Dodrill TN, Fitzpatrick SM. A probable case of leprosy from colonial period St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Southeastern Caribbean. Int J Paleopathol. 2022;36:7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2021.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Tayles N, Buckley HR. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004;125(3):239–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Blau S, Yagodin V. Osteoarchaeological evidence for leprosy from western Central Asia. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005;126(2):150–8. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Roberts CA. The Origin, Evolution and History of Leprosy Through a Palaeopathological Lens. Hansen’s Disease. Springer International Publishing. 2023. 23–33. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-30893-2_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Economou C, Kjellström A, Lidén K, Panagopoulos I. Ancient-DNA reveals an Asian type of Mycobacterium leprae in medieval Scandinavia. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40(1):465–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Kerudin A, Müller R, Buckberry J, Knüsel CJ, Brown TA. Ancient Mycobacterium leprae genomes from the mediaeval sites of Chichester and Raunds in England. J Archaeol Sci. 2019;112:105035. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Krause-Kyora B, Nutsua M, Boehme L, Pierini F, Pedersen DD, Kornell S-C, et al. Ancient DNA study reveals HLA susceptibility locus for leprosy in medieval Europeans. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1569. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03857-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Neukamm J, Pfrengle S, Molak M, Seitz A, Francken M, Eppenberger P, et al. 2000-year-old pathogen genomes reconstructed from metagenomic analysis of Egyptian mummified individuals. BMC Biol. 2020;18(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s12915-020-00839-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Pfrengle S, Neukamm J, Guellil M, Keller M, Molak M, Avanzi C, et al. Mycobacterium leprae diversity and population dynamics in medieval Europe from novel ancient genomes. BMC Biol. 2021;19(1):220. doi: 10.1186/s12915-021-01120-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Roffey S, Tucker K, Filipek-Ogden K, Montgomery J, Cameron J, O’Connell T, et al. Investigation of a Medieval Pilgrim Burial Excavated from the Leprosarium of St Mary Magdalen Winchester, UK. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(1):e0005186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Rubini M, Zaio P, Spigelman M, Donoghue HD. Leprosy in a Lombard-Avar cemetery in central Italy (Campochiaro, Molise, 6th–8th century AD): ancient DNA evidence and demography. Ann Hum Biol. 2017;44(6):510–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Schuenemann VJ, Singh P, Mendum TA, Krause-Kyora B, Jäger G, Bos KI, et al. Genome-wide comparison of medieval and modern Mycobacterium leprae. Science. 2013;341(6142):179–83. doi: 10.1126/science.1238286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Taylor GM, Watson CL, Bouwman AS, Lockwood DNJ, Mays SA. Variable nucleotide tandem repeat (VNTR) typing of two palaeopathological cases of lepromatous leprosy from Mediaeval England. J Archaeol Sci. 2006;33(11):1569–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Taylor GM, Blau S, Mays S, Monot M, Lee OYC, Minnikin DE, et al. Mycobacterium leprae genotype amplified from an archaeological case of lepromatous leprosy in Central Asia. J Archaeol Sci. 2009;36(10):2408–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Taylor GM, Mays SA, Stewart GR. Analysis of a medieval strain of mycobacterium leprae from the deserted medieval village site of Wharram Percy, Yorkshire, UK. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2021;37:103015. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Monot M, Honoré N, Garnier T, Zidane N, Sherafi D, Paniz-Mondolfi A, et al. Comparative genomic and phylogeographic analysis of Mycobacterium leprae. Nat Genet. 2009;41(12):1282–9. doi: 10.1038/ng.477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Inskip S, Taylor GM, Anderson S, Stewart G. Leprosy in pre-Norman Suffolk, UK: biomolecular and geochemical analysis of the woman from Hoxne. J Med Microbiol. 2017;66(11):1640–9. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Watson CL, Lockwood DNJ. Single nucleotide polymorphism analysis of European archaeological M. leprae DNA. PLoS One. 2009;4(10):e7547. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Mendum TA, Taylor GM, Donoghue HD, Wu H, Szalontai C, Marcsik A, et al. The genome sequence of a SNP type 3K strain of Mycobacterium leprae is olated from a seventh-century Hungarian case of lepromatous leprosy. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2018;28(4):439–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Deps P, Charlier P. O dia em que mudei de nome. The day I changed my name: hanseníase e estigma. Leprosy and stigma. Paris: DE BOCCARD. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 123.do Espírito Santo RB, Serafim RA, Loureiro RM, Gonçalves DVC, Sumi DV, de Mello RAF, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of maxillofacial and otorhinolaryngological manifestations of Hansen’s disease. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):14912. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19072-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Schuenemann VJ, Avanzi C, Krause-Kyora B, Seitz A, Herbig A, Inskip S, et al. Ancient genomes reveal a high diversity of Mycobacterium leprae in medieval Europe. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(5):e1006997. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Roberts CA, Buikstra JE. Bacterial infections. Ortner’s Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Elsevier. 2019. 321–439. [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Lee J, Kim J-P, Nishikiori N, Fine PEM. The decline of leprosy in the Republic of Korea; patterns and trends 1977-2013. Lepr Rev. 2015;86(4):316–27. doi: 10.47276/lr.86.4.316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Irgens LM. Leprosy in Norway. An epidemiological study based on a national patient registry. Lepr Rev. 1980;51 Suppl 1:i–xi, 1–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Møller-Christensen V. Evidence of leprosy in earlier peoples. In: Brothwell DR, Sandison AT. Diseases in Antiquity: A Survey of the Diseases, Injuries, and Surgery of Early Populations. First Edition ed. Thomas C. C. 1967. 130. [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Rothschild BM, Rothschild C. Skeletal manifestations of leprosy: analysis of 137 patients from different clinical settings in the pre- and post-modern treatment eras. J Clin Rheumatol. 2001;7(4):228–37. doi: 10.1097/00124743-200108000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Weston DA. Investigating the specificity of periosteal reactions in pathology museum specimens. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008;137(1):48–59. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.de Matos VMJ. O diagnóstico retrospectivo da lepra: complementaridade clínica e paleopatológica no arquivo médico do Hospital-Colónia Rovisco Pais (século XX, Tocha, Portugal) e na colecção de esqueletos da leprosaria medieval de St. Jorgen’s (Odense, Dinamarca). 2010. https://estudogeral.uc.pt/handle/10316/20078
  • 132.Leonard JS, Fairley JK. Hansen’s Disease in Children. Hansen’s Disease. Springer International Publishing. 2023. 133–7. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-30893-2_11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Danielsen K. Odontodysplasia leprosa in Danish mediaeval skeletons. Tandlaegebladet. 1970;74(6):603–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Crespo F, White J, Roberts C. Revisiting the tuberculosis and leprosy cross-immunity hypothesis: Expanding the dialogue between immunology and paleopathology. Int J Paleopathol. 2019;26:37–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2019.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Turankar RP, Singh V, Gupta H, Pathak VK, Ahuja M, Singh I, et al. Association of non-tuberculous mycobacteria with Mycobacterium leprae in environment of leprosy endemic regions in India. Infect Genet Evol. 2019;72:191–8. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Kelmelis KS, Pedersen DD. Impact of urbanization on tuberculosis and leprosy prevalence in medieval Denmark. Anthropol Anz Ber Uber Biol-Anthropol Lit. 2019;76(2):149–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Ashmead AS. Pre-Columbian Leprosy. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1895;XXIV(20):753. [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Monot M, Honoré N, Garnier T, Araoz R, Coppée J-Y, Lacroix C, et al. On the origin of leprosy. Science. 2005;308(5724):1040–2. doi: 10.1126/science/1109759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Ploemacher T, Faber WR, Menke H, Rutten V, Pieters T. Reservoirs and transmission routes of leprosy; A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(4):e0008276. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Deps P, Rosa PS. One Health and Hansen’s Disease in Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(5):e0009398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Deps P, Collin SM. Mycobacterium lepromatosis as a second agent of Hansen’s disease. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:698588. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.698588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Urban C, Blom AA, Avanzi C, Walker-Meikle K, Warren AK, White-Iribhogbe K, et al. Ancient Mycobacterium leprae genome reveals medieval English red squirrels as animal leprosy host. Curr Biol. 2024;34(10):2221–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Robbins Schug G, Mahajan S, Carter S, Leach A, Williams KD, Douglas KA, et al. Lepromatous leprosy in Bronze Age Oman: micro-CT provides tools for paleopathology in fragmentary and commingled assemblages. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025;12:1521515. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1521515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Roberts CA. The bioarchaeology of leprosy. Leprosy: past and present. 1st ed. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. 2020. 127–90. [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013374.r001

Decision Letter 0

Katharina Röltgen

18 Mar 2025

PNTD-D-24-01634

LEPROSY IN SKELETONS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Deps,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases'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 within 60 days May 17 2025 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Katharina Röltgen

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Mathieu Picardeau

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Additional Editor Comments:

We have received three very detailed and insightful reviews from experts in the field regarding your paper. They have raised several important concerns and provided valuable suggestions for improving the study design, data and statistical analyses, and critical engagement with the limitations of palaeopathological data. We kindly request that you address both the major and minor comments made by the three Reviewers in a revised version of your article, as these revisions will be necessary before the paper can be considered for publication in PLoS NTDs.

Journal Requirements:

1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full.

At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Hugo Pessotti Aborghetti, Simon M Collin, Julienne Dadalto dos Santos, Pamela Barbosa dos Santos, Taís Loureiro Zambon, Rafael Maffei Loureiro, and Patricia Duarte Deps. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form.

The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions

2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

3) Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150-200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

4) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/figures

5) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

6) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

- Please confirm that you are the photographer of Figures 2, 3, 4, and Figure 1 - PRISMA flow diagram, or provide written permission from the photographer to publish the photos under our CC BY 4.0 license.

- Figure 7. Please provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC BY 4.0 license.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite u201cPlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0u201d in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/).

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods:

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The aims and methods and approaches taken are clearly outlined. The MS is a revue article of the palaeopathology and phylogeography of leprosy due to M. leprae through time and as such is ambitious. It is necessarily governed by several pre-existing limitations; the archaeological record available Genomic studies are further restricted by permissions for destruvtive sampling, DNA survival and current aDNA techniques obtaining at their time of study.

Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study are clearly articulated with clearly testable hypothesis.

The systematic review is well-defined. The only critical point is that there is a discrepancy between the 86 in the systematic review and the overall 134 references. 40% of the references are not accounted for. TYhe authors should mention that the other set of references are included on the basis of snow-balling or another approach.

Reviewer #3: There needs to be a clearer objective complete with hypothesis for testing. This will improve the study design, structure of results and study design. The authors also need to consider whether they have enough material to support some of their conclusions, e.g. you can't talk about the prevlance of a strain of a disease when n is low or even 1. The statistical analysis for what they did was fine, but it lacks detail and is very basic.

In addition, there has been limited engagement with the limitations of palaeopathological data which impacts on the soundness of the conclusions.

Results:

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The Results are clearly presented in the main paper with Tables, flow diagrams and Figures. This is supplemented by a great deal of additional and detailed information in the Appendices and supplementary Tables in excel spreadsheet format. There are some inconsistencies and gaps in the latter section which could be corrected, and specific suggestions have been made in the main review for the authors' consideration. See Summary and General Comments below.

Reviewer #2: The results are clearly and completely represented

Reviewer #3: Generally yes, but the aims and objectives are rather loose. The results are sometimes incomplete. There are no statistical tests results presented in the text and it is unclear when they were used. In addition, there is a lack of detail about whether correction factors were used or not.

When presenting skeletal data we are not always presented with observation values, the hand and foot data is particularly problematic and it is hard to know whether it is meaningful or not. There is use of vague terminology (see comments below).

Conclusions:

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The conclusions are concise and well-structured.

Reviewer #3: The conclusions are weak really since the data is a little problematic (see comments below).

The limitations of the study are not adequately addressed and there is almost no engagement with the issues surrounding the use of palaeopathological data and its limitations.

At present, there is very limited advancement of knowledge as many of the issues raised relate to information that is present in the cases that they have drawn together rather than new findings identified by the authors in the results. Where they have drawn new conclusions surrounding the lesion patterns, these are weak as they have not considered the biased nature of the sample they are using (already preselected for leprosy and the most severe forms at that) and the fact that they discarded cases that where not characteristic.

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: See comments for authors attention in "Summary and General Comments" below.

Reviewer #2: Minor revisions

Reviewer #3: Minor comments

Abstract

The abstract does not make it clear why the research is important or needed, or moves beyond what is already known.

Introduction and methods

Just a note, Hansen’s Disease has its own problems since Hansen himself had some pretty unorthodox and unethical practices (https://worldneurologyonline.com/article/armauer-hansen-the-controversy-surrounding-his-unethical-human-to-human-leprosy-transmission-experiment/).

Page 3 Reference needed for incubation time

Reference for MB being the cause of most transmissions

Page 4 Leprosy was not eliminated from Europe by the 16th century, only parts of it. It was still found in Scandinavia, Iberia and some Eastern Areas for a long time after this.

How would changes in population density impact leprosy? Are you suggesting a link to the plague mortalities here?

In reference to citation 31. Is this 3-5% of modern patients?

P5 Criteria for inclusion and scoring. Where can we find the information about how these scores are defined. Why did you exclude Eurasian countries in Europe? What is your definition here, since Europe is a fairly modern construct. What about Belarus?

P6 – unless there are burial records we can not assign year of death, only a range.

In table headings, put references of the work that you are deriving your information from.

In data analysis, please let us know the program used for the tests, in addition please state whether you used correction factors for a) small sample sizes, and b) multiple testing (if appropriate).

Results

Make sure that before you present any %s you give the numbers observable.

Page 10, you don’t talk about the child cases that you discuss later. They are also not in the table. (page 12).

Data presentation. Please always let us know how many observations there were before providing any statistics (by individual or bone etc). This is critical so that we know how meaningful any percentages are. For example ‘Varying numbers of remains had data for specific cranial bones’ – very vague. In addition, please provide test statistic results (e.g. n values, test statistic and p Value).

Use of the term ‘ante mortem’. This could refer to any change on the skeleton before death, pathology, trauma, behavioural, activity related etc. I would say pathological changes so it is clear you are looking at disease-related change.

Page 13 You mention differences in cranial changes by age but you don’t say what you see in the data.

Nasal structures. Second sentence is incomplete?

P15 RMS – Tell us why you are referring to dental abscess data.

The data for the hands and feet is confusing. It would probably be more useful to present this by individual since there was likely high variability in the recovery of tarsals by individual. I know that Winchester had excellent recovery because they a) knew they had leprosy so explicitly focused on recovering hand and foot bones b) had properly train osteologists working on site. Whereas isolated cases in cemeteries might not have been looking for everything. As such, your numbers could be biased by differences in excavation practice.

P16 The increasing prevalence of inflammation (periostitis, osteomyelitis etc) with age is found in palaeopathology generally regardless of leprosy. Simply, the older you are, the more time you have for accumulating bone changes.

P18 – I am not sure about the title ‘ skeletons from modern day Europe’. Should this be skeletons from the region of modern day Europe?

Discussion

In the first paragraph of the discussion, the authors highlight the relevance of the topic to modern problems posed by the disease, but they don’t say how it can be used specifically. What has this specific piece of work contributed to these wider questions?

In terms of understanding M.leprae evolution, you do not discuss how the different strains are related to each other genetically and temporally. Also, I am not sure we can say which strains were prevalent for most geographic areas because for most places there are one or two cases. Only really for the UK or Denmark where multiple cases are analysed, and this would only be true for one period. There is no real new information presented here, rather just a repeat of what is known and presented directly in the genetic studies. For example Monot et al 2009, Mark 2017, Schuenemann et al 2018, Pfrengle et al 2021.

Page 23 – method for analysing the skulls from images. How many were done like this? Please put detail in the methods section for this. How reliable is this likely to be? Any intra observer tests for this?

P24 paragraph 3 ‘According to Moller Christensen, cranial bone changes associated with leprosy deformities in the hand and feet result in nasal alterations’ This does not make sense I am afraid. Rephrase.

You state that the proportion of RMS is higher in the 16th century, but is this due to them living longer, and the fact they are all from leprosaria (see above). Number of cases is also very low.

P25 Can you just outline why you are presenting the specific cases you are looking at them?

P25 – these cases are not described in your table previously, no children or babies are presented there. Were they excluded cases? This is the first time they are mentioned and as such the inclusion in the discussion is a bit random and doesn’t relate to any of the presented results.

In relation to the decline of leprosy, it is interesting that the lesion pattern is similar to S Korea, but a bit of caution is needed here, since a similar change could also be seen if there were improvements in care, or changes in care that allowed people to live longer with the disease. In addition, you did not find any clear statistical relationship between age and lesions. It is likely that the sample sizes are just too small to do this.

Top of page 27 In the UK, France, Spain and Belgium, ideas about the historic isolation of individuals with leprosy have been dismissed. Such isolation narratives have been particularly harmful to those with the disease today and are proven false. Please change the wording.

P28 – You can not use the high prevalence of nasal changes from a group of individuals that are identified because they have nasal changes as evidence for their importance in diagnosis. This is circular reasoning.

Yes, I totally agree that there is significant variation in the prevalence and type of bone alterations due to site selection, geography etc etc. Please can you discuss this in more detail.

People are undertaking NGS and WGS in archaeology and people are doing interdisciplinary papers. In particular there are multiple papers that combine genetics, geochemistry, pathology and dating. There are also a couple of papers looking at the role of non-human hosts (armadillos, squirrels). This latter is particularly important in modern contexts where animals are not considered as possible reservoirs for the disease.

Summary and General Comments:

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: LEPROSY IN SKELETONS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Manuscript PNTD-D-24-01634.

Authors: Hugo Pessotti Aborghetti et al.

A). Leprosy main paper -review points.

The authors have reviewed a large number of studies (n=67) dealing with both the palaeopathology and biomolecular lineages of M. leprae cases isolated from antiquity to the post medieval period (3715 BCE to 1839 CE). A total of 297 skeletons with leprosy have been reviewed and the ontological data compiled and correlated by age, sex, period and various other categories.

The skeletal patterning due to leprosy has been much studied in the modern era since the late 1950’s, so osteological signs of damage due to M. leprae and secondary infections in the extremities of the appendicular skeleton and their associations with rhinomaxillary syndrome are well recognized. Consequently, many of the findings in the current review are not unexpected. The submission emphasizes the importance of combining palaepathological and biomolecular approaches leprosy but does not highlight specific areas for future study.

It is appreciated that this undertaking represents a great deal of data mining and assessment from a large body of work. The review is very comprehensive but does not mention one of the rarer manifestations of multibacillary leprosy sometimes seen in adolescent remains, leprogenic odontodysplasia (LO) (Danielsen K. Tandlaegebladet 1970; 74:603–625). The phenomena has only been described in the palaeopathological literature and invariably from North-Western Europe. The current submission cites this in included reference article 39 (Matos & Santos. 2013) and in the main article (ref 46) but does not record detail. LO has also been seen in 4 individuals from the St. Mary Magdalen leprosaria in Winchester, Hants. UK (article ID 66 and main text ref. 59). For completion, the appropriate place to record this would be the Data Extraction Table alongside the other dental pathology.

Genomic studies.

1. On p20 the authors state that 5 previous papers have looked for evidence of M. lepromatosis in genomic studies. In fact, an additional group looked and this is detailed in your main text reference 106, Mendum et al, 2018.

2. SNP type 3. This genotype is mentioned a few times within the main text. E.g. Abstract, p20, p23, This category has come to be recognized as a broad group within the Monot typing scheme, which originally described strains as belonging to SNP types 1A to 4P. Type 3 includes the oldest lineage 3K, itself sub-divided into 3K0 and 3K1, as well as 3M, now seen as nearer/basal to SNP-type 4 strains and type 3I-1, responsible for the majority of European cases in the mediaeval period and an ancestor to the 31-1 and 3I-2 types present in southern USA states (Truman et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 1626, 2011). This reviewer suggests that where known, the subtype is provided in the text to provide better context; predominantly this is likely to be 3I. Similarly, the most commonly identified SNP-type 2 strain found has been 2F.

In the concluding remarks on p29, the authors mention the importance of integrating genomic studies into future research. This is undoubtedly true, but broader biomolecular approaches may also grow in importance and provide alternative means of studying the mycobacterium. For example, mycolipids, proteins and peptides from M. leprae.

Minor points.

1. Leprosaria (found on p2, p3, p10, p26, p27, p28) is usually italicized by convention to denote its Latin origins.

2. “Leprosy presents a spectrum of skin and nerve clinical presentations”. This could be rephrased to better convey the intended meaning with corrected grammar.

B). Supplementary Information (Appendices). xlsx file.

The following points need attention.

1. Data extraction tab, columns BT & BU. Spelling of Skulls.

2. Genomic References included Tab. “Synopsis”. Entry 3. The 2G genotyping of Economou’s paper was later corrected to 2F, in line with findings from other groups. This correction is published in JAS 40 (6), page 2867.

3. QA Ratings (genomic) Tab. Entry 23/24, Roffey 2017. It is surprising to see this assessed as 00 for biomolecular analysis when this reference successfully typed 9 SNP and 3 VNTR loci to show this was a type 2F. DNA preservation was later shown to be good enough for WGS which confirmed this genotype. Details in reference 60. Perhaps this Roffey MS has been confused with Roffey, 2012 ?

4. Included References (Genomic) Tab. “Synopses” missing from Monot et al, 2009 and Taylor et al, 2018. Also, type 3I-1 found in Entry 21 (see Main text comment above).

5. QA Ratings Tab, Item 6 Biomolecular Analysis. Many of the publications here do not offer genomic analysis yet have been assessed as 00 by the two independent reviewers. It would be clearer if these are flagged as either ND (not determined) or NA (not available). These publications include Blau, 2005; Baker 2014; Buckley 2008 etc.

6. Data Extraction Tab. Article ID 11 (Cole, 2022) of Appendices shows ? for total skeletons at the site. Having checked with one of the excavators, I can offer that the skeleton total excavated and analyzed to date is 125, as mentioned in Discussion in J. Med. Microbiol. 2024; 73: 001806.

Reviewer #2: Summary: This systematic review presents a comprehensive analysis of leprosy in archaeological skeletons, synthesizing data on skeletal changes and genomic findings to explore the historical trajectory of the disease. The study provides valuable insights into the paleopathology of leprosy, including the frequency and distribution of Rhinomaxillary Syndrome (RMS) and post-cranial bone changes (PCBC). The manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and contributes significantly to our understanding of leprosy’s historical impact. With minor revisions incorporating a One Health perspective and a more nuanced discussion of the decline hypothesis, the paper will be well-suited for publication. The revisions will enhance the interdisciplinary relevance of the study and align it with contemporary approaches to infectious disease history and epidemiology.

Strengths:

1. Comprehensive Scope: The systematic review effectively synthesizes data from multiple archaeological studies across different regions and time periods.

2. Robust Methodology: The inclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessment procedures are clearly defined and rigorously applied.

3. Genetic Analysis Integration: The discussion on Mycobacterium leprae genotypes strengthens the argument regarding leprosy’s historical spread and decline.

4. Clarity of Presentation: The figures and tables are well-organized, enhancing the readability and interpretability of results.

Proposed revisions:

1. Incorporating a One Health Perspective:

o The discussion on the decline of leprosy in medieval Europe primarily focuses on immunological, epidemiological, and environmental factors. However, it lacks consideration of the broader One Health framework, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health interactions.

o Suggested Revision: Expand the discussion to consider how zoonotic reservoirs, changes in human-animal interactions, and environmental shifts may have influenced the disease’s decline. For instance, studies suggest that other mycobacterial species present in the environment may have played a role in cross-immunity.

2. Clarification of the Decline Hypothesis:

o The current hypothesis emphasizes tuberculosis-leprosy co-infection, climate change, and improved living conditions as key factors in the decline of leprosy.

o Suggested Revision: While these factors are valid, it would be beneficial to explore the role of urbanization, changing human demographics, and potential shifts in animal host populations that could have influenced transmission dynamics.

3. Contextualizing the Findings with Modern Epidemiology:

o The discussion draws valuable parallels between historical and modern leprosy cases. However, additional references to contemporary One Health approaches in leprosy control would strengthen this connection.

o Suggested Revision: Briefly mention current One Health initiatives that address zoonotic transmission of leprosy (e.g., armadillos in the Americas as reservoirs of M. leprae) and how similar dynamics might have played a role in historical contexts.

4. Minor Edits for Clarity and Consistency:

o Ensure consistency in the use of terminology, particularly in references to ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ RMS.

o Some sections could benefit from minor grammatical improvements for readability.

o This also applies to the styling of the references.

5. Selection of references is only partly accounted for:

There is a discrepancy between the 86 in the systematic review and the overall 134 references. 40% of the references are not accounted for.

Reviewer #3: This paper aims to bring together all of the evidence from published leprosy cases from across the globe with a view to better understanding its evolutionary history, temporal geographic spread and changes in lesion presentation. It does this through a literature review and some reassessment of images. The paper is generally well written and within the scope of interest of the journal readership. That being said, I have some major reservations about the work that need addressing before it can be accepted for publication. I hope that these comments are useful for the authors so that they make get their work published.

A major problem with this paper is that there is a lack of critical thought about the palaeopathological data, its limitations and meaning. While I think what the authors suggest from the data is probably correct, there are multiple explanations for what they have observed and these should be addressed. In addition, there is no specific research question(s), or aims which means the results and discussion is a bit haphazard and unfocused. A hypothesis or two would help here.

A significant limitation is that the sample is pre-selected for having leprosy. That is, the lesions were usually distinct enough that someone was confident that the individual could be diagnosed with leprosy in the first place. In sticking only to cases that they can be confident in recognising then we are really only looking at the most severe manifestation of the disease. Given we miss the cases of leprosy without skeletal lesions, or discard the ones with less obvious lesions, it is very difficult to compare what we have with modern data generally. Furthermore, when talking about disease presence/prevalence, we also have to be very careful (discussion page 22). The presence of leprosaria in particular are problematic because they may be acting to concentrate cases giving a perception that the disease was becoming increasingly common. To understand this, we would need to know far more about leprosaria and what their ‘catchments’ may have been as well as more precise dating of burials - this does not exist yet. This would then need to be considered with the context of increasing population size through time. Yes, there were more cases in the late medieval period, but the population was also much larger than it had been before!

This preselection for diagnostic leprosy cases is also problematic for understanding lesion patterns too. Those lesions that are diagnostic for leprosy are going to be inflated in comparison to other types. As such, I am not surprised that RMS was observed in 80% of cases given this is likely the clue that got them accepted as a case and then published! Additionally, the increase in RMS over time in England could well be because those in leprosaria were getting support so lived longer and developed more pronounced lesions. At Winchester, special feeding equipment was found. Furthermore, for the less diagnostic and non-specific lesions, we need to know how common they are they in the populations in general, and what can be attributed to the disease. What would be more interesting would be an aged-matched comparison of lesions from individuals in leprosaria with those outside leprosaria as this may tell us about efficacy of treatment and life outcomes of people with the condition.

This paper needs to discuss the current issues with inter and intraobserver error that exists between palaeopathologists. There is no detailed methodology for recording post cranial changes at present so what someone might score as present, another might not. This has been the significant factor that has really prevented such a large-scale study such as that presented here. It is simply very difficult to reliably compare data. How can you overcome this problem?

In many parts of the discussion, the authors draw attention to a number of issues or themes surrounding leprosy evolution/history yet they have not linked this to new data that they have produced. For example, the link between TB and leprosy and the decline of the latter, or the distributions of the strains. They need to explicitly show how their data adds new information to these discussions beyond what is already discussed in the references and citations, or remove it from the text.

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:  Toine Pieters

Reviewer #3: 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.]

Figure resubmission:

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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013374.r003

Decision Letter 1

Katharina Röltgen

10 Jul 2025

PNTD-D-24-01634R1LEPROSY IN SKELETONS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEWPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Deps,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases'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 within 30 days Aug 09 2025 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers '. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards, Katharina RöltgenAcademic EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Mathieu PicardeauSection EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements: 1) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a complete list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information file "PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx " after the references list.  Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The methods are adequately described

Reviewer #3: This work is much improved and I thank the authors for taking my comments on board.

I would suggest that they are clearer about whether the lesions scored for the post crania can be directly connected to leprosy or not. over 50% of femurs being affected is high, and importantly much higher than the tibia or fibula. This is highly irregular as the femur is rarely affected. Is this a typo?

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: There is a mistake in the closure date of the Batavia leprosarium in the table: it should be 1896

The results are clearly and completely presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I have two remarks with regard to the conclusions:

1. Try to include the reults of the follwing study: Urban C, Blom AA, Avanzi C, Walker-Meikle K, Warren AK, White-Iribhogbe K, Turle R, Marter P, Dawson-Hobbis H, Roffey S, Inskip SA, Schuenemann VJ. Ancient Mycobacterium leprae genome reveals medieval English red squirrels as animal leprosy host. Curr Biol. 2024 May 20;34(10):2221-2230.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.04.006.

2. In the twentieth century there still is endemic leprosy in Spain and Portugal: See: Suárez-García I, Gómez-Barroso D, Fine PEM. Autochthonous leprosy in Spain: Has the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae stopped? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Sep 16;14(9):e0008611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008611.

Ferreira PM, Rato IR, Rigor J, Mota M. Hansen's disease - a forgotten disease? JRSM Open. 2021 Aug 30;12(8):20542704211035995. doi: 10.1177/20542704211035995.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No modifications needed.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: I consider the authors have now revised their manuscript, taking into account the points raised in review or reasonably rebutted individual issues.

Reviewer #2: Okay apart from the false statement that leprosy in Europe was eliminated in the 19th century.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.]Figure resubmission: 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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013374.r005

Decision Letter 2

Katharina Röltgen

17 Jul 2025

Dear Professor Deps,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'LEPROSY IN SKELETONS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Katharina Röltgen

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Mathieu Picardeau

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

***********************************************************

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013374.r006

Acceptance letter

Katharina Röltgen

Dear Professor Deps,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "LEPROSY IN SKELETONS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Bone alteration criteria defining rhinomaxillary syndrome in leprosy paleopathology (see Box 1 in main article).

    (TIF)

    pntd.0013374.s001.tif (2.9MB, tif)
    S1 Appendix. Included references.

    Quality assessment tool. Quality assessment ratings. Data extraction. Included references (genomic). Quality assessment tool (genomic). Quality assessment ratings (genomic). Data extraction (genomic).

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013374.s002.xlsx (173.8KB, xlsx)
    S1 Table

    Table A. Bone lesions in skeletons with leprosy (N = 297). Table B. Bone lesions in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table C. Position and location of dental abscesses in skeletons with leprosy (N = 60). Table D. Possible and probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 167). Table E. Presence of any pathological alterations in post-cranial bones in skeletons with leprosy (N = 297). Table F. Long bone diaphysis in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table G. Diaphyseal destructive remodelling in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table H. Acroosteolysis in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table I. Septic bone changes in skeletons with leprosy by age group (N = 171). Table J. Long bone diaphysis in skeletons with leprosy by presence/absence of possible or probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) (N = 287). Table K. Diaphyseal destructive remodelling in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by presence/absence of possible or probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) (N = 287). Table L. Acroosteolysis in hand and foot bones from skeletons with leprosy by presence/absence of possible or probable rhinomaxillary syndrome (RMS) (N = 287).

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013374.s003.xlsx (74.1KB, xlsx)
    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0013374.s004.docx (32KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    pntd.0013374.s006.docx (56.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pntd.0013374.s007.docx (25.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are in the manuscript and its supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES