Skip to main content
Taylor & Francis Open Select logoLink to Taylor & Francis Open Select
. 2015 Jul 10;13(8):995–1029. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2015.1056158

Between a bug and a hard place: Trypanosoma cruzi genetic diversity and the clinical outcomes of Chagas disease

Louisa A Messenger a, Michael A Miles a, Caryn Bern b,*
PMCID: PMC4784490  PMID: 26162928

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, concomitant with successful transnational disease control programs across Latin America, Chagas disease has expanded from a neglected, endemic parasitic infection of the rural poor to an urbanized chronic disease, and now a potentially emergent global health problem. Trypanosoma cruzi infection has a highly variable clinical course, ranging from complete absence of symptoms to severe and often fatal cardiovascular and/or gastrointestinal manifestations. To date, few correlates of clinical disease progression have been identified. Elucidating a putative role for T. cruzi strain diversity in Chagas disease pathogenesis is complicated by the scarcity of parasites in clinical specimens and the limitations of our contemporary genotyping techniques. This article systematically reviews the historical literature, given our current understanding of parasite genetic diversity, to evaluate the evidence for any association between T. cruzi genotype and chronic clinical outcome, risk of congenital transmission or reactivation and orally transmitted outbreaks.

Keywords: cardiomyopathy, • Chagas disease, congenital transmission, diagnostics, genetic diversity, oral outbreaks, reactivation, treatment

Background

Chagas disease is the most important parasitic infection in Latin America, affecting an estimated 5–6 million individuals, with a further 70 million at risk [1]. The geographical range of the etiological agent, Trypanosoma cruzi (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae), extends from the southern USA to Argentinean Patagonia, where it is transmitted by more than 100 species of hematophagous triatomine bugs (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Triatominae) [2,3] to at least eight orders of domestic, synanthropic and sylvatic mammalian hosts [4]. Human disease occurs when infected triatomine feces enter through intact mucosa or abraded skin [5]. Oral transmission is an important secondary infection route, responsible for regional microepidemics of acute Chagas disease in areas often devoid of domestic triatomine species, for example, the Amazon Basin [6]. In recent years, a significant proportion of the infected population has emigrated from rural areas, leading to the urbanization of Chagas disease in endemic countries as well as internationally [7]. Chagas disease is now considered an emergent global public health problem associated with congenital transmission [8], blood transfusions [9] and organ transplantations [10].

Following T. cruzi exposure, human infection begins with an acute phase, lasting up to 3 months, during which circulating trypomastigotes can be visualized in peripheral blood films or buffy coat smears. Most individuals are asymptomatic or present with a non-specific, self-limiting febrile illness [8]. Mortality during the acute phase is rare (<1% of cases) and may result from severe myocarditis, pericardial effusion and/or meningoencephalitis [11]. Acute mortality occurs more frequently in infants and immunocompromised patients than other infected persons. Even in the absence of treatment, the acute phase spontaneously resolves in most individuals [8,11].

Chronic infection is initially asymptomatic and the majority of patients will remain clinically indeterminate for life. However, over a period of 10–30 years, approximately 20–30% of infected individuals will develop irreversible, potentially fatal cardiac syndromes (chronic chagasic cardiomyopathy [CCM]) and/or dilatation of the GI tract (megacolon or megaesophagus) [11]. Early CCM is typically characterized by conduction system abnormalities, particularly right bundle branch block and/or left anterior fascicular block, and premature ventricular contractions [12]. More advanced manifestations include ventricular tachycardia, high-degree atrioventricular block and progressive dilated cardiomyopathy with congestive heart failure [13]. Sudden death accounts for 30–65% of CCM-related mortality and can affect patients with end-stage heart disease as well as those who were previously asymptomatic [14]. Gastrointestinal (GI) megasyndromes are rarer than cardiac sequelae, resulting from denervation, decreased motility, sphincter dysfunction and eventual luminal dilatation of the esophagus and/or colon [15]. However, the prevalence of different clinical forms, especially digestive disease, varies considerably between geographical regions [16,17].

Clinical staging of CCM

Multiple expert committees have published guidelines for the standard evaluation of patients with chronic T. cruzi infection [18–20]. All recommend thorough history and physical examination, and at a minimum, a 12-lead ECG. Some committees also recommend echocardiograms and/or barium studies of the esophagus and colon. If all of these are normal, the patient is considered to have the indeterminate form of Chagas disease (IND). The expert committee convened by the US CDC advised that barium studies only be performed if the patient reported GI symptoms, based on the low prevalence of the digestive form of Chagas disease in Mexico and Central America, the source of most infected individuals in the USA [18]. This committee also recommended against performing echocardiograms on patients with no cardiac symptoms or ECG abnormalities, because significant abnormal findings on echocardiogram are rare in the absence of other indications of Chagas cardiomyopathy.

Several systems have been used to characterize the severity of CCM for clinical staging and epidemiological studies. The most commonly cited schemes are the modified Kuschnir classification, the Los Andes classification and the more recent system that incorporates the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association criteria for congestive heart failure staging [21–24]. All use similar general criteria, including specific ECG abnormalities plus chest radiography or echocardiogram to provide measures of left ventricular size and/or ejection fraction (see comparative table in [18]). However, many investigators add other modifications based on their own clinical experience, to provide finer scale classification or increase the specificity of staging [25,26]. Many ECG findings that are listed in these schemes to define early CCM, such as low voltage and right bundle branch block, occur in other cardiac diseases and are fairly common in older age groups, independent of T. cruzi infection status [27]. Others, such as moderate bradycardia and incomplete right bundle branch block, are normal variants in healthy young people [28]. While the most severe stage in any of the common classification schemes (equivalent to advanced congestive heart failure) is highly predictive of mortality [29], there is no obvious method to verify the clinical or epidemiological validity of criteria for the earlier stages. The use of heterogeneous classification schemes directly impedes comparisons of epidemiological studies of CCM severity and prevalence, and meta-analyses of the relationship between Chagas disease pathogenesis and T. cruzi strain diversity.

A brief history of T. cruzi taxonomy

T. cruzi is an ancient parasite, estimated to have diverged from its most recent common ancestor 3–4 million years ago [30], and as such, displays considerable genetic diversity. Current international consensus recognizes a minimum of six stable genetic lineages: TcI–TcVI [31]. A potential seventh bat-restricted genotype (TcBat), with genetic affiliations to TcI, has recently been reported in Central and northern South America [32–34]. Historically, the taxonomy of T. cruzi has been hindered by a lack of standardized molecular typing methods and the use of various alternative nomenclatures (Table 1) [35].

Table 1.

An overview of Trypanosoma cruzi historical and contemporary nomenclatures.

Term Technique     Ref.
DTU (current nomenclature)   I II III IV V VI   [31]
  SL-IR, 24Sα rRNA, 18S rRNA, Cytb, Histone H2B, ITS1 rDNA, 18S rRNA, gGAPDH             TcBat [32–34]
Putative intra-TcI subdivisions SL-IR Ia, Ib, Ic, Id, Ie             [48–51]
MLMT, mtMLST IDOM             [52,53,70]
DTU MLEE, RAPD, 24Sα rRNA, 18S rRNA I IIb IIc IIa IId IIe   [45,46]
Zymodeme MLEE ZI ZII ZIII/ZI ASAT ZIII Bolivian ZII Paraguayan ZII   [16,36,37,128,290–292]
MLEE ZB ZA ZC ZD ZB ZB   [293,294]
MLEE Z2, 5, 7, 10 or 12 Z4 or 11     Z1, 3 or 9   [295]
ITS-RFLP, 24Sα rRNA     ZIII-A ZIII-B       [296]
Biodemes MLEE III II     I I   [171]
Clonet MLEE 1–25 30–34 35–37 27–29 38, 39 40–43   [38]
Trypanosoma cruzi   T. cruzi I T. cruzi II T. cruzi T. cruzi T. cruzi T. cruzi   [44]
Lineage 24Sα rRNA, SL-IR, RAPD 2 1     1/2 1/2   [41]
24Sα rRNA, SL-IR 2 1 2′ 2′ 1 1   [42,43]
Clade TR, DHFR-TS, COII-ND1 A C B D B + C B + C   [60]
Riboclades 24Sα rRNA, 18S rRNA 2 1 3 4 3 1   [297]
Haplogroups MLMT, 24Sα rRNA, COII, ND1, Cytb ZZ YY XX   XY XY   [54]
TcMSH2 A C       B   [298]
Group Karyotyping C B   D A A   [154]
SL-IR II I   I I I   [299]
Reference strain   Sylvio X10/1 Esm cl3 M5631 cl5 CanIII cl1 Sc43 cl1 CL Brener    

Proposed by [47].

DHFR-TS: Dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase; gGAPDH: Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase; MLEE: Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; MLMT: Multilocus microsatellite typing; mtMLST: Maxicircle multilocus sequence typing; RAPD: Random amplification of polymorphic DNA; RFLP: Restriction fragment length polymorphism; SL-IR: Spliced-leader intergenic region; TR: Trypanothione reductase.

The earliest attempts to characterize T. cruzi strain variation, based on multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE), classified isolates into three major groups or ‘zymodemes I, II and III’ [36,37], which were later subdivided into 43 ‘clonets’ [38]. Subsequent genotyping of additional strains using MLEE [39], random amplification of polymorphic DNA [40] and nuclear loci [41–43] grouped isolates into two major lineages, designated T. cruzi I and T. cruzi II [44]. More recently, supported by MLEE and multilocus sequence typing, TcII was separated into TcIIa–e [45,46], which were latterly renamed as TcII–TcVI to remove any presumptive sublineage designations [31]. Each of the six former T. cruzi genetic lineages is now considered a discrete typing unit (DTU), defined as ‘a collection of strains that are genetically more closely related to each other than to any other strain and that share one or several specific characters’ [47]. However, the criteria for division, number of subgroups, and their precise biological and evolutionary relevance are still a popular subject of debate [48–57].

The principal reproductive mode of T. cruzi, in particular the relative contributions of clonality and sexuality to parasite population structures and the evolution of discrete DTUs, is also contentious [58,59]. DTUs TcI–TcIV form monophyletic clades and TcV and TcVI are known to be recent inter-lineage hybrids [30]. As such, TcI–TcIV are characterized by substantial allelic homozygosity, likely resulting from recurrent, dispersed, genome-wide gene conversion, while TcV and TcVI display natural heterozygosity and minimal distinction, sharing intact alleles from their parental progenitors (TcII and TcIII) [54,57,60–62].

Molecular epidemiology of T. cruzi

Molecular epidemiology studies have made substantial progress defining the phylogeographical and ecological niche of each T. cruzi lineage (Table 2) [63]. Sylvatic DTU distribution data are still largely aggregated due to differences in ease of capture between reservoir species, paucity of supporting ecological information and our inability to genotype subpatent zoonotic infections [64].

Table 2.

An overview of ecotopes, sylvatic vectors/hosts, geographical distributions and clinical associations of the major Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units.

DTU Ecological niche Domestic vectors Sylvatic vectors Sylvatic hosts Geographical distribution Clinical forms of human Chagas disease Ref.
TcI Primary: lowland tropical arboreal
Secondary: arid terrestrial
Triatoma dimidiata (Central America), Rhodnius, Panstrongylus (Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia)
Triatoma (Peru, Bolivia)
Primary: Rhodnius spp.
Secondary: Triatoma, Panstrongylus
Primary: Arboreal marsupials (Didelphis), primates, caviomorphs
Secondary: Terrestrial rodents (Phyllotis ocilae, Akodon boliviensis)
Primary: southern USA, Central and South America
Secondary: central Brazil and eastern Andean foothills
Cardiomyopathy
Sporadic in Southern Cone
[48–51,65,66,70,72–74,76,78,88,185,187,300,301]
TcII Rare in sylvatic cycles Triatomainfestans
Panstrongylus megistus
Atlantic forest primates Atlantic/central Brazil and Southern Cone Cardiomyopathy
GI megasyndromes
Congenital infections
[65,72,79–81,190,243,302],
TcIII Terrestrial, fossorial, lowland, arid and tropical Panstrongylus geniculatus
Panstrongylus lignarius
Triatomarubrovaria
Armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus, Euphractus sexcinctus, Chaetophractus) marsupials (Didelphis, Monodelphis), rodents, carnivores Northeastern Venezuela to Argentina Rare in humans [88–92,303]
TcIV Arboreal with terrestrial transmission in North America Rhodnius, Panstrongylus, Triatoma Primates, D. novemcinctus, Nasua nasua, Procyon lotor Southern USA and northern South America Secondary agent in Venezuela
Sporadic oral outbreaks in Brazilian Amazon
[16,66,68,93,95–99]
TcV Rare in sylvatic cycles
Putative peridomestic transmission among dogs
T. infestans Principally Southern Cone, Gran Chaco
Sporadic reports in Colombia and Ecuador
Cardiomyopathy
GI megasyndromes
Congenital infections
[73,82–84,87,135,168,200,304,305]
TcVI Rare in sylvatic cycles
Putative peridomestic transmission among dogs
T. infestans Principally Southern Cone, Gran Chaco
Sporadic reports in Colombia and Ecuador
Cardiomyopathy
GI megasyndromes
Congenital infections
[82–84,87]
TcBat Not described Chiroptera spp. Panama, central and south-east Brazil and Colombia One isolated human infection [32–34,101]

DTU: Discrete typing unit; GI: Gastrointestinal.

In general, TcI, TcII, TcV and TcVI are most frequently isolated from domestic cycles and responsible for the majority of human infections. TcI has the widest distribution; it is the principal cause of Chagas disease in Colombia and Venezuela [65–67] and ubiquitous in the sylvatic environment [68,69], primarily circulating in arboreal ecotopes between Didelphis species and the triatomine tribe Rhodniini [70,71], with secondary terrestrial transmission among rodents and sylvatic Triatoma species in the inter-Andean valleys of Argentina, Bolivia, Peru and Chile [72–77]. Multiple molecular markers consistently identify high levels of genetic diversity within sylvatic TcI populations [48–51,70,78], and divergent, but genetically homogeneous, strains associated with domestic vectors and human infections [52,53,70].

By comparison, TcII, TcV and TcVI are less genetically diverse overall [30] and appear largely confined to domestic transmission cycles in southern parts of South America [63]. The sylvatic reservoirs of these three DTUs are not fully defined, although TcII has been increasingly isolated from primates in Brazil [64,79–81]; peridomestic dogs are emerging as potential reservoirs of TcV and TcVI in the Gran Chaco region [82–85]. The geographical range of TcV and VI appears to be more extensive than previously suggested, with isolated reports of these hybrid DTUs as far north as Ecuador [86] and Colombia [87]. TcIII has a dispersed terrestrial distribution that extends from northeastern Venezuela to Argentina, where it is transmitted by Panstrongylus geniculatus to Dasypus novemcinctus and other fossorial mammals [88–92]. TcIV is poorly understood, principally because several genotyping methods fail to distinguish this lineage from others, especially from TcIII [42,93,94]. However, TcIV is known to circulate sympatrically with TcI in wild primates, Monodelphis and Dasypus spp. in the Amazon [95] and raccoons and dogs in North America [96]. TcIV is also increasingly detected in human disease, as a secondary agent of Chagas disease in Venezuela [16,66], and in recent oral outbreaks in the Brazilian Amazon [95,93,97–99]. As of now, TcIII and TcIV have only been sporadically detected in domestic transmission cycles, but this may be attributable to undersampling and the limited sensitivity of some genotyping methods [100]. Finally, TcBat, a new, genetically divergent and potentially human-infective lineage [101], has been isolated from Chiroptera species across Panama [33], Brazil [32] and Colombia [34].

T. cruzi clinical genotyping: perils & pitfalls

Establishing an association between T. cruzi genotype and clinical outcome is complicated by inherent biological features relating to parasite infection dynamics, as well as the limitations of our current repertoire of genotyping techniques. In humans [53,102–104], triatomine bugs [85,105,106] and mammalian reservoir hosts [88,107,108], mixed infections of distinct parasite clones are not exceptional but, in many cases, inevitable. In highly endemic areas, long-term inhabitants are repeatedly infected by multiple contacts with different triatomines [109], which in turn may have fed on various infected humans and/or mammals, depending on the local disease ecology.

Levels of intra-patient parasite multiclonality might be expected to increase proportionally with vector exposure. However, this assumes a constant force of infection, incomplete cross-genotypic immunity, and lack of genotype interaction (e.g., genotype displacement, reciprocal inhibition, potentiation or recombination) [110–114], transmission population bottlenecks (as observed in related trypanosomes [115]) or any additional mechanisms that might alter the establishment of secondary infections. The complexity of natural multiclonal parasite populations is largely unknown and our ability to detect them is restricted by genetic marker resolution [107,116]. The study of this phenomenon conventionally necessitates deriving biological clones from live parasite populations (by micromanipulation [117], limiting dilution [118], plating on semi-solid media [106] or FACS [116]), prior to genetic typing, which introduces a range of potential adaptation biases, discussed below.

Genotyping of T. cruzi can be performed either directly from clinical samples (blood or tissue biopsies) or following parasite isolation by hemoculture or xenodiagnosis. Due to the scarcity of parasites in peripheral blood, especially in chronically infected patients, the former method has limited sensitivity. The primary drawback associated with parasite isolation is selection bias for particular subpopulations, initially by preferential outgrowth due to faster dividing rates and/or culture media [55,119,120] and subsequently by loss of clonal diversity from serial maintenance in axenic culture or animals [121–126]. Hemoculturing is laborious; recovery rates are usually less than 30% among chronic patients [127] and almost entirely determined by parasite load and distribution within the starting sample. Xenodiagnosis, which can facilitate greater parasite recovery, has also been shown to vary depending on vector permissibility to local strains [128–130]. Furthermore, due to differential strain tropisms, circulating clones isolated by hemoculture or xenodiagnosis are often genetically distinct from those sequestered in tissues [102–104] and can vary even between sequential blood samples [131]. Together, these observations strongly suggest that intra-host parasite diversity is routinely underestimated.

A plethora of molecular genotyping techniques have been developed to characterize T. cruzi genetic diversity, with varying degrees of resolution, experimental ease, reproducibility, subjectivity and transferability (Table 3). Typing of genetic polymorphisms in conserved housekeeping genes can define major genetic lineages [41–43,45,46,61,132], while analysis of hypervariable loci such as microsatellites [70,89,133,134], or kinetoplast DNA (kDNA) minicircles [135–139] potentially allows identification of profiles specific to individual strains. Choice of typing methodology is principally determined by sample source, research objective and laboratory resources.

Table 3.

Overview of current and historical Trypanosoma cruzi genotyping methods.

Genotyping method Method description Example of genetic markers Reproducibility b/w assays Level of resolution Reagent cost Advantages Disadvantages Ref.
MLEE Measures differences in electrophoretic mobilities of isoenzymes ASAT, ALAT, PGM, ACON, MPI, ADH, MDH, ME, ICD, 6PGD, G6PD, GD, PEP, GPI High DTU level
Intra-lineage
Moderate Easy visual interpretation
Data amenable to numerical taxonomic analysis, for example, rates of similarity or genetic distance
Requires large quantities of parasite lysate from live strains [16,128,173,293,294,306]
RAPD Short random sequence primers used to amplify unknown DNA fragments to create unique band patterns N/A Low DTU level Low Can be performed directly on field samples
No prior sequence knowledge needed
Unlimited number of primers
Data amenable to numerical taxonomic analysis
Reproducibility issues
Dominant markers may conceal heterozygosity
Strain profiles may vary with DNA template amount and quality
[40,41,45,46]
kDNA-RFLP RFLP analysis of kinetoplast mHVR mHVR Low Intra-lineage Low Hypervariable markers
Can produce strain-specific profiles
Requires isolation of kDNA from live parasites
Strain profile inheritance may not be stable or correlate with nuclear typing
Potential problems of contamination due to very high copy number
[136]
kDNA hybridization Analysis of mHVR by radioactive probe hybridization mHVR Low DTU-level
Intra-lineage
  Hypervariable markers
Can produce strain-specific profiles
DNA probes may cross-react b/w DTUs
Potential problems of contamination due to very high copy number
[307,308]
Karyotyping (aCSDI) Comparison of chromosome size variation by PFGE separation and radioactive probe hybridization 1F8, cruzipan, FFAg6, Tc2, CA7.12, CA7.32, P19 Moderate DTU level Moderate Data amenable to numerical taxonomic analysis Requires live strains
Strain profiles may not be stable due to expansion/contraction of tandem repeats
Prone to convergence b/w unrelated strains
[144,154,155,309]
DNA fingerprinting Analysis of variability in nuclear minisatellites by restriction digestion and probe hybridization 33.15 Low Intra-lineage Low Hypervariable markers
Can produce strain-specific profiles
Requires live strains
Reproducibility issues
[156]
LSSP-PCR Analysis of size polymorphisms in mHVR amplified by LSSPs mHVR Low DTU level Low Highly sensitive
Can be used to detect Trypanosoma cruzi in infected tissues without parasite isolation
Reproducibility issues
Potential problems of contamination due to very high copy number
kDNA signatures may vary with DNA template amount and quality
[310–312]
SSCP Analysis of size polymorphisms in multicopy gene fragments SL-IR, 24Sα rRNA, 18S rRNA, cruzipain, P7-P8 Moderate DTU level Low Requires limited technical expertise Requires live strains
DTU assignment based on presence/absence of amplicons; insensitive to potential mutations in novel strains
Unknown intra-strain copy homology
[25,313,314]
PCR product size polymorphism Analysis of size polymorphisms in multicopy gene fragments SL-IR, 24Sα rRNA, 18S rRNA, A10 High DTU level Low Can be performed directly on field samples
Requires limited technical expertise
DTU assignment based on presence/absence of amplicons; insensitive to potential mutations in novel strains
Unknown intra-strain copy homology
[41–43]
PCR-RFLP RFLP analysis of multicopy gene fragments HSP60, GPI, COII, GP72, 1F8, histone H3, ITS, TcSC5D High DTU level Moderate Can be performed directly on field samples
Requires limited technical expertise
DTU assignment based on presence/absence of SNPs; insensitive to potential mutations in novel strains [94,158,315]
Nucleotide sequencing: nuclear loci (nMLST) SNP analysis of nuclear housekeeping gene fragments TcMSH2, DHFR-TS, TR, LYT1, Met-II, Met-III, TcAPX, TcGPX, TcMPX, HMCOAR, PDH, GTP, STTP2, RHO1, GPI, SODA, SODB, LAP High DTU level (intra-lineage) High Data amenable to MLST analysis
Data highly reproducible, portable and transferable b/w laboratories
Requires live strains
Level of intra-lineage resolution dependent upon analysis of multiple loci
[60,61,298,316]
Nucleotide sequencing: maxicircle loci (mtMLST) SNP analysis of mitochondrial gene fragments 12S rRNA, 9S rRNA, Cytb, MURF1, ND1, COII, ND4, ND5, ND7 High [DTU-level]
Intra-lineage
High Data amenable to MLST analysis
Data highly reproducible, portable and transferable b/w laboratories
Requires live strains
Potential phylogenetic incongruence with nuclear loci
Identifies three maxicircle classes (TcI, TcII and TcIII–VI); not specific to all six DTUs
[54,317,318]
Nucleotide sequencing: minicircle regions SNP analysis of mHVR mHVR High DTU level
Intra-lineage
High Hypervariable markers
Can produce strain-specific profiles
Strain profile may not be DTU specific; minor sequence classes shared b/w DTUs [137,138]
FFLB Analysis of size polymorphisms in multicopy gene fragments 28Sα rRNA, 18S rRNA High DTU level High Can be performed directly on field samples Unable to differentiate hybrid lineages (TcV and TcVI) [319]
HRM Analysis of amplicon melting temperatures generated by real-time PCR SL-IR, 24Sα rRNA High DTU level Moderate Data rapidly generated in real time Requires live strains
Difficult to standardize b/w laboratories
Requires specialized laboratory infrastructure
[320]
MLMT Analysis of size polymorphisms of microsatellite repeat regions 10101(CA)a, 11283(TA)b, 7093(TA)b, TcUn4, mclf10, 10187(CA)(TA), 6855(TA)(GA), 10359(CA), 8741(TA), 10187(TTA), 7093(TA)c Moderate DTU level
Intra-lineage
High Neutrally evolving, co-dominant, hypervariable markers
Can produce strain-specific MLGs
Requires live strains
Prone to homoplasy
Data interpretation highly subjective
[53,70,78,89,133,134,157,321]
Amplicon sequencing Analysis of millions of sequencing reads generated by Illumina deep sequencing TcGP63, ND5 High DTU level
Intra-lineage
Parasite multiclonality
Very high Can detect intra-host parasite multiclonality and genetic diversity Requires live strains
Prone to loss of clonal diversity from parasite isolation
Requires bioinformatics expertise, computational infrastructure and comparatively high cost reagents
[289]

aCSDI: Absolute chromosomal size difference index; DTU: Discrete typing unit; FFLB: Fluorescent fragment length barcoding; GPI: Glucose-6-phosphate isomerase; HRM: High-resolution melting; HSP60: Heat shock protein 60; kDNA: Kinetoplast DNA; LSSP: Low stringency single specific primer; mHVR: Minicircle hypervariable region; MLEE: Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; MLG: Multilocus genotype; MLMT: Multilocus microsatellite typing; mtMLST: Maxicircle multilocus sequence typing; nMLST: Nuclear multilocus sequence typing; PFGE: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; RAPD: Random amplification of polymorphic DNA; RFLP: Restriction fragment length polymorphism; SL-IR: Spliced-leader intergenic region; SNP: Single nucleotide polymorphism; SSCP: Single-stranded DNA conformation polymorphism.

Direct clinical genotyping is currently based on size polymorphisms in multi-copy genetic markers, including the nuclear spliced-leader intergenic region, 24α rDNA [41], 18S rDNA [46], A10 [135] and kinetoplast hypervariable minicircle sequences [136–139] (for more detailed descriptions of historical genotyping techniques, see [55,140,141]). One major confounder associated with the use of any multi-copy gene is the level of intra-clone copy number and position homology to ensure comparability between strains. Genome size [142,143], karyotype [144–148] and chromosomal arrangements of tandem repeat regions [149,150] are known to differ widely between natural T. cruzi strains and even biological clones derived from the same population. Similar caveats affect minicircle-based genotyping, which vary in copy number and complement between major DTUs [136,151], are susceptible to contamination [152] and whose profiles are highly sensitive to minor changes in reaction conditions, raising issues of reproducibility [121,153]. With many of these methods, strain DTU assignment is dependent on absence of PCR products/restriction fragment bands, which can also result from novel variation in as yet untested strains; a typing methodology is only as ‘good’ as the panel of reference strains used to validate it.

Additional genotyping options are available for axenic parasite cultures, including karyotyping [154,155], DNA fingerprinting [156] and microsatellite analyses [53,70,78,89,157]. To date, no single, widely validated genetic marker affords complete, unequivocal DTU resolution [158], and reliance on only one target is inadvisable given the potential confounding influence of genetic exchange [57]. The availability of reference whole genome sequences [159–162] has reinvigorated interest in exploring the relevance of T. cruzi genetic diversity to clinical outcomes of Chagas disease. However, comparative genomics of representative T. cruzi field isolates is not yet a reality, as is the case with other more experimentally tractable trypanosomatid species [163–165].

Methods for the systematic literature review

To date, few correlates of chronic disease progression and clinical manifestations have been identified, although both host and parasite genetics are presumed to be involved [140,166,167]. Herein, the authors systematically review the literature, given our current understanding of T. cruzi genetic diversity, to re-evaluate the evidence for any association between parasite genotype and clinical outcome, risk of congenital transmission or reactivation, and orally transmitted outbreaks.

Independent queries of the literature were performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science v5.15, EMBASE and Scopus, with no restrictions to language or calendar date. To retrieve chronic patient studies, the following search terms were used: ‘chronic’ or ‘patients’ AND ‘Chagas disease’ or ‘cruzi’ AND ‘DTU’ or ‘DTUs’ or ‘lineage’ or ‘lineages’ or ‘genotype’ or ‘genotypes’ or ‘genotyping’. To retrieve congenital studies, the following search terms were used: ‘congenital’ or ‘maternal’ or ‘neonate’ AND ‘Chagas disease’ or ‘cruzi’ AND ‘DTU’ or ‘DTUs’ or ‘lineage’ or ‘lineages’ or ‘genotype’ or ‘genotypes’ or ‘genotyping’. To retrieve reactivation studies, the following search terms were used: ‘HIV’ or ‘transplant’ or ‘reactivation’ AND ‘Chagas disease’ or ‘cruzi’ AND ‘DTU’ or ‘DTUs’ or ‘lineage’ or ‘lineages’ or ‘genotype’ or ‘genotypes’ or ‘genotyping’. To retrieve oral transmission studies, the following search terms were used: ‘oral’ or ‘acute’ AND ‘Chagas disease’ or ‘cruzi’ AND ‘DTU’ or ‘DTUs’ or ‘lineage’ or ‘lineages’ or ‘genotype’ or ‘genotypes’ or ‘genotyping’. In addition, reference lists from retrieved articles were manually checked to identify further relevant studies.

For cohorts of chronic chagasic patients, original research studies that met all of the following criteria were included: at a minimum, patients were classified as ‘acute’, ‘indeterminate’ (i.e., asymptomatic) or ‘chronic’ (i.e., symptomatic) following clinical examination; T. cruzi genotyping was performed on a subset of infected patients, at least to DTU level; and results were reported with reference to a recognizable T. cruzi nomenclature scheme, as detailed in Table 1.

For reactivation patients, original research studies that met all of the following criteria were included: patients were clinically classified as immunocompromised by confirmation of HIV co-infection or following organ transplantation; T. cruzi genotyping was performed on a subset of infected patients, at least to DTU level; and results were reported with reference to a recognizable T. cruzi nomenclature scheme (Table 1).

For congenital patients, original research studies that met all of the following criteria were included: neonatal T. cruzi infection was established at birth, or shortly thereafter, but prior to early childhood to be considered ‘congenitally infected’; T. cruzi genotyping was performed on a subset of infected neonates and/or mothers, at least to DTU level; and results were reported with reference to a recognizable T. cruzi nomenclature scheme (Table 1). An additional criterion (T. cruzi genotyping performed on matched mother–infant samples) was dropped when the initial literature search indicated that it would have excluded all but three articles with a total of 23 mother–infant pairs [135,168,169].

For oral outbreaks, original research studies that met all of the following criteria were included: oral transmission was confirmed on the basis of epidemiological indicators (e.g., familial clustering), incrimination of the contaminated food source, clinical presentation (severe acute morbidity and/or mortality) or exclusion of local vector-borne transmission; T. cruzi genotyping was performed on a subset of infected patients, at least to DTU level; and results were reported with reference to a recognizable T. cruzi nomenclature scheme (Table 1).

Exclusion criteria included articles in languages other than English or Spanish, unpublished reports (including dissertations or conference abstracts), papers presenting solely animal data, book chapters, prospective study protocols and review articles. Patient case studies with sample size <5 were excluded from the analysis of chronic chagasic patients. Because the literature for congenital, reactivation and oral transmission is sparse by comparison, we included all publications in these categories that provided genotyping data from human-derived specimens within a recognizable T. cruzi nomenclature scheme.

Chronic Chagas disease

The earliest evidence that chronic Chagas disease manifestations may differ according to parasite strain came from reports of geographical variation, in which the rarity of megasyndromes in Venezuela compared to central and eastern Brazil was circumstantially linked to radical genetic differences between T. cruzi zymodemes (Table 4) [16,17]. Based on the electrophoretic mobilities of 6 [36] to 18 isoenzymes [170], ZI (TcI) was the principal zymodeme identified in chronic patients (19/19) and domestic (13/13) and sylvatic vectors and mammals (18/20) in Venezuela. By comparison, in central and eastern Brazil, ZII (TcII) was the most prevalent zymodeme in acute and chronic patients (98/99) and domestic transmission cycles (9/9), but not sylvatic reservoirs (ZI [TcI]: 23/25; ZIII [TcIV]: 2/25). This dichotomy between principal parasite types was reinforced by parallel observations from other regions of Brazil [37,129,171,172]. In Belém, north Brazil, ZI (TcI) and ZIII (TcIV) were incriminated in oral outbreaks and both were found circulating among acute cases (3/7 and 4/7, respectively) and the sylvatic environment (ZI [TcI]: 106/118; ZIII [TcIV]: 6/118; ZIII ASAT [TcIII]: 6/118) [16], while to the south-east, ZII (TcII) was associated with chronic human Chagas disease in São Felipe, Bahia [37]. In neighboring parts of Goiás, Bahia and Minas Gerais, comparable proportions of ZI (TcI) and ZII (TcII) were isolated from acute cases, with similar clinical courses, but only ZII was identified in chronic patients presenting a range of cardiac and digestive symptoms [129,173].

Table 4.

Summary of clinical Chagas disease publications, which included genotyping to discrete typing unit level by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis: years 1980–2002.

Study region, country, year Sample size and clinical classification Type of clinical sample Method of clinical classification Patient DTU Genotyping methodology Ref.
Endemic regions, Argentina (1992)§ 15 acute
12 IND
5 CCM
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnoses ND Acute: 7 TcI (Z2, Z12), 8 TcV (Z1)
IND: 2 TcI (Z2, Z12), 10 (83%) TcV (Z1)
CCM: 3 (60%) TcI (Z2, Z12), 1 TcII (Z11), 1 TcV (Z1)
MLEE (6 loci) [180] [178]
Endemic regions, Argentina (1993)§ 15 acute
14 IND
8 CCM
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnoses ND Acute: 7 TcI (Z2, Z12), 8 TcV (Z1)
IND: 1 TcI (Z2, Z12), 13 (93%) TcV (Z1)
CCM: 6 (75%) TcI (Z2, Z12), 1 TcII (Z11), 1 TcV (Z1)
MLEE (10 loci) [180] [295]
Endemic regions, Argentina (1996) 7 acute
35 IND
19 CCM
1 CCM-DIG
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnoses Chest x-ray
ECG [322]
Acute: 4 TcI (Z2, Z12), 3 TcV (Z1)
IND: 4 TcI (Z2, Z12), 1 TcII (Z11), 30 (86%) TcV (Z1)
CCM: 10 (53%) TcI (Z2, Z12), 2 TcII (Z11), 7 TcV (Z1)
CCM-DIG: 1 TcII (Z11)
MLEE (6 loci) [180] [177]
Goiás, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Brazil (1986) 25 acute
1 IND
1 CCM
7 ME
3 CCM-DIG
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnoses Chest x-ray
ECG
Barium swallow
Barium enema [172,323]
Acute: 12 TcI (ZI), 13 (52%) TcII (ZII)
IND (1), CCM (1), ME (7), CCM-DIG (3): all TcII (ZII) (100%)
MLEE (15 loci) [128] [129]
Amazonian, central and eastern, Brazil; Venezuela (1981) Venezuela:
11 IND
8 CCM
Amazonian Brazil:
7 acute
CE Brazil:
99 acute and chronic
Patient cultures from xenodiagnoses, hemoculturing or animal inoculations ND Venezuela: IND (11), CCM (8): 19 (100%) TcI (ZI)
Amazonian Brazil:
Acute: 3 TcI (ZI), 4 TcIV (ZIII)
CE Brazil:
Acute and chronic: 1 TcI1 (ZI), 98 (99%) TcII (ZII)
MLEE (6–18 loci) [36,70] [16]
Bahia, Brazil (1980) 22 acute
12 IND
21 CCM
1 ME/MC
1 congenital
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnoses and hemoculturing ND Acute: 11 TcI (ZI), 11 TcII (ZII)
IND: 12 TcII (ZII) (100%)
CCM: 1 TcI (ZI), 20 TcII (ZII) (95%)
ME/MC: 1 TcII (ZII)
Congenital: 1 TcII (ZII)
MLEE (6 loci) [36] [173]
Cochabamba, Potosí, Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija, Tupiza, Valle Grande, Yungas, Bolivia (1989) 11 IND
10 CCM
6 MC
3 CCM-DIG
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnosis ECG
Barium swallow
Barium enema
IND: 6 TcI (Clonet 7, 19, 20), 5 TcV (39)
CCM: 6 TcI (7, 19, 20), 4 TcV (39)
MC: 5 TcI (7, 19, 20), 1 TcV (39)
CCM-DIG: 3 mixed TcI + V (7/19/20 + 39)
MLEE (12 loci) [181] [174]
Regions II, III and IV, Chile (1987) 53 IND
49 CCM
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnosis ECG IND: 7 TcII (Brazilian ZII), 46 (87%) TcV (Bolivian ZII)
CCM: 2 TcI (ZI), 9 TcII (Brazilian ZII), 38 (78%) TcV (Bolivian ZII)
MLEE (8 loci) [36] [176]
Regions II, III and IV, Chile (1987) 63 IND
36 CCM
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnosis ECG IND: 8 TcII (Brazilian ZII), 55 (87%) TcV (Bolivian ZII)
CCM: 2 TcI (ZI), 8 TcII (Brazilian ZII), 26 (72%) TcV (Bolivian ZII)
MLEE (5 loci) [36] [175]
El Oro, Zamora Chinchipe, Ecuador (2002) 3 IND
1 CCM
4 CCM-DIG
2 DIG
Parasite cultures ECG
Chest x-ray Barium swallow
Barium enema
IND: 1 TcI (ZI), 1 TcIV (ZIII), 1 TcV (Bolivian ZII)
CCM: 1 TcV (Bolivian ZII)
CCM-DIG: 1 TcI (ZI), 2 TcIV (ZIII), 1 TcV (Bolivian ZII)
DIG: 2 TcV (Bolivian ZII)
MLEE (19 loci) [324] [86]
Pr. Hayes, San Pedro, Central, Caaguazú, Cordillera, Paraguari, Paraguay (2001) 8 acute
2 IND
1 CCM
1 congenital
Patient cultures from xenodiagnoses, hemoculturing or animal inoculations ND Acute: 4 TcII (Brazilian ZII), 4 TcVI (Paraguayan ZII)
IND: 1 TcII (Brazilian ZII), 1 TcV (Bolivian ZII)
CCM: 1 TcII (Brazilian ZII)
Congenital: 1 TcV (Bolivian ZII)
MLEE (15 loci) [325] [326]

Refers to number of clinical samples genotyped to DTU-level only, not total cohort size.

Genotypes have also been listed according to current DTU nomenclature [31] with original classification in parentheses.

§Unspecified degree of overlap in patient populations from these two studies.

CCM: Chagas cardiomyopathy; DIG: Digestive, target organ unspecified; DTU: Discrete typing unit; IND: indeterminate; ND: Not described; MC: Megacolon; ME: Megaesophagus.

Further south, most clinical reports supported the principal involvement of Bolivian ZII (TcV) in chronic Chagas disease [174–176]. In northern Chile, the majority of patients, regardless of symptom status, were infected with Bolivian ZII (TcV) (64/85 and 101/116 CCM and IND patients, respectively) [175,176]. However, one study in Bolivia detected TcI (clonet 7, 19 or 20) and TcV (clonet 39) in almost equal proportions (17/27 and 10/27, respectively) from both IND and symptomatic chronic individuals [174]. The latter study was one of the first to describe a number of mixed infections (as either a mixed isoenzyme profile or different isoenzyme profiles from sequential parasite samples from an individual patient), including three patients with TcI/TcV (clonets 7, 19 or 20 and 39) co-infections presenting both cardiac and digestive abnormalities [174]. Finally, in Argentina, stronger evidence of a link between parasite genetics and progression to symptomatic disease was reported, with TcV prevailing in the IND form (30/35 [86%]) and CCM significantly more associated with TcI (10/14 [71%]) than TcV (7/37 [19%]) [177].

To date, these remain some of the largest cross-sectional studies in which infecting T. cruzi genotype was directly examined in conjunction with patient clinical data (Table 4). Investigators noted that digestive Chagas disease was frequent in the Southern Cone, coinciding with the absence of TcI and preponderance of TcII/V, and drew a contrast with the rarity of digestive disease and predominance of TcI further north [16]. However, in these studies, very little genotypic data were obtained for digestive patients (n = 16; 5 TcI, 8 TcII and 3 TcV) compared to those with CCM (n = 159; 38 TcI, 43 TcII and 78 TcV) or without symptomatic disease (n = 217; 25 TcI, 30 TcII, 1 TcIV and 161 TcV) (Table 4). Furthermore, some of the aforementioned experimental design and biological limitations must be acknowledged alongside these observations. In all of these early reports, MLEE was performed using lysate prepared from parasites isolated through a combination of hemoculture, xendiagnosis and/or inoculation into animals [129,173] and in each study, positive hemocultures were obtained for less than one-third of patients (107/391 in Chile [176] and 14/111 in Brazil [129]). Mixed infections were identified by a handful of investigators who undertook biological cloning of strains or sequential sampling [174,178], but were not routinely investigated. At the time, research groups were using separate MLEE protocols (although latterly determined to be comparable [179]), different and varying standards of clinical classification (some omitting any GI examination altogether) [36,128,170,180,181], and finally confusing and conflicting T. cruzi strain nomenclatures [1,16,42,43,129,177,174,176], hindering any prospective meta-analysis across endemic regions.

With improved molecular techniques and the advent of direct genotyping from clinical specimens, current evidence suggests that parasite strains detected in peripheral blood from patients with or without morbidity reflect the principal lineage circulating in the local domestic cycle (Table 5). However, it should also be noted that due to differential strain tropisms, bloodstream parasites are not necessarily the same genotype responsible for pathology [140]. In studies from northern Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Panama, TcI predominates in both IND and CCM groups [182–187]; a minority of infections in Colombia were attributable to TcII (5/26 IND and 6/41 CCM) [183,184]. The two largest recent endeavors to compare T. cruzi genotypes in symptomatic versus asymptomatic Chagas disease patients were conducted in Argentina (n = 172) [188] and Bolivia (n = 132) [189] and support the association of chronic infection, independent of symptom status, with TcII/V/VI (149/149 IND, 98/98 CCM, 5/5 CCM-megacolon (MC) and 40/44 MC). Despite the use of more sensitive molecular genotyping techniques, results for approximately 30–50% of specimens were missing due to low parasite load in peripheral blood. Additional smaller studies also corroborate these observations with domestic genotypes detected in both patients’ blood [190,191] and cardiac, esophagus and colon tissue specimens [192,193].

Table 5.

Summary of clinical Chagas disease publications, which included genotyping to discrete typing unit level: years 2005–2014.

Study region, country, year Sample size and clinical classification Type of clinical sample Clinical classification Patient DTU Genotyping methodology Ref.
Endemic and non-endemic regions Argentina (2012) 95 IND
69 CCM (blood)
8 CCM (heart tissue)§
Venous blood
Tissue: explanted heart, endomyocardial
ND IND: 1 TcII/VI, 34 TcII/V/VI (36%), 54 TcV (57%), 1 TcVI, 5 TcV or TcV + II/VI
CCM (blood): 50 (72%) TcII/V/VI, 16 (23%) TcV, 1 TcII/VI, 2 TcV or TcV + TcII/VI
CCM (tissue): 3 (38%) TcI, 2 (25%) TcII/VI, 2 (25%) TcII/V/VI, 1 TcVI
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 (all) [135]
[188]
Cochabamba, Bolivia (2006) 18 MC Colon tissue ND MC: 2 TcII, 16 TcV (89%) kDNA
Southern blots [137,327]
[192]
Santa Cruz, Bolivia (2010) 54 IND
29 CCM
5 CCM-MC
15 MC
29 MC-UK cardiac status
Venous blood ECG
Colon x-ray
Barium enema
IND: 1 TcII, 9 (17%) TcI/V, 44 (81%) TcV
CCM: 2 TcII, 6 (21%) TcI/V, 20 (69%) TcV, 1 TcVI
CCM-MC: 1 TcII/V, 4 TcV
MC: 3 TcI/V, 1 TcII/V, 11 (73%) TcV
MC-UK: 4 TcI, 3 TcII, 4 TcI/V, 1 TcI/II/V, 17 TcV (59%)
kDNA
Southern blots [327]
[189]
Manaus, Brazil (2014) 11 IND
2 CCM
Xenodiagnoses feces ND IND: 11 (100%) TcI
CCM: 2 (100%) TcI
Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
kDNA
COII [54]
[182]
Goiás, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Brazil (2009) 27 IND
17 CCM
Parasite cultures from hemoculturing ECG
Chest x-ray
Echocardiogram
IND: 26 TcII (96%), 1 TcIII
CCM: 16 TcII (94%), 1 TcV/VI
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [135]
Microsatellites (9 loci) [102]
kDNA
COII [54]
[190]
Minas Gerais, Brazil (2006) 8 IND
19 CCM
10 ME
2 MC
18 CCM-ME
3 CCM-MC
10 CCM-MC-ME
Parasite cultures from hemoculturing ECG
Barium swallow
Barium enema
IND: 8 Trypanosoma cruzi II
CCM: 19 T. cruzi II
ME: 10 T. cruzi II
MC: 2 T. cruzi II
CCM-ME: 18 T. cruzi II
CCM-MC: 3 T. cruzi II
CCM-MC-ME: 10 T. cruzi II
Nuclear
24Sα rDNA [41]
[191]
Goiás, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Brazil (2005) 11 CCM
16 ME
1 MC
Tissues: heart, esophagus, colon
ND CCM: 11 T. cruzi II
ME: 16 T. cruzi II
MC: 1 T. cruzi II
Nuclear
24Sα rDNA [193]
[193]
IV, V and Metropolitan regions, Chile (2009) 17 IND
13 CCM
Venous blood
(XD results excluded)
ECG
Chest x-ray
Echocardiogram
IND: 1 TcII, 1 TcI + II, 2 TcII + hybrid, 13 (76%) TcI + II + hybrid
CCM: 1 TcI, 1 TcII, 1 TcII + hybrid, 10 (77%) TcI + II + hybrid
kDNA
Southern blots [327]
[197]
IV, V and Metropolitan regions, Chile (2010) 33 IND
28 CCM
Venous blood
(XD results excluded)
ECG
Chest x-ray
Echocardiogram
IND: 26 (79%) TcI, 5 TcII, 1 TcIII, 1 TcV\VI
CCM: 16 (57%) TcI, 6 TcII, 6 TcIII
Nuclear
Microsatellites (3 loci)
[198]
IV region, Chile (2013) 28 IND
24 CCM
Venous blood ND IND: 24 (86%) TcI, 3 TcII, 1 TcIII
CCM: 17 (71%) TcI, 6 TcII, 1 TcIII
Nuclear
Microsatellites (3 loci) [133]
[199]
Santander, Colombia (2010) 28 IND
31 CCM
Venous blood ECG
Holter echocardiogram
IND: 21 (75%) TcI, 5 TcII, 2 TcI + II
CCM: 27 (87%) TcI, 4 TcII
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [41]
kDNA
COII [54]
[183]
Santander, Colombia (2011) 10 CCM Cardiac tissue (autopsy) Pathology only CCM: 8 (80%) TcI, 2 TcII Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
[184]
Endemic regions, Guatemala and Mexico (2005) Guatemala: 3 Acute
1 IND
Mexico: 1 Acute
4 IND
7 CCM
Parasite cultures from hemoculturing ECG
Chest x-ray
Acute: 4 (100%) TcI
IND: 5 (100%) TcI
CCM: 7 (100%) TcI
Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
[185]
Endemic regions, Mexico (2013) 3 Acute
11 IND
6 CCM
Parasite cultures from hemoculturing ND Acute: 3 (100%) TcI
IND: 11 (100%) TcI
CCM: 6 (100%) TcI
Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
[186]
Endemic regions, Panama (2006) 5 acute
7 IND
11 CCM
Xenodiagnoses and hemoculturing ND Acute: 5 (100%) TcI
IND: 7 (100%) TcI
CCM: 11 (100%) TcI
Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
[187]

Patients classified as indeterminate if no barium studies are performed, patients with megacolon by barium studies but no ECG are classified as MC-UK cardiac status.

XD omitted as specimens could not be matched to patients.

§Same heart explants reported in [104].

Participants in follow-up after allopurinol clinical trial. Unspecified degree of overlap in patient populations in these three studies.

CCM: Chagas cardiomyopathy; DTU: Discrete typing unit; IND: Indeterminate; kDNA: Kinetoplast DNA; ME: Megaesophagus; MC: Megacolon; ND: Not described; SL-IR: Spliced-leader intergenic region; UK: Unknown status; XD: Xenodiagnostic data.

One recent method, developed to circumvent some of these technical limitations, is to adopt an indirect approach, exploiting serological detection of antibodies produced in response to DTU-specific T. cruzi antigens, with the advantage of potentially revealing both historical and contemporary infecting parasite lineages. Consistent with genotypic data from the same area, serosurveys in southern endemic regions using recombinant peptides directed at trypomastigote small surface antigen indicate pervasive infection with TcII/V/VI [194,195] and even a putative association of ECG abnormalities with seroreactivity to this particular protein [196].

Lastly, on a more cautionary note, three publications from Chile report conflicting genotypic data from patients in longitudinal follow-up after a clinical trial of allopurinol and itraconazole (Table 5) [197–199]. In the first publication, using kDNA Southern blots, more than 75% of the results in both groups were described as ‘TcI + TcII + hybrid’ [197], perhaps reflecting cross-reactivity between minicircle hybridization probes [200]. Subsequent papers presenting nuclear microsatellite genotyping from patients from the same clinical trial, with unspecified degrees of overlap, demonstrated a predominance of TcI (79% of 33 IND and 57% of 28 CCM in [198]; 86% of 28 IND and 71% of 24 CCM in [199]).

Chagas disease reactivation

Reactivation of Chagas disease may occur in infected individuals who become immunocompromised through immunosuppressive treatment (e.g., transplant recipients) or co-infection with HIV [11,201]. Reactivation is characterized by increased parasite multiplication, a return to microscopically detectable parasitemia levels and symptoms more typical of acute T. cruzi infection, including meningoencephalitis, acute myocarditis and skin chagomas [201]. High parasite loads lead to more frequent strain identification in immunocompromised than immunocompetent patients [188]. In addition, the loss of immunological control may allow parasites previously sequestered in deep tissues to replicate and return to the circulation. Thus, patients with reactivation arguably provide the best in vivo indicator of the complexity of natural infections in humans [102–104].

Compared to results from immunocompetent individuals, the detection of patent mixed infections is striking in some immunocompromised patients, with multiple genotypes in a single specimen or different genotypes in tissue compared to blood (Table 6). TcI, hypothesized to have cardiac muscle tropism, demonstrated contrasting distributions in tissue versus blood in immunocompetent patients (38% in cardiac tissue vs 0% in blood) [188], but was detected at equal frequencies in tissue and blood from cardiac transplant patients with reactivation (31% in tissue vs 33% in blood) (Table 6) [188]. This result may reflect unmasking of mixed infections that were below the level of detection prior to reactivation.

Table 6.

Summary of clinical publications which included genotyping to discrete typing unit level in immunosuppressed patients with Trypanosoma cruzi reactivation.

Study region, country, year Sample size and clinical classification Type of clinical sample Patient DTU Genotyping methodology Ref.
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2005) 1 HIV-Trypanosoma cruzi co-infected patient with CNS reactivation Venous blood
Brain biopsy
Blood: TcV
Brain: TcII/VI
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[328]
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2008) 1 HIV-T. cruzi co-infected patient with CNS reactivation Venous blood
CSF
Blood: TcV/VI
CSF: TcI
Nuclear
SL-IR, 24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[103]
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009) 10 HIV-T. cruzi co-infected patients with CNS reactivation Different combinations of blood, CSF, brain tissue 4 Pts (8, 9, 13, 17): blood TcV
Pt10: blood TcV, brain TcII
Pt11: blood TcI + TcV, CSF TcI
Pt12: blood UD, brain TcV
Pt14: blood TcV, CSF UD
Pt15: CSF TcII/V/VI
Pt16: blood UD
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[329]
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2010) 6 patients post-heart transplantation with reactivation in heart (1), skin (4), and heart and skin (1) Blood, heart, skin 4 patients with blood–skin: 2 TcI in both, 1 TcV in both, 1 TcI in blood, TcII/VI in skin
1 with blood-heart: TcV in both
1 with blood–heart–skin: TcVI in all
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[104]
Argentina (2012) 25 patients with reactivation due to HIV or post-cardiac transplant Blood, heart, skin, brain Blood: 7 TcI, 1 TcII, 7 TcV, 1 TcII/VI, 4 TcV or V + II/VI, 1 TcVI
Tissue: 4 TcI, 2 TcII, 2 TcV, 2 TcII/VI, 1 TcV or V + II/VI, 2 TcVI
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[188]
Argentina (2013) 5 recipients of contaminated organ transplants Blood Pt1A (lung): TcV or TcV + TcVI
3 Pts (1B, 2A, 3A; liver): TcV or TcV + TcVI
Pt4A (kidney): TcV or TcV + TcVI
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[330]
Brazil (2002) 1 HIV-T. cruzi co-infected patient with CNS reactivation Blood, CSF Blood: T. cruzi II
CSF: T. cruzi II
Nuclear
24Sα rDNA [41]
[331]
Brazil (1999) 28 HIV-T. cruzi co-infected patients
18 T. cruzi infected patients
Parasite cultures from xenodiagnosis HIV+: 25 TcII (Clonet 30, 32), 1 TcV (39), 2 TcVI (43)
HIV−: 17 TcII, 1 TcV
Nuclear
MLEE (21 loci) [324]
RAPD [39]
[332]
Colombia (2014) 1 HIV-T. cruzi co-infected patient with CNS reactivation Post-mortem heart and brain tissue Mixed TcI sylvatic/TcIDOM in heart, only TcI sylvatic in brain Nuclear
SL-IR, 24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[333]

Unspecified degree of overlap with [104,328,329].

CSF: Cerebral spinal fluid; DTU: Discrete typing unit; MLEE: Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; RAPD: Random amplification of polymorphic DNA; Pt: Patient; SL-IR: Spliced-leader intergenic region; UD: Undetectable.

Current data are insufficient to evaluate any association between strain and clinical symptoms or risk of reactivation. Analyses need to be designed to account for known risk factors for reactivation (severity of immunocompromise and specific immunosuppressive regimens) [201]. The most powerful design is a longitudinal approach, for example, in end-stage CCM patients evaluated for heart transplantation, combined with parasitological monitoring following surgery. However, pre- and post-immunosuppression comparisons are difficult, given that genotyping from blood of immunocompetent patients is limited by low peripheral parasitemia [104].

Congenital Chagas disease transmission

With improved vector control, congenital transmission has become proportionately more important among chronically infected populations, estimated to account for 22% of new T. cruzi cases in 2015 [1]. Even if vector-borne transmission were interrupted today, infected girls and women will continue to transmit the infection to their children, sustaining the cycle across generations in the absence of the vector [202].

Congenital T. cruzi infection is most often clinically silent, but can cause a spectrum of presentations, including low birth weight, prematurity and low Apgar scores to meningoencephalitis, hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, thrombocytopenia and respiratory distress syndrome [203–205]. Higher morbidity and mortality rates were described in the 1980s and 1990s compared to more recent cohort data [204,206]. Clinically severe congenital infection is reported to be associated with higher levels of neonatal parasitemia than less-severe or asymptomatic disease [207]. Congenital Chagas disease is also assumed to carry the same risk of chronic cardiac and/or GI manifestations as vector-borne infections.

Since the earliest descriptions of congenital T. cruzi infection [208–210], researchers have struggled to explain why vertical transmission is restricted to only a small proportion of infected mothers. Congenital transmission rates are highly variable both within and between endemic areas, ranging from 4.4 to 11.3% in Argentina [211–214], from 3.4 to 17.1% in Bolivia [204,205,215,216], from 0.2 to 5.2% in Brazil [217,218], from 2.5 to 11.1% in Chile [219–221] and from 5.6 to 10% in Paraguay [222,223]. Factors now known to be associated with higher risk of congenital transmission include younger maternal age (presumed to reflect more recent infection) [204], maternal and neonatal immunological responses [224,225], higher maternal parasitemia [168,205,214], and HIV and other immunodeficiencies [226,227]; the evidence for any influence of T. cruzi genetic diversity is more equivocal (Table 7). The majority of congenital genotyping studies have been performed in southern endemic areas, particularly Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, and in general, mirror the distribution of TcII/V/VI lineages observed among local chronic adult populations; additional studies are needed from regions of domestic TcI transmission in northern South and Central America [228,229].

Table 7.

Summary of congenital Chagas disease publications, which included genotyping to discrete typing unit level.

Region, country, year Sample size Type of clinical sample Maternal Trypanosoma cruzi DTU Neonate T. cruzi DTU Genotyping/serotyping methodology Ref.
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2013) 19 neonates Parasite hemocultures from neonatal blood ND TcI (n = 1)
TcV (n = 18)
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [41]
[214]
Endemic and non-endemic regions, Argentina (2012) 51 neonates Neonatal cord or venous blood ND TcV (n = 18)
TcII/V/VI (n = 6)
TcV or mixed V + II/VI (n = 27)
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
[188]
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2011) 35 mothers:
20 Argentinian, 6 Bolivian, 9 Paraguayan
Maternal sera (n = 26)
Maternal blood (n = 9)
Placenta (n = 2)
TcI (n = 1 Argentinan)
TcII/V/VI (n = 26; 17 Argentinian, 3 Bolivian and 6 Paraguayan)
ND Nuclear
SL-IR [135]
kDNA
Minicircle RFLPs [234]
Serology
TSSA-I/II [195]
[234]
Reconquista, Argentina (2010) 14 neonates Neonatal venous blood ND TcV (n = 7)
TcVI (n = 1)
TcII + TcV (n = 1)
TcII + TcVI (n = 1)
TcV + TcVI (n = 4)
kDNA
Southern blots [327]
mHVR-specific PCR [138]
[231]
Salta, Argentina (2009) 18 neonates Parasite hemocultures from neonatal cord and venous blood ND TcV (n = 18) Nuclear
MLEE (11 loci) [324]
RAPD [45]
kDNA
Southern blots [139,200]
[304]
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009) 2 neonates Neonatal venous blood ND TcV (n = 2) Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
A10 [135]
kDNA
Minicircle sequencing [137]
LSSP-PCR [312]
[334]
Buenos Aires, Argentina (2007) 5 mothers (transmitters)
13 mothers (non-transmitters)
38 neonates
Neonatal venous blood
Maternal blood
Transmitters: TcV (n = 5)
Non-transmitters:
TcI (n = 1)
TcV (n = 12)
TcII (n = 1)
TcV (n = 36)
TcI + TcV/VI (n = 1 – HIV co-infected)
Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [135]
A10
Microsatellites (4 loci) [321]
kDNA
Minicircle RFLPs
Minicircle sequencing [137]
[135]
Bahia, Brazil (1985) 7 mothers
(non-transmitters)
5 neonates
Parasite hemocultures from maternal and neonatal blood TcII (ZII; n = 7) TcII (ZII; n = 4)
TcV (Bolivian ZII; n = 1)
Nuclear
MLEE (9 loci) [36]
[335]
Cochabamba and Tarija, Bolivia (2007) 15 mothers
36 neonates (matched)
Maternal blood
Neonatal cord blood
TcV (n = 14)
TcVI (n = 1)
TcII (n = 1)
TcV (n = 34)
TcVI (n = 1)
kDNA
Southern blots [139,200]
[168]
Cochabamba and Tarija, Bolivia (2006) 17 mothers
41 neonates (unmatched)
Maternal blood
Neonatal cord blood
TcV (n = 16)
TcVI (n = 1)
TcII (n = 1)
TcV (n = 39)
TcVI (n = 1)
Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
SCAR [45]
kDNA
Southern blots [137]
Minicircle sequencing [139]
[200]
Cochabamba, Bolivia (1995) 31 neonates Neonatal cord or venous blood ND TcI (clone 20) (n = 3)
TcV (clone 39) (n = 7)
TcI + TcV (n = 4)
kDNA
Southern blots [139]
[336]
Chile (2014) 17 neonates Neonatal cord blood ND TcI (n = 2)
TcII (n = 2)
TcV (n = 5)
TcVI (n = 1)
TcI + TcII (n = 1)
TcI + TcV (n = 2)
TcII + TcV (n = 3)
TcII + TcVI (n = 1)
kDNA
Southern blots [139]
[337]
Province of Choapa, IV Region, Chile (2012) 3 mothers
3 neonates
Maternal blood
Neonatal cord blood
TcI + TcII + TcV (n = 3)
TcI + TcII + TcV (n = 2)
TcV (n = 1)
kDNA
Southern blots [139]
[169]
Province of Choapa, IV Region, Chile (2010) 20 mothers Maternal blood
Reported TcI and TcV single and mixed infections ND kDNA
Southern blots [139]
[219]
Murcia, Spain (mothers from Bolivia) (2013) 9 neonates Parasite hemocultures from neonatal venous blood ND TcV (n = 9) Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
24Sα rDNA
18S rDNA
A10 [46]
[338]

TcII/V/VI refers reactions to markers common to all three DTUs. TcII + TcV + TcVI refers to co-infections determined by markers specific to each DTU.

Refers to number of clinical samples genotype to DTU level only, not total cohort size.

DTU: Discrete typing unit; kDNA: Kinetoplast DNA; LSSP: Low stringency single specific primer; mHVR: Minicircle hypervariable region; MLEE: Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; ND: Not described; RAPD: Random amplification of polymorphic DNA; RFLP: Restriction fragment length polymorphism; SL-IR: Spliced-leader intergenic region.

A number of limitations prevent the accurate assessment of the interaction between T. cruzi genotype and risk of congenital transmission. Studies which examine congenital cohorts frequently perform genotyping only on maternal [219] or neonatal specimens [230], and those that incorporate both often present results from unmatched mothers and infants [200]. Even fewer studies compare parasite genotypes between mothers who transmitted to their infants and those who did not [135]. Due to the small volume of neonatal blood, most congenital genotyping is reliant on DTU-specific minicircle probes (Table 7) and some studies do not test for all lineages, but only those predicted to be found circulating locally (conventionally TcI, TcII, TcV and TcVI) [200,169,219]. Cross-reactivity between minicircle probes for closely related DTUs (TcII and TcVI) has been reported [168,200], which casts some doubt on studies detecting co-infections with these lineages [231]. Furthermore, most congenital genotyping studies are constrained by small sample sizes and suboptimal sensitivity of current conventional diagnostic methods. Microscopic examination in a single specimen fails to identify over half of infected neonates [205], and subsequent loss to follow-up is high [212,232,233], thereby routinely underestimating the rates of congenital transmission and providing only a fraction of potential parasite strains for genotyping.

Differential diagnostic sensitivities and rates of follow-up render it difficult to draw conclusions about geographical variation in congenital transmission. Multiple factors, including maternal immune response and parasite load, likely modify risk. Nevertheless, several observations support a contributory role for parasite genotype in congenital Chagas transmission risk. In Argentina, women with one congenitally infected child were significantly more likely to transmit to that child’s siblings than mothers who had not previously transmitted [234,235]. Considering the extent of T. cruzi genetic diversity at the intra-DTU level, it is unlikely that all representatives of a lineage would be equally permissible to vertical transmission, but it is conceivable that particular parasite clones may be better adapted for transplacental infection [235]. Animal data also support the possibility that some T. cruzi strains are more predisposed to vertical transmission than others [236].

To date, only one study has directly examined infected human placental tissue, detecting additional minicircle signatures not observed in matched maternal blood samples and tentatively supporting the existence of T. cruzi subpopulations with placental tropism [234]. Others have described parallel discordant minicircle profiles between paired maternal–neonate blood specimens, implying either the generation of novel mutations by rapid parasite multiplication during acute neonatal infection or selective transmission of parasite subpopulations [168]. In the only study to address neonatal morbidity, no significant association was found between DTU and clinical severity of congenital infection, but nearly all genotyped specimens in this study were classified as TcV [200].

In one of the aforementioned Argentinean studies, women from areas with high triatomine infestation had the lowest risk of congenital transmission compared to those with vector control (intermediate risk) or from urban areas that had never been infested (highest risk) [235]. These findings have been confirmed in the Bolivian Chaco region, where pregnant women who had resided longer in an infested house had significantly lower parasitemia and were less likely to transmit to their child, compared to those living in areas without vector infestation [237]. Sustained vector exposure and/or repeated re- or super-infection by T. cruzi may act as an immune booster, allowing women to maintain effective control of parasitemia, thereby decreasing their risk of congenital transmission.

Oral T. cruzi transmission and outbreaks of acute Chagas disease

T. cruzi trypomastigotes in triatomine feces are infectious when ingested by experimental animals [238], and consumption of infected vectors or contaminated material is considered the predominant transmission modality in non-human mammals [6]. Acute T. cruzi infections in humans attributed to oral transmission have been reported in increasing numbers in recent decades, especially in the Brazilian Amazon [6]. Three basic scenarios are described: sporadic cases in areas with sylvatic but not domestic vectors in which the attribution is one of exclusion [6]; small rural family- or village-based clusters of acute cases traced to shared food or drink [239–242]; and rare large outbreaks, sometimes in urban areas considered to be free of vectorial transmission, with an identified common source such as contaminated fruit or sugarcane juice [243–246]. Most outbreaks are small, often affecting family groups in the Amazon region, where the palm fruits açaí and baçaba are dietary staples easily contaminated by infected triatomine vectors that live in the trees themselves [241,247].

The largest reported outbreak, attributed to locally prepared guava juice, comprised 103 infections among students and staff at a school in Caracas [244]. Orally transmitted T. cruzi infection appears to be associated with more severe acute morbidity and higher mortality than vector-borne infection [239,244,248]. The most frequent symptoms are fever, dyspnea, myalgias, and generalized and facial edema; ECG changes are also common. In the Caracas outbreak, 75% of 103 infected individuals were symptomatic, 66% had ECG abnormalities, 20% were hospitalized and there was one death from acute myocarditis [244,248]. Among 13 patients infected in two outbreaks associated with contaminated sugarcane juice in northeastern Brazil, 92% had ECG abnormalities, 27% had left ventricular ejection fractions below 55% and two individuals (age 9 and 16 years) died of rapidly progressive congestive heart failure [249]. Among survivors, nearly all cardiac abnormalities resolved after treatment with benznidazole. The higher proportion of symptoms and severe morbidity and clustering of infections may facilitate easier detection of acute, oral infection compared to vectorial cases, and may contribute to the predominance of oral infections in acute Chagas disease surveillance data [6].

Because of logistical constraints, few outbreaks [241,244] receive thorough epidemiological investigations, and direct incrimination of the contaminated item is infrequent. At the DTU level, T. cruzi genotypes identified in oral outbreaks principally reflect the predominant lineages circulating in that geographical area (Table 8). In the Caracas school outbreak, molecular typing demonstrated identical TcI strains in 3 of the 103 infected individuals and similar strains in a single P. geniculatus captured at the site where the implicated guava juice was prepared [244,250]. Human specimens from the outbreak in Santa Catarina in 2005 attributed to sugarcane juice were typed as TcII [40]. Small family outbreaks in the Amazon region generally yield TcIV or TcI [95,93,97,99], while rural outbreaks outside of the Brazilian Amazon (Colombia, Venezuela, French Guiana) detect TcI (sometimes identified specifically as sylvatic TcI) [240,251–253].

Table 8.

Summary of publications reporting oral Trypanosoma cruzi outbreaks which included genotyping to discrete typing unit level.

Outbreak location, country, year Outbreak description: implicated vehicle, n infected, deaths Type of clinical sample (n) Patient DTU Genotyping/serotyping methodology Ref.
Navegantes, Santa Caterina, Brazil (2005) Sugarcane juice, 24 infected patients, 3 deaths Parasite hemocultures (9) TcII (n = 9) Nuclear
MLEE (6 loci) [339]
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [135]
[243]
Coari, western Amazonia, Brazil (2007) 25 infected patients (of population 175), acute symptoms, no deaths reported Parasite hemocultures (18) TcIII (ZIII) (n = 18) Nuclear
SL-IR [340]
kDNA
COII [54]
[99]
Coari and Santa Isabel do Rio Negro, western Amazonia, Brazil (2007 and 2010) ND Parasite cultures from hemoculturing and xenodiagnoses (27 Coari, 15 Santa Isabel do Rio Negro) TcIV (n = 42) Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [135]
GPI [114]
kDNA
COII [54]
[97]
Amapá, Brazil (1996) Presumed oral, but no vehicle mentioned, 17 family members/neighbors, no deaths Parasite hemocultures (8) TcI (n = 2)
TcIII or IV (ZIII) (n = 6)
Nuclear
SL-IR [43]
[93]
Amapá, Amazonas and Pará, Brazil Presumed oral, but unclear if from outbreaks or sporadic Parasite hemocultures (19) TcI (n = 14)
TcIV (n = 5)
Nuclear
ssrDNA [267]
RAPD [341]
kDNA
Cytb [62]
[95]
Six different locations, Colombia (1992–2010) Attributed to unspecified food/drink
Tibú n = 24, 1992; Guamal n = 13, 1999; Lebrija n = 10, two deaths, 2008; Bucaramanga, n = 5, one death, 2009; San Vicente, 2010; Aguachica, n = 12, 2010
50 biological clones from eight isolates (1 Tibú, 2 Lebrija, 3 Bucaramanga, 2 San Vicente de Chucurí) TcI (n = 49)
TcIV (n = 1)
Nuclear
SL-IR [48]
24Sα rDNA
Microsatellites (24 loci) [70]
kDNA
mtMLST (10 loci) [317]
[251]
Aguachica, Colombia (2010) Presumed oral, but no vehicle mentioned, 11 confirmed cases Parasite hemoculture (1) TcI (n = 1) Nuclear
SL-IR [50]
[252]
Littoral, French Guiana (2005) Palm fruit juice, eight infected families, no deaths Parasite hemocultures (6) TcI (n = 6) Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA [135]
[240]
Caracas, Venezuela (2007) Guava juice served in a school, 103 infected patients, one death Parasite hemocultures (3) TcI (n = 3) Nuclear
SL-IR [41]
24Sα rDNA [50]
[250]
Chichiriviche and Antimano, Venezuela (2009 and 2010) Common meals (food not identified), suspected/confirmed: 85/33, 35/15, no deaths Parasite hemocultures (42) TcI (n = 42) Nuclear
Microsatellites (23 loci) [70]
[245]
Five different locations, Venezuela Five of the six reported outbreaks in Venezuela, no additional details given Parasite hemocultures (28) TcI (n = 28) Nuclear
SL-IR
24Sα rDNA
18S rRNA [135]
[254]

Refers to number of clinical samples genotyped to DTU-level only, not total cohort size.

DTU: Discrete typing unit; kDNA: Kinetoplast DNA; MLEE: Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; mtMLST: Maxicircle multilocus sequence typing; RAPD: Random amplification of polymorphic DNA; ND: Not described; SL-IR: Spliced-leader intergenic region.

Most investigations occur months after the outbreaks and consist of vector and animal reservoir studies in the area of the outbreak [243,95,98,245,254], based on the assumption that outbreak vehicles were contaminated by infected triatomine feces or anal gland secretions of infected opossums, which contain infective trypomastigotes [255]. The investigation in the area of the Santa Catarina outbreak (typed in humans as TcII) demonstrated TcI in opossums and both TcI and TcII in triatomine vectors, implicating local triatomines as the most likely source of infection [243].

Recent laboratory data suggest that parasite contact with host gastric acid may render trypomastigotes more invasive through changes in parasite surface glycoproteins, and that this interaction may underlie the increased clinical severity observed in orally acquired Chagas disease [256–258]. The T. cruzi surface glycoprotein gp82 is highly resistant to proteolysis and has been shown to mediate migration through the stomach mucin layer and invasion of gastric mucosal cells. Different parasite strains express distinct isoforms of gp90, a second surface glycoprotein, which present differential susceptibility to digestion by pepsin. Strains with pepsin-digested gp90 have highly efficient gastric mucosal invasion and establish patent T. cruzi infections, in contrast to those with pepsin-resistant gp90 which invade poorly. Experimental infection with a Colombian TcI isolate demonstrated efficient oral and intraperitoneal transmission, in contrast to a Peruvian strain (TcV) which was much less efficient by the oral than the intraperitoneal route [259]. Similarly, a strain from the 2005 Santa Catarina outbreak (TcII) was highly invasive, producing a robust infection and high mortality in a mouse model, unlike CL Brener (TcVI) and G (TcI) strains, with these differences attributed to the pepsin susceptibility of the gp90 isoforms of the strains [256].

T. cruzi lineage in Chagas disease diagnostics and chemotherapy

Diagnosis of Chagas disease in the chronic phase is based on serological detection of anti-T. cruzi IgG antibodies. However, no single assay has sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be used alone; confirmed diagnosis relies on concordant results from at least two tests using different antigens and/or formats (usually ELISA, indirect immunofluorescence and/or indirect hemagglutination) [260]. Differential sensitivities to serodiagnostic tests have been reported between Bolivia and Peru, where two different commercial rapid tests based on recombinant antigens demonstrated sensitivities of 87.5 and 90% versus 30 and 54%, respectively [261]. Rapid test sensitivities were closely correlated with absorbance values on whole parasite lysate-based ELISAs. Similarly, low sensitivities of recombinant antigen ELISA and rapid tests have also been reported from Panama [262,263] and Mexico [264]. No clear correlation between serodiagnostic test reactivity and local T. cruzi DTU has been observed; instead, these discrepancies may reflect weaker adaptive immune responses to parasite antigens between endemic populations [265].

Current treatment options for Chagas disease are limited to benznidazole and nifurtimox. While both drugs have high cure rates in the acute phase, efficacy during the chronic phase has been much harder to document, largely due to the lack of a timely, sensitive test of cure [18,266]. Two recent trials have successfully employed quantitative real-time PCR to rapidly detect treatment failure of the new drug candidates posaconazole and E1224, a related drug [268–271]. In contrast, fewer than 10% of those who completed the 60-day benznidazole course had positive results by PCR during the follow-up period. The posaconazole trial required positive pretreatment results by PCR as a prerequisite for enrollment, while the E1224 trial was preceded by an optimization exercise that achieved 92% sensitivity for PCR using multiple specimens and optimized techniques. These two trials provide strong support for the use of PCR as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials in the chronic phase. No data on T. cruzi strain are currently available from these trials, but parasite diversity was unlikely to be high because the E1224 trial was conducted in Bolivia, and nearly all patients treated in the posaconazole trial in Spain were also of Bolivian origins.

Small human studies, clinical impression and findings in animal models tentatively suggest that parasite susceptibility varies with geographical location and parasite lineage [272–275] as might be expected given the crucial role played by some genetic loci (e.g., TcNTR) in resistance to both benznidazole [276] and nifurtimox [277]. However, direct human data are sparse and in vitro epimastigote assays have poor correlation with in vivo mouse models of drug response [278]. Natural drug resistance to either drug has been reported in both patient-derived isolates as well as sylvatic unexposed strains [273,279]. The most comprehensive in vivo analysis of parasite susceptibility was conducted in the 1980s using 47 parasite strains isolated from patients, sylvatic reservoirs and vectors, and subsequently inoculated into mice [273]. In mouse models, cure rates to both benznidazole and nifurtimox were close to 100% for parasite strains from Argentina and the southernmost region of Brazil, where the predominant DTUs are presumed to be TcV and TcVI. In central and Atlantic Brazil, where TcII is likely to be more common, cure rates ranged from 50 to 65%, while strains from sylvatic reservoir hosts and vectors showed highly variable responses [273].

The inability to dissect the relative contribution of parasite genetics to treatment failure, disease pathology and progression represents a major hurdle to the assessment of novel drug candidates. The advent and optimization of a non-invasive, in vivo, bioluminescent imaging system which can facilitate real-time monitoring of chronic parasite burden has the potential to address these key questions using current and prospective chemotherapies, prior to human evaluations [280,281].

Expert commentary & five-year view

Establishing or excluding any relationship between T. cruzi genetic diversity and clinical outcome will require significant improvements in study design and reporting, patient sampling and parasite genotyping (Box 1). As encountered throughout this article, meta-analyses of historical studies are impeded by the paucity (and in many cases, complete absence) of descriptive clinical data among genotyping publications. Use of a standardized CCM stratification method (or supplemental data to allow reclassification) would facilitate comparison between studies. Because of the long asymptomatic period before the onset of clinical signs and symptoms, cross-sectional evaluations will inevitably misclassify some individuals as IND who will later develop CCM; if parasite genetics contribute to the later progression of disease, this misclassification will introduce a bias toward the null hypothesis (‘parasite genetics are not associated with CCM’). This bias will be exacerbated if CCM and IND groups are not matched by age distribution; without deliberate age-matching (individual or group frequency-matching), the IND group will always be younger than the symptomatic group due to the natural history of the disease [25]. Only one genotyping study ensured that the age distributions of IND and CCM groups were comparable [189]; no other publications in this review took this potential confounder into account. Cohort studies of Chagas cardiomyopathy are rare, but could provide extremely valuable opportunities to examine whether T. cruzi strain affects the risk of development and progression, while avoiding the biases of cross-sectional studies. The strict clinical criteria used in the two most prominent current cohorts (the control arm of the BENEFIT trial [282] and the REDS-II study [27]) should provide a firm basis for interpretation, although thus far, neither has published T. cruzi genotypic data.

Box 1. Recommendations to improve assessments of the interaction between Trypanosoma cruzi genotype and clinical disease status.

Clinical and epidemiological data

  • Use standardized cardiomyopathy stratification scheme and/or provide supplemental data to allow reclassification

  • Present data on specific electrocardiogram and echocardiogram abnormalities used to define Chagas cardiomyopathy

  • Present data on age; individual or frequency-matching by age to reduce bias

  • Test as representative a sample of cohort or other study participants as possible

  • Include data collection on other potentially confounding risk factors such as vector exposure history, immunological response and human genetics

  • Incorporate reliable DTU identification into ongoing and future cohort studies of cardiomyopathy and congenital Trypanosoma cruzi transmission

  • Develop and validate methods for identification of gastrointestinal Chagas disease adaptable to population-based studies

Data transparency

  • Explicit presentation of the relationship between specimens and patients across publications

  • Open-access datasets delinked from personal identifiers, but maintaining specimen linkage from one study to another

Application of laboratory techniques

  • Use of standardized T. cruzi nomenclature, genotyping protocols, shared reference strains, and central, open-access repositories of genotypic data

  • Genotyping using at least two independent markers to increase sensitivity, facilitate unequivocal DTU resolution and mitigate potential misclassification due to parasite recombination

Improved laboratory techniques

  • Techniques for unambiguous DTU classification, particularly between TcII, TcV and TcVI

  • Development of novel methods to enrich parasite DNA sufficiently to enable genotyping directly from low-parasite load clinical specimens

DTU: Discrete typing unit.

The pathogenesis of Chagas cardiomyopathy is widely believed to be multifactorial, with contributions from both parasite and host genetics; evaluating parasite genotype in isolation is therefore likely inadequate. The addition of immunology, human genetics and more detailed epidemiological evaluations could provide a richer assessment of the possible interactions of factors modifying clinical outcome. Similarly, studies of congenital Chagas disease could be made more rigorous by ensuring that both mother and infant specimens are tested, and that the source population, criteria for and age at congenital diagnosis are more clearly detailed in publications. The maternal immune response clearly plays an essential role in modulating congenital transmission risk, and optimally would be evaluated in tandem with parasite strain diversity [224,225]. Finally, the impact of vector control initiatives, including changes in force of infection and circulating strain compositions, needs to be considered, particularly when comparing genotypic data from the same endemic area over time.

Epidemiological as well as genotype data are extremely sparse for GI Chagas disease. The widely accepted observation that gastrointestinal Chagas disease is much rarer in Central and northern South America than in the Southern Cone still rests on clinical reports rather than quantitative population-based epidemiological studies. In part, this stems from the impracticality of performing barium studies in field conditions and on large numbers of people. A study in Bolivia used clinical swallowing time (by placing a stethoscope on the neck, asking the subject to swallow and timing the duration) to assess prevalence of early esophageal changes; 22% of seropositive participants had swallowing times longer than the clinically established cut-off of 10 s, compared to none of the seronegative participants [283]. If field-friendly methods such as swallowing times can be validated by comparison with barium studies, this could provide a useful tool for epidemiological assessments in conjunction with parasite genetic analysis.

Many articles are difficult to interpret because the relationship between data by specimen and by patient is not explicit. Synthesis of the literature as a whole is challenging because multiple manuscripts by the same authors often present genotyping data from samples from the same source population, without specifying the degree of overlap [197,198,284]. Re-characterization of the same specimens in consecutive papers may inflate the prevalence estimates of the resulting DTUs. For all of these limitations, more transparent data presentation would be invaluable. The current ‘open-access’ movement [193] may assist in this area, and could be enhanced by the use of common identifiers between datasets from the same source population to facilitate such meta-analyses.

Modifications to study design must be complemented by parallel improvements in clinical T. cruzi genotyping. As previously discussed, parasite isolation by hemoculture, xenodiagnoses or animal inoculation is not ideal and introduces unquantifiable biases; novel methodologies to enrich T. cruzi DNA in clinical specimens and circumvent loss of clonal diversity during parasite culturing stages warrant further investigation. Crucially, the current repertoire of clinical genotyping techniques is restricted to DTU-level classification and insufficient to explore the potential interaction between parasite multiplicity of infection and clinical outcome. Illumina amplicon sequencing, recently developed to explore intra-host pathogen genetic diversity, involves the generation of millions of ‘short’ sequencing reads from individual samples, potentially allowing correlation of read depth with genotype abundance [285–288]. This strategy has been used to examine intra-patient multiclonality among chronic Chagas disease patients, across the clinical spectrum (asymptomatic to severe cardiomyopathy, megaesophagus or megacolon) in Goiás, Brazil and matched mother–infant pairs from Cochabamba, Bolivia. While no relationship between parasite multiclonality and patient sex, age or clinical symptoms has been observed thus far, putative evidence of diversifying selection affecting antigenic genes was detected, suggesting a link between genetic diversity in this gene family and survival in the mammalian host [289].

As yet unidentified, diverse genetic characteristics of T. cruzi may influence clinical outcome. However our systematic review demonstrates no unequivocal evidence for an association between T. cruzi genotype and chronic morbidity, risk of reactivation, or congenital or oral transmission. In recent publications, the most consistent finding is that specimens from all groups reflect the predominant genotypes circulating in the local area. Results from patients with reactivation indicate that mixed infections may be the rule, rather than the exception. Further elucidation of the role of T. cruzi genotype in disease pathogenesis will require improvements in both study design and genotyping techniques.

Acknowledgment

Much of the research covered in this review was funded by the Wellcome Trust and the European Commission Framework Programme Project “Comparative epidemiology of genetic lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi” ChagasEpiNet (contract #223034). CB received partial salary support from National Institutes of Health R01 AI107028-01A1. LAM was supported by a BBSRC Doctoral Training Grant.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Key issues.

  • Trypanosoma cruzi displays remarkable genetic diversity, which is believed to contribute to the biological, epidemiological and clinical variation observed among Chagas disease foci.

  • T. cruzi strains can be classified into six stable genetic lineages known as discrete typing units (TcI–TcVI), with distributions loosely defined by geography, ecology and transmission cycle.

  • Establishing an association between T. cruzi genotype and clinical outcome is primarily complicated by low peripheral parasitemia in chronic infections.

  • Current evidence suggests that parasite strains detected in patients with or without morbidity reflect the principal lineage circulating among domestic transmission cycles in that geographical area.

  • Likewise, local parasite genotypes are frequently implicated in acute T. cruzi oral outbreaks, which have been increasingly reported in recent years.

  • Loss of immunological control through immunosuppression or HIV co-infection allows sequestered parasites to return to the circulation, thus providing the best indicator of the complexity of natural infections.

  • Women who transmit T. cruzi to one child are more likely to transmit to other offspring, suggesting that parasite genotype may be one factor influencing the risk of vertical infection. However, to date, the discrete typing units isolated from mothers and infants reflect the principal lineages circulating in that area.

  • Improvements in both study design and genotyping techniques are required to advance our understanding of the role of T. cruzi genotype in disease pathogenesis.

References

  1. WHO Chagas disease in Latin America: an epidemiological update based on 2010 estimates. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015;90:33–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lent H, Wygodzinsky P. Revision of the Triatominae (Hemiptera, Reduviidae), and their significance as vectors of Chagas’ disease. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1979;63:123–520. [Google Scholar]
  3. Galvao C, Carcavallo R, Rocha Dda S, Jurberg J. A checklist of the current valid species of the subfamily Triatominae Jeannel, 1919 (Hemiptera, Reduviidae, Triatominae) and their geographical distribution with nomenclatural and taxonomic notes. Zootaxa. 2003;202:1–36. [Google Scholar]
  4. Noireau F, Diosque P, Jansen AM. Trypanosoma cruzi: adaptation to its vectors and its hosts. Vet Res. 2009;40:26. doi: 10.1051/vetres/2009009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coura JR, Dias JC. Epidemiology, control and surveillance of Chagas disease: 100 years after its discovery. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104(Suppl 1):31–40. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762009000900006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Shikanai-Yasuda MA, Carvalho NB. Oral transmission of Chagas disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:845–52. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gurtler RE. Sustainability of vector control strategies in the Gran Chaco Region: current challenges and possible approaches. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104(Suppl 1):52–59. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762009000900009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bern C, Martin DL, Gilman RH. Acute and congenital Chagas disease. Adv Parasitol. 2011;75:19–47. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385863-4.00002-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jackson Y, Getaz L, Wolff H, et al. Prevalence, clinical staging and risk for blood-borne transmission of Chagas disease among Latin American migrants in Geneva. Switzerland. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e592. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Centers for disease control and prevention Chagas disease after organ transplantation–Los Angeles, California, 2006. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55:798–800. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rassi A, Jr, Rassi A, Marin-Neto JA. Chagas disease. Lancet. 2010;375:1388–402. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60061-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Maguire JH, Hoff R, Sherlock I, et al. Cardiac morbidity and mortality due to Chagas’ disease: prospective electrocardiographic study of a Brazilian community. Circulation. 1987;75:1140–5. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.75.6.1140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rassi A, Jr, Rassi A, Little WC. Chagas’ heart disease. Clin Cardiol. 2000;23:883–9. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960231205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rassi A, Jr, Rassi SG, Rassi A. Sudden death in Chagas’ disease. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001;76:75–96. doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2001000100008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. de Oliveira RB, Troncon LE, Dantas RO, Menghelli UG. Gastrointestinal manifestations of Chagas’ disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:884–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.270_r.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. •• .Miles MA, Cedillos RA, Povoa MM, et al. Do radically dissimilar Trypanosoma cruzi strains (zymodemes) cause Venezuelan and Brazilian forms of Chagas’ disease? Lancet. 1981;1:1338–40. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)92518-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; ••  Landmark article, which was the first to propose an association between different clinical manifestations of chronic Chagas disease and genetic variation among major T. cruzi zymodemes.
  17. •• .Rezende JMF. Chagasic mega syndromes and regional differences In: New Approaches in American Trypanosomiasis Research: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. 18-21 March 1975; Washington, DC. Pan American Health Organization; 1976. [Google Scholar]; ••  This article represents one of the most comprehensive summaries of the clinical and geographical variations of gastrointestinal chagasic megasyndromes.
  18. Bern C, Montgomery SP, Herwaldt BL, et al. Evaluation and treatment of Chagas disease in the United States: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007;298:2171–81. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.18.2171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gascon J, Albajar P, Canas E, et al. [Diagnosis, management and treatment of chronic Chagas’ heart disease in areas where Trypanosoma cruzi infection is not endemic] Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2008;26:99–106. doi: 10.1157/13115545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. [Brazilian Consensus on Chagas disease] Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2005;38(Suppl 3):7–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Acquatella H. Echocardiography in Chagas heart disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1124–31. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.627323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Carrasco HA, Barboza JS, Inglessis G, et al. Left ventricular cineangiography in Chagas’ disease: detection of early myocardial damage. Am Heart J. 1982;104:595–602. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(82)90232-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunt SA. ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:e1–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuschnir E, Sgammini H, Castro R, et al. [Evaluation of cardiac function by radioisotopic angiography, in patients with chronic Chagas cardiopathy] Arq Bras Cardiol. 1985;45:249–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hidron A, Gilman R, Justiniano J, et al. Chagas cardiomyopathy in the context of the chronic disease transition. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rocha MO, Ribeiro AL, Teixeira MM. Clinical management of chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy. Front Biosci. 2003;8:e44–54. doi: 10.2741/926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sabino EC, Ribeiro AL, Salemi VM, et al. Ten-year incidence of Chagas cardiomyopathy among asymptomatic Trypanosoma cruzi-seropositive former blood donors. Circulation. 2013;127:1105–15. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.123612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Le VV, Wheeler MT, Mandic S, et al. Addition of the electrocardiogram to the preparticipation examination of college athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20:98–105. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181d44705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rassi A, Jr, Rassi A, Rassi SG. Predictors of mortality in chronic Chagas disease: a systematic review of observational studies. Circulation. 2007;115:1101–8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.627265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lewis MD, Llewellyn MS, Yeo M, et al. Recent, independent and anthropogenic origins of Trypanosoma cruzi hybrids. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. •• .Zingales B, Andrade SG, Briones MR, et al. A new consensus for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific nomenclature: second revision meeting recommends TcI to TcVI. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104:1051–4. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762009000700021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; ••  This article presents the current, standardized T. cruzi nomenclature classification scheme that should be used to report results from all prospective genotyping studies.
  32. Marcili A, Lima L, Cavazzana M, et al. A new genotype of Trypanosoma cruzi associated with bats evidenced by phylogenetic analyses using SSU rDNA, cytochrome b and Histone H2B genes and genotyping based on ITS1 rDNA. Parasitology. 2009;136:641–55. doi: 10.1017/S0031182009005861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pinto CM, Kalko EK, Cottontail I, et al. TcBat a bat-exclusive lineage of Trypanosoma cruzi in the Panama Canal Zone, with comments on its classification and the use of the 18S rRNA gene for lineage identification. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:1328–32. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ramirez JD, Tapia-Calle G, Munoz-Cruz G, et al. Trypanosome species in neo-tropical bats: biological, evolutionary and epidemiological implications. Infect Genet Evol. 2014;22:250–6. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2013.06.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Zingales B, Miles MA, Campbell DA, et al. The revised Trypanosoma cruzi subspecific nomenclature: rationale, epidemiological relevance and research applications. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:240–53. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Miles MA, Toye PJ, Oswald SC, Godfrey DG. The identification by isoenzyme patterns of two distinct strain-groups of Trypanosoma cruzi, circulating independently in a rural area of Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1977;71:217–25. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(77)90012-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Miles MA, Souza A, Povoa M, et al. Isozymic heterogeneity of Trypanosoma cruzi in the first autochthonous patients with Chagas’ disease in Amazonian Brazil. Nature. 1978;272:819–21. doi: 10.1038/272819a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tibayrenc M, Ayala FJ. Isoenzyme variability in Trypanosoma cruzi, the agent of Chagas’ disease. Genetical, taxonomical and epidemiological significance. Evolution. 1988;42:277–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1988.tb04132.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tibayrenc M, Neubauer K, Barnabe C, et al. Genetic characterization of six parasitic protozoa: parity between random-primer DNA typing and multilocus enzyme electrophoresis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:1335–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.4.1335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Steindel M, Dias Neto E, de Menezes CL, et al. Random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of Trypanosoma cruzi strains. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1993;60:71–9. doi: 10.1016/0166-6851(93)90030-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Souto RP, Fernandes O, Macedo AM, et al. DNA markers define two major phylogenetic lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1996;83:141–52. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(96)02755-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Fernandes O, Souto RP, Castro JA, et al. Brazilian isolates of Trypanosoma cruzi from humans and triatomines classified into two lineages using mini-exon and ribosomal RNA sequences. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;58:807–11. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1998.58.807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Fernandes O, Sturm NR, Derre R, Campbell DA. The mini-exon gene: a genetic marker for zymodeme III of Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1998;95:129–33. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(98)00073-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Recommendations from a satellite meeting. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1999;94(Suppl 1):429–32. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02761999000700085. Anonymous. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Brisse S, Barnabe C, Tibayrenc M. Identification of six Trypanosoma cruzi phylogenetic lineages by random amplified polymorphic DNA and multilocus enzyme electrophoresis. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:35–44. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(99)00168-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Brisse S, Verhoef J, Tibayrenc M. Characterisation of large and small subunit rRNA and mini-exon genes further supports the distinction of six Trypanosoma cruzi lineages. Int J Parasitol. 2001;31:1218–26. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(01)00238-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tibayrenc M. Genetic epidemiology of parasitic protozoa and other infectious agents: the need for an integrated approach. Int J Parasitol. 1998;28:85–104. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(97)00180-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Herrera C, Bargues MD, Fajardo A, et al. Identifying four Trypanosoma cruzi I isolate haplotypes from different geographic regions in Colombia. Infect Genet Evol. 2007;7:535–9. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2006.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Herrera C, Guhl F, Falla A, et al. Genetic variability and phylogenetic relationships within Trypanosoma cruzi I isolated in Colombia based on miniexon gene sequences. J Parasitol Res. 2009;2009 doi: 10.1155/2009/897364. Article ID 897364:9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Falla A, Herrera C, Fajardo A, et al. Haplotype identification within Trypanosoma cruzi I in Colombian isolates from several reservoirs, vectors and humans. Acta Trop. 2009;110:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Cura CI, Mejia-Jaramillo AM, Duffy T, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi I genotypes in different geographical regions and transmission cycles based on a microsatellite motif of the intergenic spacer of spliced-leader genes. Int J Parasitol. 2010;40:1599–607. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.06.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zumaya-Estrada FA, Messenger LA, Lopez-Ordonez T, et al. North American import? Charting the origins of an enigmatic Trypanosoma cruzi domestic genotype. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:226. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Ramirez JD, Guhl F, Messenger LA, et al. Contemporary cryptic sexuality in Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol Ecol. 2012;21:4216–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05699.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. de Freitas JM, Augusto-Pinto L, Pimenta JR, et al. Ancestral genomes, sex, and the population structure of Trypanosoma cruzi. Plos Pathog. 2006;2:e24. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0020024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Devera R, Fernandes O, Coura JR. Should Trypanosoma cruzi be called ‘cruzi’ complex? a review of the parasite diversity and the potential of selecting population after in vitro culturing and mice infection. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003;98:1–12. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762003000100001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Guhl F, Ramirez JD. Trypanosoma cruzi I diversity: towards the need of genetic subdivision? Acta Trop. 2011;119:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2011.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Westenberger SJ, Barnabe C, Campbell DA, Sturm NR. Two hybridization events define the population structure of Trypanosoma cruzi. Genetics. 2005;171:527–43. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.038745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ramirez JD, Llewellyn MS. Reproductive clonality in protozoan pathogens - truth or artefact? Mol Ecol. 2014;23:4195–202. doi: 10.1111/mec.12872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Tibayrenc M, Ayala FJ. How clonal are Trypanosoma and Leishmania? Trends Parasitol. 2013;29:264–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2013.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Machado CA, Ayala FJ. Nucleotide sequences provide evidence of genetic exchange among distantly related lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:7396–401. doi: 10.1073/pnas.121187198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Yeo M, Mauricio IL, Messenger LA, et al. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) for lineage assignment and high resolution diversity studies in Trypanosoma cruzi. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Brisse S, Henriksson J, Barnabe C, et al. Evidence for genetic exchange and hybridization in Trypanosoma cruzi based on nucleotide sequences and molecular karyotype. Infect Genet Evol. 2003;2:173–83. doi: 10.1016/s1567-1348(02)00097-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Miles MA, Llewellyn MS, Lewis MD, et al. The molecular epidemiology and phylogeography of Trypanosoma cruzi and parallel research on Leishmania: looking back and to the future. Parasitology. 2009;136:1509–28. doi: 10.1017/S0031182009990977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Lima VS, Xavier SC, Maldonado IF, et al. Expanding the knowledge of the geographic distribution of Trypanosoma cruzi TcII and TcV/TcVI genotypes in the Brazilian Amazon. Plos One. 2014;9:e116137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ramirez JD, Guhl F, Rendon LM, et al. Chagas cardiomyopathy manifestations and Trypanosoma cruzi genotypes circulating in chronic Chagasic patients. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Carrasco HJ, Segovia M, Llewellyn MS, et al. Geographical distribution of Trypanosoma cruzi genotypes in Venezuela. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1707. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Anez N, Crisante G, da Silva FM, et al. Predominance of lineage I among Trypanosoma cruzi isolates from Venezuelan patients with different clinical profiles of acute Chagas’ disease. Trop Med Int Health. 2004;9:1319–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01333.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Roellig DM, Brown EL, Barnabe C, et al. Molecular typing of Trypanosoma cruzi isolates, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1123–5. doi: 10.3201/eid1407.080175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Barnabe C, Brisse S, Tibayrenc M. Population structure and genetic typing of Trypanosoma cruzi, the agent of Chagas disease: a multilocus enzyme electrophoresis approach. Parasitology. 2000;120((Pt 5)):513–526. doi: 10.1017/s0031182099005661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Llewellyn MS, Miles MA, Carrasco HJ, et al. Genome-scale multilocus microsatellite typing of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing unit I reveals phylogeographic structure and specific genotypes linked to human infection. Plos Pathog. 2009;5:e1000410. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Gaunt M, Miles M. The ecotopes and evolution of triatomine bugs (triatominae) and their associated trypanosomes. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2000;95:557–65. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762000000400019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Arenas M, Campos R, Coronado X, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi genotypes of insect vectors and patients with Chagas of Chile studied by means of cytochrome b gene sequencing, minicircle hybridization, and nuclear gene polymorphisms. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012;12:196–205. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2011.0683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Barnabe C, De Meeus T, Noireau F, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units (DTUs): microsatellite loci and population genetics of DTUs TcV and TcI in Bolivia and Peru. Infect Genet Evol. 2011;11:1752–60. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Cortez MR, Pinho AP, Cuervo P, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi (Kinetoplastida Trypanosomatidae): ecology of the transmission cycle in the wild environment of the Andean valley of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Exp Parasitol. 2006;114:305–13. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2006.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Breniere SF, Aliaga C, Waleckx E, et al. Genetic characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs in wild Triatoma infestans from Bolivia: predominance of TcI. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Cecere MC, Cardinal MV, Arrabal JP, et al. Microcavia australis (Caviidae, Rodentia), a new highly competent host of Trypanosoma cruzi I in rural communities of northwestern Argentina. Acta Trop. 2015;142:34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Messenger LA, Garcia L, Vanhove M, et al. Ecological host fitting of Trypanosoma cruzi TcI in Bolivia: mosaic population structure, hybridization and a role for humans in Andean parasite dispersal. Mol Ecol. 2015;24:2406–22. doi: 10.1111/mec.13186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Lima VS, Jansen AM, Messenger LA, et al. Wild Trypanosoma cruzi I genetic diversity in Brazil suggests admixture and disturbance in parasite populations from the Atlantic Forest region. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:263. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Fernandes O, Mangia RH, Lisboa CV, et al. The complexity of the sylvatic cycle of Trypanosoma cruzi in Rio de Janeiro state (Brazil) revealed by the non-transcribed spacer of the mini-exon gene. Parasitology. 1999;118((Pt 2)):161–166. doi: 10.1017/s0031182098003709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Lisboa CV, Pinho AP, Monteiro RV, Jansen AM. Trypanosoma cruzi (kinetoplastida Trypanosomatidae): biological heterogeneity in the isolates derived from wild hosts. Exp Parasitol. 2007;116:150–5. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2006.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Araujo CA, Waniek PJ, Xavier SC, Jansen AM. Genotype variation of Trypanosoma cruzi isolates from different Brazilian biomes. Exp Parasitol. 2011;127:308–12. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2010.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Maffey L, Cardinal MV, Ordonez-Krasnowski PC, et al. Direct molecular identification of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in domestic and peridomestic Triatoma infestans and Triatoma sordida from the Argentine Chaco. Parasitology. 2012;139:1570–9. doi: 10.1017/S0031182012000856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Fernandez MD, Cecere MC, Lanati LA, et al. Geographic variation of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units from Triatoma infestans at different spatial scales. Acta Trop. 2014;140C:10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Enriquez GF, Cardinal MV, Orozco MM, et al. Discrete typing units of Trypanosoma cruzi identified in rural dogs and cats in the humid Argentinean Chaco. Parasitology. 2013;140:303–8. doi: 10.1017/S003118201200159X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Cardinal MV, Lauricella MA, Ceballos LA, et al. Molecular epidemiology of domestic and sylvatic Trypanosoma cruzi infection in rural northwestern Argentina. Int J Parasitol. 2008;38(13):1533–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.04.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Garzon EA, Barnabe C, Cordova X, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi isoenzyme variability in Ecuador: first observation of zymodeme III genotypes in chronic chagasic patients. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002;96:378–82. doi: 10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90367-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Guhl F, Ramirez JD. Retrospective molecular integrated epidemiology of Chagas disease in Colombia. Infect Genet Evol. 2013;20:148–54. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2013.08.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Yeo M, Acosta N, Llewellyn M, et al. Origins of Chagas disease: Didelphis species are natural hosts of Trypanosoma cruzi I and armadillos hosts of Trypanosoma cruzi II, including hybrids. Int J Parasitol. 2005;35:225–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2004.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Llewellyn MS, Lewis MD, Acosta N, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi IIc: phylogenetic and phylogeographic insights from sequence and microsatellite analysis and potential impact on emergent Chagas disease. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3:e510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Marcili A, Lima L, Valente VC, et al. Comparative phylogeography of Trypanosoma cruzi TCIIc: new hosts, association with terrestrial ecotopes, and spatial clustering. Infect Genet Evol. 2009;9:1265–74. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2009.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Orozco MM, Enriquez GF, Alvarado-Otegui JA, et al. New sylvatic hosts of Trypanosoma cruzi and their reservoir competence in the humid Chaco of Argentina: a longitudinal study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88:872–82. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Morocoima A, Carrasco HJ, Boadas J, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi III from armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus novemcinctus) from Northeastern Venezuela and its biological behavior in murine model. Risk of emergence of Chagas’ disease. Exp Parasitol. 2012;132:341–7. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2012.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Valente SA, da Costa Valente V, das Neves Pinto AY, et al. Analysis of an acute Chagas disease outbreak in the Brazilian Amazon: human cases, triatomines, reservoir mammals and parasites. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103:291–7. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.10.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Lewis MD, Ma J, Yeo M, et al. Genotyping of Trypanosoma cruzi: systematic selection of assays allowing rapid and accurate discrimination of all known lineages. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;81:1041–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2009.09-0305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Marcili A, Valente VC, Valente SA, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi in Brazilian Amazonia: Lineages TCI and TCIIa in wild primates, Rhodnius spp. and in humans with Chagas disease associated with oral transmission. Int J Parasitol. 2009;39:615–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2008.09.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Roellig DM, Savage MY, Fujita AW, et al. Genetic variation and exchange in Trypanosoma cruzi isolates from the United States. Plos One. 2013;8:e56198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Monteiro WM, Magalhaes LK, de Sa AR, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi IV causing outbreaks of acute Chagas disease and infections by different haplotypes in the Western Brazilian Amazonia. Plos One. 2012;7:e41284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Roque AL, Xavier SC, da Rocha MG, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi transmission cycle among wild and domestic mammals in three areas of orally transmitted Chagas disease outbreaks. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:742–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Monteiro WM, Magalhaes LK, Santana Filho FS, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi TcIII/Z3 genotype as agent of an outbreak of Chagas disease in the Brazilian Western Amazonia. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15:1049–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02577.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Monje-Rumi MM, Brandan CP, Ragone PG, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi diversity in the Gran Chaco: mixed infections and differential host distribution of TcV and TcVI. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;29:53–9. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Ramirez JD, Hernandez C, Montilla M, et al. First Report of Human Trypanosoma cruzi Infection Attributed to TcBat Genotype. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61:477–9. doi: 10.1111/zph.12094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Vago AR, Andrade LO, Leite AA, et al. Genetic characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi directly from tissues of patients with chronic Chagas disease: differential distribution of genetic types into diverse organs. Am J Pathol. 2000;156:1805–9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)65052-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Burgos JM, Begher S, Silva HM, et al. Molecular identification of Trypanosoma cruzi I tropism for central nervous system in Chagas reactivation due to AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;78:294–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Burgos JM, Diez M, Vigliano C, et al. Molecular identification of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in end-stage chronic Chagas heart disease and reactivation after heart transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:485–95. doi: 10.1086/655680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Bosseno MF, Telleria J, Vargas F, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: study of the distribution of two widespread clonal genotypes in Bolivian Triatoma infestans vectors shows a high frequency of mixed infections. Exp Parasitol. 1996;83:275–82. doi: 10.1006/expr.1996.0075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Yeo M, Lewis MD, Carrasco HJ, et al. Resolution of multiclonal infections of Trypanosoma cruzi from naturally infected triatomine bugs and from experimentally infected mice by direct plating on a sensitive solid medium. Int J Parasitol. 2007;37:111–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2006.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Llewellyn MS, Rivett-Carnac JB, Fitzpatrick S, et al. Extraordinary Trypanosoma cruzi diversity within single mammalian reservoir hosts implies a mechanism of diversifying selection. Int J Parasitol. 2011;41:609–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Rocha FL, Roque AL, de Lima JS, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi infection in neotropical wild carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora): at the top of the T. cruzi transmission chain. Plos One. 2013;8:e67463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Nouvellet P, Dumonteil E, Gourbiere S. The improbable transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi to human: the missing link in the dynamics and control of Chagas disease. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. da Silveira Pinto A, de Lana M, Britto C, et al. Experimental Trypanosoma cruzi biclonal infection in Triatoma infestans: detection of distinct clonal genotypes using kinetoplast DNA probes. Int J Parasitol. 2000;30:843–8. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(00)00058-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Pinto AS, de Lana M, Bastrenta B, et al. Compared vectorial transmissibility of pure and mixed clonal genotypes of Trypanosoma cruzi in Triatoma infestans. Parasitol Res. 1998;84:348–53. doi: 10.1007/s004360050409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Martins HR, Silva RM, Valadares HM, et al. Impact of dual infections on chemotherapeutic efficacy in BALB/c mice infected with major genotypes of Trypanosoma cruzi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:3282–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01590-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Araujo CA, Waniek PJ, Jansen AM. TcI/TcII co-infection can enhance Trypanosoma cruzi growth in Rhodnius prolixus. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:94. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Gaunt MW, Yeo M, Frame IA, et al. Mechanism of genetic exchange in American trypanosomes. Nature. 2003;421:936–9. doi: 10.1038/nature01438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Oberle M, Balmer O, Brun R, Roditi I. Bottlenecks and the maintenance of minor genotypes during the life cycle of Trypanosoma brucei. Plos Pathog. 2010;6:e1001023. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Valadares HM, Pimenta JR, Segatto M, et al. Unequivocal identification of subpopulations in putative multiclonal Trypanosoma cruzi strains by FACs single cell sorting and genotyping. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Messenger LA, Yeo M, Lewis MD, et al. Molecular Genotyping of Trypanosoma cruzi for Lineage Assignment and Population Genetics. Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1201:297–337. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1438-8_19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Ramirez JD, Herrera C, Bogota Y, et al. Validation of a Poisson-distributed limiting dilution assay (LDA) for a rapid and accurate resolution of multiclonal infections in natural Trypanosoma cruzi populations. J Microbiol Methods. 2013;92:220–5. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2012.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Dvorak JA, Hartman DL, Miles MA. Trypanosoma cruzi: Correlation of Growth Kinetics to Zymodeme Type in Clones Derived from Various Sources. J Protozool. 1980;27:472–4. [Google Scholar]
  120. Alves AM, De Almeida DF, von Kruger WM. Changes in Trypanosoma cruzi kinetoplast DNA minicircles induced by environmental conditions and subcloning. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 1994;41:415–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1994.tb06099.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Alves AM, Tanuri A, de Almeida DF, von Kruger WM. Reversible changes in the isoenzyme electrophoretic mobility pattern and infectivity in clones of Trypanosoma cruzi. Exp Parasitol. 1993;77:246–53. doi: 10.1006/expr.1993.1081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Engel JC, Dvorak JA, Segura EL, Crane MS. Trypanosoma cruzi: biological characterization of 19 clones derived from two chronic chagasic patients. I. Growth kinetics in liquid medium. J Protozool. 1982;29:555–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1982.tb01334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Deane MP, Mangia RH, Pereira NM, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: strain selection by different schedules of mouse passage of an initially mixed infection. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1984;79:495–7. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02761984000400016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Deane MP, Sousa MA, Pereira NM, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: inoculation schedules and re-isolation methods select individual strains from doubly infected mice, as demonstrated by schizodeme and zymodeme analyses. J Protozool. 1984;31:276–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1984.tb02960.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Morel CM, Deane MP, Goncalves AM. The complexity of Trypanosoma cruzi populations revealed by schizodeme analysis. Parasitol Today. 1986;2:97–101. doi: 10.1016/0169-4758(86)90038-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Deane MP, Jansen AM, Mangia RH, et al. Are our laboratory ‘strains’ representative samples of Trypanosoma cruzi populations that circulate in nature? Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1984;79((Suppl.)):19–24. [Google Scholar]
  127. Siriano Lda R, Luquetti AO, Avelar JB, et al. Chagas disease: increased parasitemia during pregnancy detected by hemoculture. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84:569–74. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Miles MA, Apt BW, Widmer G, et al. Isozyme heterogeneity and numerical taxonomy of Trypanosoma cruzi stocks from Chile. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1984;78:526–35. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(84)90076-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Luquetti AO, Miles MA, Rassi A, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: zymodemes associated with acute and chronic Chagas’ disease in central Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1986;80:462–70. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(86)90347-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Ortiz S, Zulantay I, Apt W, et al. Transferability of Trypanosoma cruzi from mixed human host infection to Triatoma infestans and from insects to axenic culture. Parasitol Int. 2015;64:33–6. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2014.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Sanchez LV, Bautista DC, Corredor AF, et al. Temporal variation of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in asymptomatic Chagas disease patients. Microbes Infect. 2013;15:745–8. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2013.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Diosque P, Tomasini N, Lauthier JJ, et al. Optimized multilocus sequence typing (MLST) scheme for Trypanosoma cruzi. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e3117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Oliveira RP, Broude NE, Macedo AM, et al. Probing the genetic population structure of Trypanosoma cruzi with polymorphic microsatellites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:3776–80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.7.3776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Oliveira RP, Melo AI, Macedo AM, et al. The population structure of Trypanosoma cruzi: expanded analysis of 54 strains using eight polymorphic CA-repeat microsatellites. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1999;94(Suppl I):65–70. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02761999000700006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. • .Burgos JM, Altcheh J, Bisio M, et al. Direct molecular profiling of minicircle signatures and lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi bloodstream populations causing congenital Chagas disease. Int J Parasitol. 2007;37:1319–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2007.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; •  The only study to compare parasite genotypes among pregnant women who did and did not transmit congenital T. cruzi infection to their neonates.
  136. Morel C, Chiari E, Camargo EP, et al. Strains and clones of Trypanosoma cruzi can be characterized by pattern of restriction endonuclease products of kinetoplast DNA minicircles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980;77:6810–14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.11.6810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Telleria J, Lafay B, Virreira M, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: sequence analysis of the variable region of kinetoplast minicircles. Exp Parasitol. 2006;114:279–88. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2006.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Velazquez M, Diez CN, Mora C, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: an analysis of the minicircle hypervariable regions diversity and its influence on strain typing. Exp Parasitol. 2008;120:235–41. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2008.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Veas F, Cuny G, Breniere SF, Tibayrenc M. Subspecific kDNA probes for major clones of Trypanosoma cruzi. Acta Trop. 1990;48:79–82. doi: 10.1016/0001-706x(90)90067-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Macedo AM, Machado CR, Oliveira RP, Pena SD. Trypanosoma cruzi: genetic structure of populations and relevance of genetic variability to the pathogenesis of chagas disease. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2004;99:1–12. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762004000100001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Macedo AM, Oliveira RP, Pena SD. Chagas disease: role of parasite genetic variation in pathogenesis. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2002;4:1–16. doi: 10.1017/S1462399402004118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Dvorak JA, Hall TE, Crane MS, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: flow cytometric analysis. I. Analysis of total DNA/organism by means of mithramycin-induced fluorescence. J Protozool. 1982;29:430–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1982.tb05427.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Lewis MD, Llewellyn MS, Gaunt MW, et al. Flow cytometric analysis and microsatellite genotyping reveal extensive DNA content variation in Trypanosoma cruzi populations and expose contrasts between natural and experimental hybrids. Int J Parasitol. 2009;39:1305–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.04.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Henriksson J, Pettersson U, Solari A. Trypanosoma cruzi: correlation between karyotype variability and isoenzyme classification. Exp Parasitol. 1993;77:334–48. doi: 10.1006/expr.1993.1091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Lima FM, Souza RT, Santori FR, et al. Interclonal variations in the molecular karyotype of Trypanosoma cruzi: chromosome rearrangements in a single cell-derived clone of the G strain. Plos One. 2013;8:e63738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Henriksson J, Aslund L, Macina RA, et al. Chromosomal localization of seven cloned antigen genes provides evidence of diploidy and further demonstration of karyotype variability in Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1990;42:213–23. doi: 10.1016/0166-6851(90)90164-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Vargas N, Pedroso A, Zingales B. Chromosomal polymorphism, gene synteny and genome size in T. cruzi I and T. cruzi II groups. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2004;138:131–41. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2004.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Souza RT, Lima FM, Barros RM, et al. Genome size, karyotype polymorphism and chromosomal evolution in Trypanosoma cruzi. Plos One. 2011;6:e23042. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. O’Connor O, Bosseno MF, Barnabe C, et al. Genetic clustering of Trypanosoma cruzi I lineage evidenced by intergenic miniexon gene sequencing. Infect Genet Evol. 2007;7:587–93. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2007.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Wagner W, So M. Genomic variation of Trypanosoma cruzi: involvement of multicopy genes. Infect Immun. 1990;58:3217–24. doi: 10.1128/iai.58.10.3217-3224.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Moreira OC, Ramirez JD, Velazquez E, et al. Towards the establishment of a consensus real-time qPCR to monitor Trypanosoma cruzi parasitemia in patients with chronic Chagas disease cardiomyopathy: a substudy from the BENEFIT trial. Acta Trop. 2013;125:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.08.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Schijman AG, Bisio M, Orellana L, et al. International study to evaluate PCR methods for detection of Trypanosoma cruzi DNA in blood samples from Chagas disease patients. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Segatto M, Rodrigues CM, Machado CR, et al. LSSP-PCR of Trypanosoma cruzi: how the single primer sequence affects the kDNA signature. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:174. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Pedroso A, Cupolillo E, Zingales B. Trypanosoma cruzi: exploring the nuclear genome of zymodeme 3 stocks by chromosome size polymorphism. Exp Parasitol. 2007;116:71–6. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2006.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  155. Henriksson J, Dujardin JC, Barnabe C, et al. Chromosomal size variation in Trypanosoma cruzi is mainly progressive and is evolutionarily informative. Parasitology. 2002;124:277–86. doi: 10.1017/s0031182001001093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. Macedo AM, Martins MS, Chiari E, Pena SD. DNA fingerprinting of Trypanosoma cruzi: a new tool for characterization of strains and clones. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1992;55:147–53. doi: 10.1016/0166-6851(92)90135-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Ocana-Mayorga S, Llewellyn MS, Costales JA, et al. Sex, subdivision, and domestic dispersal of Trypanosoma cruzi lineage I in Southern Ecuador. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. Cosentino RO, Aguero F. A simple strain typing assay for Trypanosoma cruzi: discrimination of major evolutionary lineages from a single amplification product. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1777. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. Weatherly DB, Boehlke C, Tarleton RL. Chromosome level assembly of the hybrid Trypanosoma cruzi genome. BMC Genomics. 2009;10:255. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  160. Franzen O, Ochaya S, Sherwood E, et al. Shotgun sequencing analysis of Trypanosoma cruzi I Sylvio X10/1 and comparison with T. cruzi VI CL Brener. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e984. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. Aslett M, Aurrecoechea C, Berriman M, et al. TriTrypDB: a functional genomic resource for the Trypanosomatidae. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:D457–62. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. El-Sayed NM, Myler PJ, Bartholomeu DC, et al. The genome sequence of Trypanosoma cruzi, etiologic agent of Chagas disease. Science. 2005;309:409–15. doi: 10.1126/science.1112631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  163. Downing T, Imamura H, Decuypere S, et al. Whole genome sequencing of multiple Leishmania donovani clinical isolates provides insights into population structure and mechanisms of drug resistance. Genome Res. 2011;21:2143–56. doi: 10.1101/gr.123430.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  164. Rogers MB, Downing T, Smith BA, et al. Genomic confirmation of hybridisation and recent inbreeding in a vector-isolated Leishmania population. Plos Genet. 2014;10:e1004092. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  165. Goodhead I, Capewell P, Bailey JW, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Trypanosoma brucei reveals introgression between subspecies that is associated with virulence. MBio. 2013;4(4):e00197–13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00197-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  166. Campbell DA, Westenberger SJ, Sturm NR. The determinants of Chagas disease: connecting parasite and host genetics. Curr Mol Med. 2004;4:549–62. doi: 10.2174/1566524043360249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  167. Manoel-Caetano Fda S, Silva AE. Implications of genetic variability of Trypanosoma cruzi for the pathogenesis of Chagas disease. Cad Saude Publica. 2007;23:2263–74. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2007001000002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  168. Virreira M, Truyens C, Alonso-Vega C, et al. Comparison of Trypanosoma cruzi lineages and levels of parasitic DNA in infected mothers and their newborns. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:102–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  169. Ortiz S, Zulantay I, Solari A, et al. Presence of Trypanosoma cruzi in pregnant women and typing of lineages in congenital cases. Acta Trop. 2012;124:243–6. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  170. Miles MA, Lanham SM, de Souza AA, Povoa M. Further enzymic characters of Trypanosoma cruzi and their evaluation for strain identification. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1980;74:221–37. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(80)90251-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  171. Andrade SG, Magalhaes JB. Biodemes and zymodemes of Trypanosoma cruzi strains: correlations with clinical data and experimental pathology. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1996;30:27–35. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86821997000100006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  172. Rassi A, Porto CC, Rezende JM. Doença Transmissiveis. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 1979. Doença de Chagas. [Google Scholar]
  173. Barrett TV, Hoff RH, Mott KE, et al. Epidemiological aspects of three Trypanosoma cruzi zymodemes in Bahia State, Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1980;74:84–90. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(80)90016-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  174. Breniere SF, Carrasco R, Revollo S, et al. Chagas’ disease in Bolivia: clinical and epidemiological features and zymodeme variability of Trypanosoma cruzi strains isolated from patients. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989;41:521–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1989.41.521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  175. Apt W, Arribada A, Aguilera X, Sandoval J. Chagas’ cardiopathy and Trypanosoma cruzi zymodemes in Chile. Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1987;21:358–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  176. Apt W, Aguilera X, Arribada A, et al. Epidemiology of Chagas’ disease in northern Chile: isozyme profiles of Trypanosoma cruzi from domestic and sylvatic transmission cycles and their association with cardiopathy. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1987;37:302–7. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1987.37.302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  177. Montamat EE, De Luca D’Oro GM, Gallerano RH, et al. Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi populations by zymodemes: correlation with clinical picture. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1996;55:625–8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1996.55.625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  178. Montamat EE, De Luca d’Oro G, Perret B, Rivas C. Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi from Argentina by electrophoretic zymograms. Acta Trop. 1992;50:125–33. doi: 10.1016/0001-706x(91)90005-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  179. Lanham SM, Grendon JM, Miles MA, et al. A comparison of electrophoretic methods for isoenzyme characterization of trypanosomatids. I:Standard stocks of Trypanosoma cruzi zymodemes from northeast Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1981;75:742–50. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(81)90169-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  180. Montamat EE, Arauzo S, Cazzulo JJ, Subias E. Characterization by electrophoretic zymograms of 19 Trypanosoma cruzi clones derived from two chronic chagasic patients. Comp Biochem Physiol B. 1987;87:417–22. doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(87)90161-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  181. Tibayrenc M, Cariou ML, Solignac M, et al. New electrophoretic evidence of genetic variation and diploidy in Trypanosoma cruzi, the causative agent of Chagas’ disease. Genetica. 1985;67:223–30. [Google Scholar]
  182. Santana RA, Magalhaes LK, Magalhaes LK, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi strain TcI is associated with chronic Chagas disease in the Brazilian Amazon. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:267. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  183. Gonzalez CI, Ortiz S, Solari A. Colombian Trypanosoma cruzi major genotypes circulating in patients: minicircle homologies by cross-hybridization analysis. Int J Parasitol. 2010;40:1685–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  184. Zafra G, Mantilla JC, Jacome J, et al. Direct analysis of genetic variability in Trypanosoma cruzi populations from tissues of Colombian chagasic patients. Hum Pathol. 2011;42:1159–68. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  185. Ruiz-Sanchez R, Leon MP, Matta V, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi isolates from Mexican and Guatemalan acute and chronic chagasic cardiopathy patients belong to Trypanosoma cruzi I. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2005;100:281–3. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762005000300012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  186. Martinez I, Nogueda B, Martinez-Hernandez F, Espinoza B. Microsatellite and mini-exon analysis of Mexican human DTU I Trypanosoma cruzi strains and their susceptibility to nifurtimox and benznidazole. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13:181–7. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2012.1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  187. Sousa OE, Samudio F, de Junca C, Calzada JE. Molecular characterization of human Trypanosoma cruzi isolates from endemic areas in Panama. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2006;101:455–7. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762006000400018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  188. • .Cura CI, Lucero RH, Bisio M, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in Chagas disease patients from endemic and non-endemic regions of Argentina. Parasitology. 2012;139:516–21. doi: 10.1017/S0031182011002186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; •  This article describes genotypic data for one of the largest collections of clinical blood and tissue specimens from a range of chronic, congenital and reactivation patients.
  189. del Puerto R, Nishizawa JE, Kikuchi M, et al. Lineage analysis of circulating Trypanosoma cruzi parasites and their association with clinical forms of Chagas disease in Bolivia. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  190. D’Avila DA, Macedo AM, Valadares HM, et al. Probing population dynamics of Trypanosoma cruzi during progression of the chronic phase in chagasic patients. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47:1718–25. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01658-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  191. Lages-Silva E, Ramirez LE, Pedrosa AL, et al. Variability of kinetoplast DNA gene signatures of Trypanosoma cruzi II strains from patients with different clinical forms of Chagas’ disease in Brazil. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:2167–71. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02124-05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  192. Virreira M, Serrano G, Maldonado L, Svoboda M. Trypanosoma cruzi: typing of genotype (sub)lineages in megacolon samples from bolivian patients. Acta Trop. 2006;100:252–5. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2006.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  193. Freitas JM, Lages-Silva E, Crema E, et al. Real time PCR strategy for the identification of major lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi directly in chronically infected human tissues. Int J Parasitol. 2005;35:411–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2004.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  194. Di Noia JM, Buscaglia CA, De Marchi CR, et al. A Trypanosoma cruzi small surface molecule provides the first immunological evidence that Chagas’ disease is due to a single parasite lineage. J Exp Med. 2002;195:401–13. doi: 10.1084/jem.20011433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  195. Risso MG, Sartor PA, Burgos JM, et al. Immunological identification of Trypanosoma cruzi lineages in human infection along the endemic area. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84:78–84. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  196. • .Bhattacharyya T, Falconar AK, Luquetti AO, et al. Development of peptide-based lineage-specific serology for chronic Chagas disease: geographical and clinical distribution of epitope recognition. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e2892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; •  This article describes the development of a T. cruzi lineage-specific serological assay designed to circumvent the problems of obtaining genotypic data for chronic patients with low parasite load.
  197. Venegas J, Conoepan W, Pichuantes S, et al. Differential distribution of Trypanosoma cruzi clones in human chronic chagasic cardiopathic and non-cardiopathic individuals. Acta Trop. 2009;109:187–93. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  198. Venegas J, Miranda S, Conoepan W, et al. Microsatellite marker analysis shows differentiation among Trypanosoma cruzi populations of peripheral blood and dejections of Triatoma infestans fed on the same chronic chagasic patients : microsatellite marker analysis and T. cruzi. Parasitol Res. 2010;107:855–63. doi: 10.1007/s00436-010-1939-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  199. Venegas J, Diaz F, Rojas T, et al. Microsatellite loci-based distribution of Trypanosoma cruzi genotypes from Chilean chronic Chagas disease patients and Triatoma infestans is concordant with a specific host-parasite association hypothesis. Acta Parasitol. 2013;58:139–48. doi: 10.2478/s11686-013-0123-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  200. Virreira M, Alonso-Vega C, Solano M, et al. Congenital Chagas disease in Bolivia is not associated with DNA polymorphism of Trypanosoma cruzi. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;75:871–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  201. Bern C. Chagas disease in the immunosuppressed host. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012;25:450–7. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328354f179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  202. Schenone H, Gaggero M, Sapunar J, et al. Congenital Chagas disease of second generation in Santiago, Chile. Report of two cases. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2001;43:231–2. doi: 10.1590/s0036-46652001000400011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  203. Oliveira I, Torrico F, Munoz J, Gascon J. Congenital transmission of Chagas disease: a clinical approach. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010;8:945–56. doi: 10.1586/eri.10.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  204. Torrico F, Alonso-Vega C, Suarez E, et al. Maternal Trypanosoma cruzi infection, pregnancy outcome, morbidity, and mortality of congenitally infected and non-infected newborns in Bolivia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;70:201–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  205. Bern C, Verastegui M, Gilman RH, et al. Congenital Trypanosoma cruzi transmission in Santa Cruz. Bolivia. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1667–74. doi: 10.1086/648070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  206. Bittencourt AL, Barbosa HS, Rocha T, et al. [Incidence of congenital transmission of Chagas’ disease in premature births in the Maternidade Tsylla Balbino (Salvador. Bahia)]. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1972;14:131–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  207. Torrico MC, Solano M, Guzman JM, et al. [Estimation of the parasitemia in Trypanosoma cruzi human infection: high parasitemias are associated with severe and fatal congenital Chagas disease] Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2005;38(Suppl 2):58–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  208. Dao L. Otros casos de enfermedad de Chagas en el Estado Guarico (Venezuela). Formas agudas e cronicas. Observacion sobre enfermedad de Chagas congenita. Revista Policlinica. Caracas. 1949;17:17–32. [Google Scholar]
  209. Chagas C. Nova trypanozomiaze humana. Estudos sobre a morfologia e ciclo evolutivo do Schizotripanum cruzi n. gen. n. sp., agente etiologico de nova entidade morbida do homem. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1909;1:159–218. [Google Scholar]
  210. Bittencourt AL. Placentite chagasica e transmissao congenita da doenca de Chagas. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1963;5:62–7. [Google Scholar]
  211. de Rissio AM, Riarte AR, Garcia MM, et al. Congenital Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Efficacy of its monitoring in an urban reference health center in a non-endemic area of Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;82:838–45. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.08-0383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  212. Blanco SB, Segura EL, Cura EN, et al. Congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi: an operational outline for detecting and treating infected infants in north-western Argentina. Trop Med Int Health. 2000;5:293–301. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2000.00548.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  213. Mallimaci MC, Sosa-Estani S, Russomando G, et al. Early diagnosis of congenital Trypanosoma cruzi infection, using shed acute phase antigen, in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;82:55–9. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  214. Bua J, Volta BJ, Perrone AE, et al. How to improve the early diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection: relationship between validated conventional diagnosis and quantitative DNA amplification in congenitally infected children. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  215. Azogue E, Darras C. [Prospective study of Chagas disease in newborn children with placental infection caused by Trypanosoma cruzi (Santa Cruz-Bolivia)] Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1991;24:105–9. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86821991000200007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  216. Salas Clavijo NA, Postigo JR, Schneider D, et al. Prevalence of Chagas disease in pregnant women and incidence of congenital transmission in Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Bolivia. Acta Trop. 2012;124:87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  217. Rassi A, Amato Neto V, Rassi GG, et al. [A retrospective search for maternal transmission of Chagas infection from patients in the chronic phase] Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2004;37:485–9. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822004000600011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  218. Martins-Melo FR, Lima MS, Ramos ANJ, et al. Prevalence of Chagas disease in pregnant women and congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2014;19:943–57. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  219. Apt W, Zulantay I, Solari A, et al. Vertical transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in the Province of Choapa, IV Region, Chile: Preliminary Report (2005-2008) Biol Res. 2010;43:269–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  220. Tello P, Fernandez P, Sandoval L, et al. [Incidence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in mothers and sons in a section of the northern area of Santiago] Bol Chil Parasitol. 1982;37:23–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  221. Apt W, Zulantay I, Arnello M, et al. Congenital infection by Trypanosoma cruzi in an endemic area of Chile: a multidisciplinary study. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2013;107:98–104. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trs013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  222. Russomando G, de Tomassone MM, de Guillen I, et al. Treatment of congenital Chagas’ disease diagnosed and followed up by the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;59:487–91. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1998.59.487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  223. Russomando G, Almiron M, Candia N, et al. [Implementation and evaluation of a locally sustainable system of prenatal diagnosis to detect cases of congenital Chagas disease in endemic areas of Paraguay] Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2005;38(Suppl 2):49–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  224. Hermann E, Truyens C, Alonso-Vega C, et al. Congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi is associated with maternal enhanced parasitemia and decreased production of interferon- gamma in response to parasite antigens. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:1274–81. doi: 10.1086/382511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  225. Vekemans J, Truyens C, Torrico F, et al. Maternal Trypanosoma cruzi infection upregulates capacity of uninfected neonate cells To produce pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Infect Immun. 2000;68:5430–4. doi: 10.1128/iai.68.9.5430-5434.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  226. Freilij H, Altcheh J, Muchinik G. Perinatal human immunodeficiency virus infection and congenital Chagas’ disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995;14:161–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  227. Scapellato PG, Bottaro EG, Rodriguez-Brieschke MT. Mother-child transmission of Chagas disease: could coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus increase the risk? Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2009;42:107–9. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822009000200002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  228. Buekens P, Cafferata ML, Alger J, et al. Congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in Argentina, Honduras and Mexico: study protocol. Reprod Health. 2013;10:55. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  229. Costales JA, Sanchez-Gomez A, Silva-Aycaguer LC, et al. A national survey to determine prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection among pregnant women in Ecuador. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0562. In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  230. del Puerto F, Sanchez Z, Nara E, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi lineages detected in congenitally infected infants and Triatoma infestans from the same disease-endemic region under entomologic surveillance in Paraguay. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;82:386–90. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  231. Diez C, Lorenz V, Ortiz S, et al. Genotyping of Trypanosoma cruzi sublineage in human samples from a North-East Argentina area by hybridization with DNA probes and specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;82:67–73. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  232. Carlier Y, Torrico F. Congenital infection with Trypanosoma cruzi: from mechanisms of transmission to strategies for diagnosis and control. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2003;36:767–71. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822003000600024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  233. Alonso-Vega C, Billot C, Torrico F. Achievements and challenges upon the implementation of a program for national control of congenital Chagas in Bolivia: results 2004-2009. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  234. Bisio M, Seidenstein ME, Burgos JM, et al. Urbanization of congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi: prospective polymerase chain reaction study in pregnancy. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2011;105:543–9. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2011.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  235. Sanchez Negrette O, Mora MC, Basombrio MA. High prevalence of congenital Trypanosoma cruzi infection and family clustering in Salta. Argentina. Pediatrics. 2005;115:e668–72. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  236. Andrade SG. The influence of the strain of Trypanosoma cruzi in placental infections in mice. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1982;76:123–8. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(82)90036-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  237. Rendell VR, Gilman RH, Valencia E, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi-infected pregnant women without vector exposure have higher parasitemia levels: implications for congenital transmission risk. Plos One. 2015;10:e0119527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  238. Roellig DM, Ellis AE, Yabsley MJ. Oral transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi with opposing evidence for the theory of carnivory. J Parasitol. 2009;95:360–4. doi: 10.1645/GE-1740.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  239. Beltrao B, Cerroni P, Freitas DR, et al. Investigation of two outbreaks of suspected oral transmission of acute Chagas disease in the Amazon region, Para State, Brazil, in 2007. Trop Doct. 2009;39:231–2. doi: 10.1258/td.2009.090035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  240. Blanchet D, Breniere SF, Schijman AG, et al. First report of a family outbreak of Chagas disease in French Guiana and posttreatment follow-up. Infect Genet Evol. 2014;28:245–50. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  241. Nobrega AA, Garcia MH, Tatto E, et al. Oral transmission of Chagas disease by consumption of acai palm fruit, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15:653–5. doi: 10.3201/eid1504.081450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  242. Pinto AY, Harada GS, Valente V, et al. [Cardiac attacks in patients with acute Chagas disease in a family micro-outbreak, in Abaetetuba, Brazilian Amazon] Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2001;34:413–19. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822001000500003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  243. Steindel M, Kramer Pacheco L, Scholl D, et al. Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi isolated from humans, vectors, and animal reservoirs following an outbreak of acute human Chagas disease in Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;60:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  244. de Noya B, Diaz-Bello Z, Colmenares C, et al. Large urban outbreak of orally acquired acute Chagas disease at a school in Caracas, Venezuela. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:1308–15. doi: 10.1086/651608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  245. Segovia M, Carrasco HJ, Martinez CE, et al. Molecular epidemiologic source tracking of orally transmitted Chagas disease, Venezuela. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19:1098–101. doi: 10.3201/eid1907.121576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  246. Andrade SG, Campos RF, Steindel M, et al. Biological, biochemical and molecular features of Trypanosoma cruzi strains isolated from patients infected through oral transmission during a 2005 outbreak in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil: its correspondence with the new T. cruzi Taxonomy Consensus (2009) Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2011;106:948–56. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762011000800009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  247. Coura JR, Junqueira AC, Fernandes O, et al. Emerging Chagas disease in Amazonian Brazil. Trends Parasitol. 2002;18:171–6. doi: 10.1016/s1471-4922(01)02200-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  248. Marques J, Mendoza I, Noya B, et al. ECG manifestations of the biggest outbreak of Chagas disease due to oral infection in Latin-America. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2013;101:249–54. doi: 10.5935/abc.20130144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  249. Bastos CJ, Aras R, Mota G, et al. Clinical outcomes of thirteen patients with acute chagas disease acquired through oral transmission from two urban outbreaks in northeastern Brazil. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  250. Diaz-Bello Z, Thomas MC, Lopez MC, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi genotyping supports a common source of infection in a school-related oral outbreak of acute Chagas disease in Venezuela. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142:156–62. doi: 10.1017/S0950268813000757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  251. Ramirez JD, Montilla M, Cucunuba ZM, et al. Molecular epidemiology of human oral Chagas disease outbreaks in Colombia. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  252. Soto H, Tibaduiza T, Montilla M, et al. [Investigation of vectors and reservoirs in an acute Chagas outbreak due to possible oral transmission in Aguachica, Cesar, Colombia] Cad Saude Publica. 2014;30:746–56. doi: 10.1590/0102-311x00024013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  253. Villa LM, Guhl F, Zabala D, et al. The identification of two Trypanosoma cruzi I genotypes from domestic and sylvatic transmission cycles in Colombia based on a single polymerase chain reaction amplification of the spliced-leader intergenic region. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013;108:932–5. doi: 10.1590/0074-0276130201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  254. Muñoz-Calderón A, Diaz-Bello Z, Valladares B, et al. Oral transmission of Chagas disease: typing of Trypanosoma cruzi from five outbreaks occurred in Venezuela shows multiclonal and common infections in patients, vectors and reservoirs. Infect Genet Evol. 2013;17:113–22. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2013.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  255. Shikanai-Yasuda MA, Marcondes CB, Guedes LA, et al. Possible oral transmission of acute Chagas’ disease in Brazil. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1991;33:351–7. doi: 10.1590/s0036-46651991000500003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  256. Covarrubias C, Cortez M, Ferreira D, Yoshida N. Interaction with host factors exacerbates Trypanosoma cruzi cell invasion capacity upon oral infection. Int J Parasitol. 2007;37:1609–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2007.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  257. Yoshida N. Trypanosoma cruzi infection by oral route: how the interplay between parasite and host components modulates infectivity. Parasitol Int. 2008;57:105–9. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2007.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  258. Yoshida N, Tyler KM, Llewellyn MS. Invasion mechanisms among emerging food-borne protozoan parasites. Trends Parasitol. 2011;27:459–66. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2011.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  259. Camandaroba EL, Pinheiro Lima CM, Andrade SG. Oral transmission of Chagas disease: importance of Trypanosoma cruzi biodeme in the intragastric experimental infection. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2002;44:97–103. doi: 10.1590/s0036-46652002000200008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  260. WHO Expert Committee . Control of Chagas Disease. Brasilia, Brazil: WHO; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  261. Verani JR, Seitz A, Gilman RH, et al. Geographic variation in the sensitivity of recombinant antigen-based rapid tests for chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80:410–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  262. Umezawa ES, Luquetti AO, Levitus G, et al. Serodiagnosis of chronic and acute Chagas’ disease with Trypanosoma cruzi recombinant proteins: results of a collaborative study in six Latin American countries. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:449–52. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.1.449-452.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  263. Caballero ZC, Sousa OE, Marques WP, et al. Evaluation of serological tests to identify Trypanosoma cruzi infection in humans and determine cross-reactivity with Trypanosoma rangeli and Leishmania spp. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2007;14:1045–9. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00127-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  264. Sosa-Estani S, Gamboa-Leon MR, Del Cid-Lemus J, et al. Use of a rapid test on umbilical cord blood to screen for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in pregnant women in Argentina, Bolivia, Honduras, and Mexico. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:755–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  265. Martin DL, Marks M, Galdos-Cardenas G, et al. Regional variation in the correlation of antibody and T-cell responses to Trypanosoma cruzi. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;90:1074–81. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  266. Cancado JR, Brener Z. Trypanosoma cruzi e doença de Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara Koogan; 1979. Terapeutica. [Google Scholar]
  267. Maia da Silva F, Rodrigues AC, Campaner M, et al. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of Trypanosoma rangeli and allied species from human, monkeys and other sylvatic mammals of the Brazilian Amazon disclosed a new group and a species-specific marker. Parasitology. 2004;128:283–94. doi: 10.1017/s0031182003004554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  268. A Study of the Use of Oral Posaconazole (POS) in the Treatment of Asymptomatic Chronic Chagas Disease (P05267) (STOP CHAGAS) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01377480 Available from:
  269. Proof-of-Concept Study of E1224 to Treat Adult Patients With Chagas Disease. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01489228 Available from:
  270. Chatelain E. Chagas disease drug discovery: toward a new era. J Biomol Screen. 2015;20:22–35. doi: 10.1177/1087057114550585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  271. Molina I, Salvador F, Sanchez-Montalva A. Posaconazole versus benznidazole for chronic Chagas’ disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:966. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1407914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  272. Andrade SG, Rassi A, Magalhaes JB, et al. Specific chemotherapy of Chagas disease: a comparison between the response in patients and experimental animals inoculated with the same strains. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992;86:624–6. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(92)90156-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  273. Filardi LS, Brener Z. Susceptibility and natural resistance of Trypanosoma cruzi strains to drugs used clinically in Chagas disease. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1987;81:755–9. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(87)90020-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  274. Murta SM, Gazzinelli RT, Brener Z, Romanha AJ. Molecular characterization of susceptible and naturally resistant strains of Trypanosoma cruzi to benznidazole and nifurtimox. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1998;93:203–14. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(98)00037-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  275. Zingales B, Miles MA, Moraes CB, et al. Drug discovery for Chagas disease should consider Trypanosoma cruzi strain diversity. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2014;109:828–33. doi: 10.1590/0074-0276140156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  276. Mejia AM, Hall BS, Taylor MC, et al. Benznidazole-resistance in Trypanosoma cruzi is a readily acquired trait that can arise independently in a single population. J Infect Dis. 2012;206:220–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  277. Wilkinson SR, Taylor MC, Horn D, et al. A mechanism for cross-resistance to nifurtimox and benznidazole in trypanosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:5022–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711014105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  278. Neal RA, van Bueren J. Comparative studies of drug susceptibility of five strains of Trypanosoma cruzi in vivo and in vitro. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1988;82:709–14. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(88)90208-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  279. Teston AP, Monteiro WM, Reis D, et al. In vivo susceptibility to benznidazole of Trypanosoma cruzi strains from the western Brazilian Amazon. Trop Med Int Health. 2013;18:85–95. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  280. • .Lewis MD, Francisco AF, Taylor MC, Kelly JM. A new experimental model for assessing drug efficacy against Trypanosoma cruzi infection based on highly sensitive in vivo imaging. J Biomol Screen. 2015;20:36–43. doi: 10.1177/1087057114552623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; •  This article describes the development of a novel non-invasive in vivo bioluminescent imaging system enabling real-time monitoring of chronic parasite burden, with potential applications to models of Chagas disease pathogenesis and evaluations of candidate drug compounds.
  281. Lewis MD, Fortes Francisco A, Taylor MC, et al. Bioluminescence imaging of chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infections reveals tissue-specific parasite dynamics and heart disease in the absence of locally persistent infection. Cell Microbiol. 2014;16:1285–300. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  282. Marin-Neto JA, Rassi A, Jr, Avezum A, Jr, et al. The BENEFIT trial: testing the hypothesis that trypanocidal therapy is beneficial for patients with chronic Chagas heart disease. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104(Suppl 1):319–324. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762009000900042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  283. Pless M, Juranek D, Kozarsky P, et al. The epidemiology of Chagas’ disease in a hyperendemic area of Cochabamba, Bolivia: a clinical study including electrocardiography, seroreactivity to Trypanosoma cruzi, xenodiagnosis, and domiciliary triatomine distribution. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992;47:539–46. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1992.47.539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  284. Apt W, Aguilera X, Arribada A, et al. Treatment of chronic Chagas’ disease with itraconazole and allopurinol. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;59:133–8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1998.59.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  285. McElroy K, Thomas T, Luciani F. Deep sequencing of evolving pathogen populations: applications, errors, and bioinformatics solutions. Microb Inform Exp. 2014;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2042-5783-4-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  286. Juliano JJ, Porter K, Mwapasa V, et al. Exposing malaria in-host diversity and estimating population diversity by capture-recapture using massively parallel pyrosequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:20138–43. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007068107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  287. Manske M, Miotto O, Campino S, et al. Analysis of Plasmodium falciparum diversity in natural infections by deep sequencing. Nature. 2012;487:375–9. doi: 10.1038/nature11174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  288. Taylor SM, Parobek CM, Aragam N, et al. Pooled deep sequencing of Plasmodium falciparum isolates: an efficient and scalable tool to quantify prevailing malaria drug-resistance genotypes. J Infect Dis. 2013;208:1998–2006. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  289. • .Llewellyn MS, Messenger LA, Luquetti AO, et al. Deep sequencing of Trypanosoma cruzi GP63 surface proteases reveals diversity and diversifying selection among chronic and congenital Chagas disease patients. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003458. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; •  This article describes the novel application of Illumina deep sequencing to investigate the interaction between T. cruzi multiclonality and clinical status of Chagas disease.
  290. Tibayrenc M, Miles MA. A genetic comparison between Brazilian and Bolivian zymodemes of Trypanosoma cruzi. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1983;77:76–83. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(83)90021-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  291. Chapman MD, Baggaley RC, Godfrey-Fausset PF, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi from the Paraguayan Chaco: isoenzyme profiles of strains isolated at Makthlawaiya. J Protozool. 1984;31:482–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1984.tb02999.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  292. Povoa MM, de Souza AA, Naiff RD, et al. Chagas’ disease in the Amazon basin IV. Host records of Trypanosoma cruzi zymodemes in the states of Amazonas and Rondonia. Brazil. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1984;78:479–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  293. Carneiro M, Chiari E, Goncalves AM, et al. Changes in the isoenzyme and kinetoplast DNA patterns of Trypanosoma cruzi strains induced by maintenance in mice. Acta Trop. 1990;47:35–45. doi: 10.1016/0001-706x(90)90005-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  294. Romanha AJ. Heterogeneidade enzimática em Trypanosoma cruzi. PhD Thesis. UFMG; Belo Horizonte: 1982. pp 110. [Google Scholar]
  295. Luca D’Oro GM, Gardenal CN, Perret B, et al. Genetic structure of Trypanosoma cruzi populations from Argentina estimated from enzyme polymorphism. Parasitology. 1993;107:405–10. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000067755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  296. Mendonca MB, Nehme NS, Santos SS, et al. Two main clusters within Trypanosoma cruzi zymodeme 3 are defined by distinct regions of the ribosomal RNA cistron. Parasitology. 2002;124:177–84. doi: 10.1017/s0031182001001172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  297. Kawashita SY, Sanson GF, Fernandes O, et al. Maximum-likelihood divergence date estimates based on rRNA gene sequences suggest two scenarios of Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2001;18:2250–9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  298. Augusto-Pinto L, Teixeira SM, Pena SD, Machado CR. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms of the Trypanosoma cruzi MSH2 gene support the existence of three phylogenetic lineages presenting differences in mismatch-repair efficiency. Genetics. 2003;164:117–26. doi: 10.1093/genetics/164.1.117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  299. Nunes LR, de Carvalho MR, Buck GA. Trypanosoma cruzi strains partition into two groups based on the structure and function of the spliced leader RNA and rRNA gene promoters. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1997;86:211–24. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(97)02857-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  300. Pennington PM, Paiz C, Grajeda LM, Cordon-Rosales C. Concurrent detection of Trypanosoma cruzi lineages I and II in domestic Triatoma dimidiata from Guatemala. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80:239–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  301. Higo H, Miura S, Horio M, et al. Genotypic variation among lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi and its geographic aspects. Parasitol Int. 2004;53:337–44. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2004.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  302. Zafra G, Mantilla JC, Valadares HM, et al. Evidence of Trypanosoma cruzi II infection in Colombian chagasic patients. Parasitol Res. 2008;103:731–4. doi: 10.1007/s00436-008-1034-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  303. Martins LP, Marcili A, Castanho RE, et al. Rural Triatoma rubrovaria from southern Brazil harbors Trypanosoma cruzi of lineage IIc. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:427–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  304. Corrales RM, Mora MC, Negrette OS, et al. Congenital Chagas disease involves Trypanosoma cruzi sub-lineage IId in the northwestern province of Salta, Argentina. Infect Genet Evol. 2009;9:278–82. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2008.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  305. Ramos-Ligonio A, Torres-Montero J, Lopez-Monteon A, Dumonteil E. Extensive diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units circulating in Triatoma dimidiata from central Veracruz, Mexico. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:1341–3. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  306. Ready PD, Miles MA. Delimitation of Trypanosoma cruzi zymodemes by numerical taxonomy. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1980;74:238–42. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(80)90252-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  307. Sturm NR, Degrave W, Morel C, Simpson L. Sensitive detection and schizodeme classification of Trypanosoma cruzi cells by amplification of kinetoplast minicircle DNA sequences: use in diagnosis of Chagas’ disease. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1989;33:205–14. doi: 10.1016/0166-6851(89)90082-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  308. Britto C, Cardosa MA, Ravel C, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi: parasite detection and strain discrimination in chronic chagasic patients from northeastern Brazil using PCR amplification of kinetoplast DNA and nonradioactive probes. Exp Parasitol. 1995;81:462–71. doi: 10.1006/expr.1995.1139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  309. Henriksson J, Porcel BM, Rydaker M, et al. Chromosome-specific markers reveal conserved linkage groups in spite of extensive chromosomal size variation in Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1995;73:63–74. doi: 10.1016/0166-6851(95)00096-j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  310. Pena SD, Barreto G, Vago AR, et al. Sequence-specific ‘gene signatures’ can be obtained by PCR with single specific primers at low stringency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91:1946–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.5.1946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  311. Vago AR, Macedo AM, Adad SJ, et al. PCR detection of Trypanosoma cruzi DNA in esophageal tissues of patients with chronic Chagas disease. Lancet. 1996;348:891–2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)64761-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  312. Vago AR, Macedo AM, Oliveira RP, et al. Kinetoplast DNA signatures of Trypanosoma cruzi strains obtained directly from infected tissues. Am J Pathol. 1996;149:2153–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  313. De Leon MP, Yanagi T, Kikuchi M, et al. Characterisation of Trypanosoma cruzi populations by DNA polyrmophism of the cruzipain gene detected by single-stranded DNA conformation polymorphism (SSCP) and direct sequencing. Int J Parasitol. 1998;28:1867–74. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(98)00154-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  314. Vazquez MP, Beldjord C, Lorenzi H, et al. Detection of polymorphism in the Trypanosoma cruzi TcP2 beta gene family by single strand conformational analysis (SSCA) Gene. 1996;180:43–8. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(96)00401-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  315. Rozas M, De Doncker S, Adaui V, et al. Multilocus polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment-length polymorphism genotyping of Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas disease): taxonomic and clinical applications. J Infect Dis. 2007;195:1381–8. doi: 10.1086/513440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  316. Lauthier JJ, Tomasini N, Barnabe C, et al. Candidate targets for Multilocus Sequence Typing of Trypanosoma cruzi: validation using parasite stocks from the Chaco Region and a set of reference strains. Infect Genet Evol. 2012;12:350–8. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  317. Messenger LA, Llewellyn MS, Bhattacharyya T, et al. Multiple mitochondrial introgression events and heteroplasmy in trypanosoma cruzi revealed by maxicircle MLST and next generation sequencing. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  318. Carranza JC, Valadares HM, D’Avila DA, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi maxicircle heterogeneity in Chagas disease patients from Brazil. Int J Parasitol. 2009;39:963–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  319. Hamilton PB, Lewis MD, Cruickshank C, et al. Identification and lineage genotyping of South American trypanosomes using fluorescent fragment length barcoding. Infect Genet Evol. 2011;11:44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2010.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  320. Higuera SL, Guhl F, Ramirez JD. Identification of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units (DTUs) through the implementation of a high-resolution melting (HRM) genotyping assay. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:112. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-6-112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  321. Macedo AM, Pimenta JR, Aguiar RS, et al. Usefulness of microsatellite typing in population genetic studies of Trypanosoma cruzi. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2001;96:407–13. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762001000300023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  322. Storino R, Milei J. Enfermedad de Chagas Buenos Aires, Argentina: Mosby-Doyma Argentina. 1994 [Google Scholar]
  323. Rezende JM. Trypanossoma Cruzi e Doença de Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Guanabara Koogan; 1979. Clínica: manifestações digestivas. [Google Scholar]
  324. Ben Abderrazak S, Guerrini F, Mathieu-Daude F, et al. In: Methods in Molecular Biology, Protocols in Molecular Parasitology. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 1993. Isozyme electrophoresis for parasite characterization. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  325. Tibayrenc M, Le Ray D. General classification of the isoenzymic strains of Trypanosoma (Schizotrypanum) cruzi and comparison with T.(S.) c. marinkellei and T. (Herpetosoma) rangeli. Ann Soc Belge Med Trop. 1984;64:239–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  326. Acosta N, Samudio M, Lopez E, et al. Isoenzyme profiles of Trypanosoma cruzi stocks from different areas of Paraguay. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2001;96:527–33. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762001000400015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  327. Veas F, Breniere SF, Cuny G, et al. General procedure to construct highly specific kDNA probes for clones of Trypanosoma cruzi for sensitive detection by polymerase chain reaction. Cell Mol Biol. 1991;37:73–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  328. Burgos JM, Begher SB, Freitas JM, et al. Molecular diagnosis and typing of Trypanosoma cruzi populations and lineages in cerebral Chagas disease in a patient with AIDS. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;73:1016–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  329. • .Bisio M, Cura C, Duffy T, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in Chagas disease patients with HIV co-infection. Rev Biomed. 2009;20:166–78. [Google Scholar]; •  The largest study demonstrating differential T. cruzi tissue tropisms in individual patients with immunosuppression.
  330. Cura CI, Lattes R, Nagel C, et al. Early molecular diagnosis of acute Chagas disease after transplantation with organs from Trypanosoma cruzi-infected donors. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:3253–61. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  331. Lages-Silva E, Ramirez LE, Silva-Vergara ML, Chiari E. Chagasic meningoencephalitis in a patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: diagnosis, follow-up, and genetic characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:118–23. doi: 10.1086/324355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  332. Perez-Ramirez L, Barnabé C, Sartori AM, et al. Clinical analysis and parasite genetic diversity in human immunodeficiency virus/Chagas’ disease coinfections in Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:198–206. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1999.61.198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  333. Hernandez C, Cucunuba Z, Parra E, et al. Chagas disease (Trypanosoma cruzi) and HIV co-infection in Colombia. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;26:146–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2014.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  334. Burgos JM, Altcheh J, Petrucelli N, et al. Molecular diagnosis and treatment monitoring of congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi to twins of a triplet delivery. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;65:58–61. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2009.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  335. Bittencourt AL, Mota E. Isoenzyme characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi from congenital cases of Chagas’ disease. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1985;79:393–6. doi: 10.1080/00034983.1985.11811937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  336. Bosseno MF, Torrico F, Telleria J, et al. Reaccion de polimerasa en cadena: deteccion y caracterizacion de cepas de Trypanosoma cruzi en niños chagásicos. Medicina (B Aires) 1995;55:277–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  337. Garcia A, Ortiz S, Iribarren C, et al. Congenital co-infection with different Trypanosoma cruzi lineages. Parasitol Int. 2014;63:138–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  338. Murcia L, Carrilero B, Munoz-Davila MJ, et al. Risk factors and primary prevention of congenital Chagas disease in a nonendemic country. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:496–502. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  339. Steindel M, Toma HK, Ishida MM, et al. Biological and isoenzymatic characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi strains isolated from sylvatic reservoirs and vectors from the State of Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Acta Trop. 1995;60:167–77. doi: 10.1016/0001-706x(95)00124-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  340. Fernandes O, Santos SS, Cupolillo E, et al. A mini-exon multiplex polymerase chain reaction to distinguish the major groups of Trypanosoma cruzi and T. rangeli in the Brazilian Amazon. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2001;95:97–9. doi: 10.1016/s0035-9203(01)90350-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  341. Maia da Silva F, Noyes H, Campaner M, et al. Phylogeny, taxonomy and grouping of Trypanosoma rangeli isolates from man, triatomines and sylvatic mammals from widespread geographical origin based on SSU and ITS ribosomal sequences. Parasitology. 2004;129:549–61. doi: 10.1017/s0031182004005931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES