Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0235401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235401

Antimalarial drug resistance molecular makers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015–2017

Maazza Hussien 1,2,#, Muzamil Mahdi Abdel Hamid 2,*,#, Elamin Abdelkarim Elamin 1, Abdalla O Hassan 2, Arwa H Elaagip 2, Abusofyan Hamattallah A Salama 3, Mohammed H Abdelraheem 2,4, Abdelrahim O Mohamed 5,#
Editor: Luzia Helena Carvalho6
PMCID: PMC7446868  PMID: 32817665

Abstract

Background

Current malaria control and elimination strategies rely mainly on efficacious antimalarial drugs. However, drug resistance is a major threat facing malaria control programs. Determination of drug resistance molecular markers is useful in the monitoring and surveillance of malaria drug efficacy. This study aimed to determine the mutations and haplotypes frequencies of different genes linked with antimalarial drug resistance in certain areas in Sudan.

Methods

A total of 226 dried blood spots (DBS) of microscopically diagnosed P. falciparum isolates were collected from Khartoum and three other areas in Sudan during 2015–2017. Plasmodium falciparum confirmation and multiplicity of infection was assessed using the Sanger’s 101 SNPs-barcode and speciation was confirmed using regions of the parasite mitochondria. Molecular genotyping of drug resistance genes (Pfcrt, Pfmdr1, Pfdhfr, Pfdhps, exonuclease, Pfk13, parasite genetic background (PGB) (Pfarps10, ferredoxin, Pfcrt, Pfmdr2)) was also performed. All genotypes were generated by selective regions amplicon sequencing of the parasite genome using the Illumina MiSeq platform at the Wellcome Sanger Institute, UK then genotypes were translated into drug resistance haplotypes and species determination.

Findings

In total 225 samples were confirmed to be P. falciparum. A higher proportion of multiplicity of infection was observed in Gezira (P<0.001) based on the Sanger 101 SNPs -barcode. The overall frequency of mutant haplotype Pfcrt 72–76 CVIET was 71.8%. For Pfmdr1, N86Y was detected in 53.6%, Y184F was observed in 88.1% and D1246Y was detected in 1.5% of the samples. The most frequently observed haplotype was YFD 47.4%. For Pfdhfr (codons 51, 59,108,164), the ICNI haplotype was the most frequent (80.7%) while for Pfdhps (codons 436, 437, 540, 581, 613) the (SGEAA) was most frequent haplotype (41%). The Quadruple mutation (dhfr N51I, S108N + dhps A437G, K540E) was the highest frequent combined mutation (33.9%). In Pfkelch13 gene, 18 non‐synonymous mutations were detected, 7 of them were detected in other African countries. The most frequent Pfk13 mutation was E433D detected in four samples. All of the Pfk13 mutant alleles have not been reported to belong to mutations associated with delayed parasite clearance in Southeast Asia. PGB mutations were detected only in Pfcrt N326S\I (46.3%) and Pfcrt I356T (8.2%). The exonuclease mutation was not detected. There was no significant variation in mutant haplotypes between study areas.

Conclusions

There was high frequency of mutations in Pfcrt, Pfdhfr and Pfdhps in this study. These mutations are associated with chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) resistance. Many SNPs in Pfk13 not linked with delayed parasite clearance were observed. The exonuclease E415G mutation which is linked with piperaquine resistance was not reported.

Introduction

Malaria is considered a major public health problem in Sudan. According to the 2018 annual estimates, 1,617,499 confirmed malaria cases were reported and the reported deaths were 5,003 [1]. Plasmodium falciparum is responsible for 91.2% of malaria cases in the country while P. vivax makes 8.8% of the cases in Sudan [1]. The P. falciparum infections were most prevalent in eastern Sudan (86.8%), Gezira and Khartoum states (97.9% and 75%, respectively). Plasmodium vivax infections represent 12.5% of the total malaria infections in Khartoum and 7.5% in eastern Sudan while mixed infections represent 5.7% in eastern Sudan, 1.1% in central Sudan and 12.5% in Khartoum [2]. Effective malaria treatment, insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and other vector control measures are the main pillars for malaria control [3].

In sub-Saharan countries including Sudan artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is used as a first-line treatment of uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria and intravenous artesunate and quinine are used for the treatment of severe malaria [4].

In Sudan, ACT as artesunate and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (AS/SP) was introduced in 2004 for malaria treatment replacing chloroquine which became ineffective for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria [5]. Chloroquine had been used since the1960s for uncomplicated malaria, quinine for severe malaria and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for malaria in pregnancy and also as the second line of malaria treatment [6].

AS/SP remained in use until 2017 when it was replaced by Artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the first line of treatment and dihydroartemisinin piperaquine (DHA-PPQ) as a second line for treatment of uncomplicated malaria [2]. Following the introduction of ACT in Sudan in 2004 malaria mortality declined from 1,814 to 612 deaths in 2011 [7,8]. In the subsequent years, mortality increased steadily reaching 1,446 deaths in 2017 [8].

Plasmodium falciparum resistance to antimalarial drugs is a major worldwide challenge for malaria control and elimination. The emergence of chloroquine-resistant parasites began in Southeast Asia in the 1960s following massive deployment of chloroquine. Similar patterns of resistance to alternative antimalarial drugs, such as sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine were reported in the same region [9].

Clinical in vivo efficacy trials are used to monitor the effectiveness of the combination therapies. However, this method does not differentiate between the different components of the combination therapies. Therefore, the study of malaria drug resistance molecular markers can be used to monitor each of the components of the ACT [10].

Chloroquine resistance was reported earlier in Sudan with a high level of the Pfcrt K76T mutation [1113]. There is some evidence in African countries that withdrawal of chloroquine for several years was followed by re-emergence of the wild type 76K [1416].

Mutations in bifunctional dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase (Pfdhfr) and dihydropteroate synthetase (Pfdhps) are linked with SP resistance [17]. In Sudan, mutations in Pfdhfr (N51I, S108N) and Pfdhps (A436G, K540E) were reported earlier [18,19]. Recently, the emergence of Pfdhfr (N59R) and Pfdhps (S436A, A581G) with an increased level of the combined mutations and hence the resistance to SP has been reported [20,21].

Mutations in Pfmdr1 are linked with many treatment failures in drugs such as mefloquine, chloroquine, amodiaquine, quinine, and halofantrine [2225]. The mutation in Pfmdr1 (N86Y) linked with chloroquine failure was reported in different parts of Sudan [11,13,26]. Delayed parasite clearance was first described in Southeast Asia in 2013 and it was associated with mutations in P. falciparum kelch propeller protein gene (Pfk13) [27].

In Africa, a number of mutations were detected in the Pfk13 gene but not linked with delayed parasite clearance [28] except one isolate in Equatorial Guinea [27] and another in Uganda [28]. The latter mutations were C580Yand A675V respectively, similar to those associated with delayed parasite clearance in Southeast Asia [29,30]. Two recent studies from Sudan were performed on the Pfk13gene, the first one showed a single mutation (A621V) not linked with delayed parasite clearance, while the other study showed no mutations [21]. The parasite genetic background (PGB) is a group of mutations in genes including Pfarps10, ferredoxin, Pfcrt and Pfmdr2 which have been associated with samples with Pfk13 mutations [31].

It has been found that a mutation in exonuclease E415G was associated with piperaquine resistance [32]. This study aimed to assess antimalarial drug resistance molecular markers of P. falciparum isolates from different areas in Sudan during 2015–2017.

Materials and methods

Study design, areas and ethics statement

This study was a descriptive cross sectional study, carried out in four areas in Sudan, Khartoum (KH) central Sudan (15°37'35.39" N 32°31'35.39" E), New Halfa (NH) eastern Sudan (15°32'88" N 35°59'59.86" E), Gezira state (GS) central Sudan (14°29'59.99" N 33°09'60.00" E) and North Kordofan (NK) western Sudan (14°40'59.99" N 29°55'59.99" E) during October 2015- November 2017. Malaria transmission in all areas is unstable and seasonal with peaks following the rainy season between September to November. A second peak starts in January and extends up to March. The study areas were selected because they vary in their transmission intensity, epidemiology and entomological characteristics [2].

Samples from Khartoum were collected specifically for this study while the samples from the other sites were archived dried blood spots (DBS) from a previous study at the Institute of Endemic Diseases, University of Khartoum.

Ethical clearance for the Khartoum study was obtained from Al Neelain University Institutional Review Board (IRB No: NU-IRP-16-09-04-1) and for the other areas ethical clearance was obtained from the Institute of Endemic Diseases, Research Ethics Committee, University of Khartoum (Ref No 2/2014). Informed consent was obtained from each study participant or guardians of children prior to enrolment.

Study subjects and sample collection

A total of 226 DBS samples (KH n = 158, NH n = 30, GS n = 23, NK n = 15) were collected from subjects attending outpatient clinics with fever and other symptoms suggestive of malaria. Patients diagnosed positive for P. falciparum malaria were asked to participate in the study. Those who consented to participate were asked to give blood spots. Blood samples were collected from Fingerpicks (50 μl) on Whatman 3 filter paper (Whatman International Ltd Maidstone, England) using aseptic conditions. The spots were allowed to dry, kept in a sealed plastic bag, numbered and stored at room temperature until used. Diagnosis of malaria was performed by microscopic examination of thick and thin blood smears stained with 10% Giemsa solution according to standard protocols [33].

DNA extraction, amplicon sequencing, and molecular identification of species, drug resistance alleles, and multiplicity of infection

The DBS samples on filter papers were sent to the Wellcome Sanger Institute for processing, molecular genotyping and analysis. DNA extraction was carried out using the QIAGEN DNA Investigator Kit (No. 56504, Qiagen, Crawley, UK). DNA was eluted in 50 μl TE buffer and stored at − 20 °C for later use. Amplicon sequencing was performed on all samples using a custom protocol from the Wellcome Sanger Institute (Jacob et al. manuscript in preparation). In brief, targets for genotyping were identified and multiplex PCR primers were designed using the mPrimer software [34]. Primers were constructed to amplify products with a length of 190–250 bp and were combined into 3 pools. A two-step protocol was used to first amplify the selective regions of the parasite genome from extracted genomic DNA followed by a second PCR to incorporate sequencing and multiplexing adapters [35]. Plasmodium species was determined by analyzing highly conserved segments of the parasite mitochondrial genome common to all 5 human infecting species (P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. ovale, P. malariae, and P. knowlesi) [36]. Two separate 200bp segments (non-genic) were sequenced in multiplex and aligned to the reference sequences of P. falciparum and P. vivax and non-reference alleles determined which species were within each DNA sample. Quality and purity of amplicons were checked using the Agilent DNA 1000 assay kit on a 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technology). Batched samples (max n = 384) were sequenced in a single MiSeq lane combining all PCR products [37]. Samples reads were de-plexed using the multiplexing adapters and individual CRAM files were aligned to a modified amplicon reference genome (Pf3D7_v3). Genotyping was done using bcftools as well as custom scripts to filter and translate genotypes into drug resistance haplotypes [38]. Sequences data including nucleotide sequencing information were deposited in the public repository European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with accession numbers provided as supplementary data (S2 File).

The multiplicity of infection (MOI) was determined using COIL and Real McCOIL programs [39,40]. Both programs used the SNP barcode of 101 bi-allelic SNPs genotyped by amplicon sequencing. The MOI was expressed as an integer, which is the estimated number of individual parasites within the sample.

Molecular genotyping of antimalarial resistance genes (Pfcrt, Pfmdr1, Pfdhfr, PfdhPfs, exonuclease, Pfk13, parasitegenetic background (Pfarps10, ferredoxin, Pfcrt, Pfmdr2) was also performed at specific loci outlined in the results section. Using the reference genome, SNPs were translated to amino-acids and compared with the relevant literature to determine association with antimalarial drug resistance.

Data analysis

Frequencies and percentages of mutant alleles and haplotypes were determined using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20 software (SPSS Software, Chicago Inc., USA) for data analysis. The variation of mutant haplotypes between study areas was measured using Chi-square test. Statistical significance level was defined as P-value ≤ 0.05.

Results

Plasmodium falciparum identification and multiplicity of infection

Characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1. Out of 226 samples diagnosed by microscopic examination as P. falciparum, 225 were confirmed to be P. falciparum by amplicon sequencing. One sample was identified as P. vivax and excluded from further analysis. Multiplicity of infection was successfully determined in 211 samples where (32/211) (15.1%) isolates were found to harbor multiclonal P. falciparum infection. The overall mean number of parasite clones was 1.15. A higher proportion of multiplicity of infection was seen in Gezira using either COIL or McCOIL methods (P<0.001) based on the Sanger 101 SNP-barcodes (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants and multiplicity of infection (MOI).

Khartoum (KH) New Halfa (NH) Gezira (G) North Kordofan (NK) Total
No of samples 158 30 23 15 226
N (%) male 101 (63.9%) 16 (53.3%) 15 (65.2%) 9 (60%) 142 (62%)
Median age (years) 13.7 19 6.4 17.5 14.15
Multiclonal infections (n = 21) 20 (13.4%) 4 (16%) 6 (27.2%) 2 (13.3%) 32 (15.1%)
MOI* 1.13 1.16 1.27 1.13 1.15

* P<0.001

Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter gene (Pfcrt)

Out of 225 samples, a total of 213 samples were successfully amplified and sequenced for Pfcrt. No mutations were detected at codons 72 and 97. However, 71–73% of the samples harbored the mutant alleles M74I, N75E, K76T, A220S, Q271E and R371I (Table 2).

Table 2. Frequency of mutant alleles in Pfcrt and Pfmdr1.

Drug resistance maker Mutant alleles n (%)
Pfcrt (n = 213) M74I 153 (71.8%)
N75E 153 (71.8%)
K76T 153 (71.8%)
A220S 154 (72.3%)
Q271E 155 (73%)
R371I 155 (73%)
Pfmdr1 (n = 194) N86Y 104 (53.6%)
Y184F 171 (88.1%)
D1246Y 3 (1.5%)

Pfcrt: P. falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter gene; Pfmdr1: P. falciparum multidrug resistance protein 1 gene.

Regarding Pfcrt haplotypes, 153/213 (71.8%) samples carried the mutant haplotype CVIET while the wild haplotype CVMNK was detected in 60/213 (28.2%) of the samples. All samples that harbor the mutant haplotype of Pfcrt at positions 72–76 (CVIET) were also Pfcrt mutant at positions A220S, Q271E and R371I. The frequency of Pfcrt mutant haplotype CVIET in North Kordofan was 100%, Gezira 76%, New Halfa 75% and Khartoum 67%. The differences in frequencies between the different sites were not statistically significant (Table 3).

Table 3. Frequency of Pfcrt and Pfmdr1 haplotypes.

Drug resistance maker number of mutations mutation haplotype KH n = 149 NH n = 29 G n = 21 NK n = 14 Total n (%) P. value
Pfcrt (n = 213) None Wild Type CVMNK 48 (32.2%) 7 (24.1%) 5 (23.8%) 0 (0%) 60 (28.2%) 0.17
Triple CVIET 101 (67.8%) 22 (75.9%) 16 (76.2%) 14 (100%) 153 (71.8%) 0.17
Pfmdr1 (n = 194) None Wild Type NYD 9 (6.5%) 0 (0%) 4 (19.0%) 0 (0%) 13 (6.7%)
Single YYD 6 (4.3%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (4.7%) 1 (12.5%) 9 (3.1%)
NFD 51 (36.7%) 14 (53.8%) 9 (42.9%) 3 (37.5%) 77 (39.7%) 0.42
Double YFD 70 (50.4%) 11 (42.3%) 7 (33.3%) 4 (50.0%) 92 (47.4%) 0.48
YYY 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.5%)
Triple YFY 2 (1.4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (1%)

Pfcrt: P. falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter gene; Pfmdr1: P. falciparum multidrug resistance protein 1 gene; KH: Khartoum; NH: New Halfa; G:Gezira; NK: North Kordofan.

Plasmodium falciparum multidrug resistance protein 1 gene (Pfmdr1)

A total of 194 samples were successfully amplified and sequenced. The N86Y mutation was detected in 104/194 (53.6%) samples, while Y184F was observed in 171/194 (88.1%) and D1246Y in 3/194 (1.5%) samples. There were no mutations detected in S1034, N1042 and F1226. The frequencies of Pfmdr1 haplotypes did not significantly vary between the different studied sites.

Pfmdr1 YFD haplotype was detected in 92/194 (47.4%) samples while NFD haplotype was observed in 77/194 (39.7%) samples (Table 3).

Plasmodium falciparum bifunctional dihydrofolate reductase–thymidylate synthase gene (Pfdhfr)

Out of 225 samples, a total of 187 samples were successfully amplified and sequenced for Pfdhfr. The N51I mutation was detected in 181/187 (96.7%) samples, while C59R was seen in 30/187 (16%) samples and Pfdhfr S108N was observed in 183/187 (97.8%) samples (Table 4). There were no mutations detected in A16 and I164.

Table 4. Frequency of Pfdhfr and Pfdhps mutant alleles.

Mutant alleles Frequency
Pfdhfr (n = 187) A16V 0 (0%)
N51I 181 (96.7%)
C59R 30 (16%)
S108N 183 (97.8%)
Pfdhps (n = 183) S436A (4.3%) 8
A437G 139 (76%)
K540E 124 (67.8%)
A581G 48 (26.2%)

Pfdhfr: P. falciparum bifunctional dihydrofolate reductase–thymidylate synthase gene; Pfdhps: P. falciparum dihydropteroate synthase gene.

Regarding genotyping of Pfdhfr, the wild haplotype (NCSI) was detected in 3 samples (1.6%) while double mutations in codon 51 and 108 (ICNI) was the most frequent haplotype 151/187 (80.7%). The triple mutant haplotype (IRNI) was detected in 29/187 (15.5%) samples (Table 5). There was no significant variation in the frequency of mutant haplotypes between the different areas (Table 5).

Table 5. Frequency of Pfdhfr and Pfdhps haplotypes.

Number of mutations Mutation haplotype KH n = 134 NH n = 23 G n = 19 NK n = 11 Total n (%) P. value
Pfdhfr (n = 187) None Wild Type NCSI 3 (2.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1.6%)
ICSI 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.53%)
NCNI 2 (1.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.1%)
Double ICNI 104 (77.6%) 20 (86.9%) 17 (89.4%) 10 (90.9%) 151 (80.7%) 0.37
NRNI 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.53%)
Triple IRNI 23 (17.2%) 3 (13.04%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (9.1%) 29 (15.5%) 0.77
Pfdhps (n = 183) None Wild Type SAKAA 33 (24.6%) 1 (4.3%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (18.2%) 39(21.3%) 0.10
Single AAKAA 4 (2.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 5 (%)
SGKAA 12 (8.9%) 1 (4.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 13(%)
Double SGEAA 50 (37.3%) 14 (60.8%) 6 (31.6%) 5 (45.5%) 75 (41%) 0.24
AGKAA 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) 1 (5.2%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.09%)
Triple SGEGA 31 (23.1%) 6 (26.1%) 9 (47.3) 3 (27.7%) 48 (26.2%) 0.19
AGEAA 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (%)
Pfdhps/ Pfdhfr (n = 183) None Wild Type NCSI + SAKAA 3 (2.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1.6%)
NCNI + SAKAA 2 (1.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.7%)
Double ICNI +SAKAA 26 (20.0%) 1 (4.3%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (9.1%) 30 (16.4%) 0.18
NRNI + SAKAA 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.54%)
ICSI+ AAKAA 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.54%)
Triple IRNI +SAKAA 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.2%) 1 (9.1%) 2(1.1%)
ICNI + AAKAA 3 (2.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (9.1%) 4 (2.2%)
ICNI + SGKAA 7 (5.4%) 1 (4.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8(4.4%)
Quadruple IRNI+ SGKAA 4 (3.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (2.2%)
ICNI + SGEAA 40 (30.8%) 11 (47.8%) 6 (31.6%) 5 (45.5%) 62 (33.9%) 0.42
ICNI + AGKAA 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.1%)
IRNI+AAKAA 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.54%)
Quintuple IRNI + SGEAA 10 (7.7%) 2 (8.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (6.5%)
ICNI + AGEAA 0 (0%) 1 (4.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.54%)
ICNI + SGEGA 22 (16.9%) 5 (21.7%) 8 (42.1%) 3 (27.3%) 38 (20.7%) 0.08
Sextuple IRNI + SGEGA 9 (6.9%) 1 (4.3%) 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 11 (6%)

Pfdhfr: P. falciparum bifunctional dihydrofolate reductase–thymidylate synthase gene; Pfdhps: P. falciparum dihydropteroate synthase gene.

Plasmodium falciparum dihydropteroate synthase gene (Pfdhps)

Out of 225 samples, 183 samples were successfully amplified and sequenced for Pfdhps. The mutation S436A was detected in 8/183 (4.3%) samples, while A437G was observed in 139/183 (76%), K540E in 124/183 (67.8%) and A581G was found in 48/183 (26.2%) samples (Table 4).

Regarding Pfdhps haplotypes, wild type SAKAA was detected in 39/183 (21.3%) samples. Double mutations in codons 437 and 540 (SGEAA) was seen in 75/183 (41%) samples and the triple mutant haplotype A437G, K540E and A581G (SGEGA) was observed in 48/183 (26.2%) samples. There was no significant variation in the frequency of mutant haplotypes between the different areas (Table 5).

Combined mutations of Pfdhfr and Pfdhps

Quadruple mutations (dhfr N51I, S108N + dhps A437G, K540E) were identified in 62/183 (33.9%) samples and Quintuple mutations (dhfr N51I, S108N + dhps A437G, K540E, A581G) were detected in 38/183 (20.7%) samples. There was no significant variation in the frequencies of mutant haplotypes between the different areas (Table 5).

Plasmodium falciparum kelch13 and other resistance genes

Out of 225 samples, a total of 176 samples were successfully amplified and sequenced for Pfk13. Twenty-two mutations were found in 25/176 (14.2%) samples, 18 non-synonymous mutations and 4 synonymous mutations. Pfk13E433D was the most frequent mutation observed in 4 samples in Khartoum and North Kordofan areas (Table 6).

Table 6. Frequency of mutant alleles in Pfk13.

Mutation Frequency Area
PfK13 n = 176 K372K 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
K378R 1 (0.8%) Khartoum
D389H 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
E401Q 1 (0.4%) New Halfa
K430E 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
E433D 4 (2%) Khartoum (3) and North Kordofan (1)
F442F 1 (0.4%) North Kordofan
L488L 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
V494I 1 (0.4%) Gezira
A504T 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
E509E 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
Y541H 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
C542Y 1 (0.4%) New Halfa
W565STOP 1 (0.4%) North Kordofan
R575T 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
E606K 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
G625R 1 (0.4%) New Halfa
A626T 1 (0.4%) New Halfa
Y635C 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
Q661P 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
Q661R 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
T677I 1 (0.4%) Khartoum
Wild type 198 (87.5)
PGB (parasite genetic background) n = 207 Pfcrt N326S 96 (46.3%) All sites
Pfcrt I356T 17 (8.2%) All sites

fk13: P. falciparum kelch propeller protein gene; PGB: Parasite genetic background genes.

For the parasite genetic background (PGB) mutations. Out of 225 samples, 207 were successfully amplified and sequenced. No mutations were detected in arps (V127, D128), Pfmdr2 T484 and ferredoxin D193Y while 96/207 (46.3%) samples harbor mutations in Pfcrt N326S\I and 17/207 (8.2%) Pfcrt I356T (Table 6). For Pf exonuclease E415, a total of 220 samples were successfully amplified and sequenced. No mutation was detected in exonuclease E415.

Discussion

This study was conducted in three regions in Sudan (Western, Eastern and Central) which are characterized by unstable and seasonal malaria transmission. Molecular markers associated with anti-malarial drug resistance were analyzed.

Mutations of chloroquine resistance transporter gene reported in this study were associated with changes in CVMNK (wild haplotype) to CVIET (mutant haplotype) (Table 1). The percentage of CVIET in this study ranged between 67.8% in Khartoum to 100% in North Kordofan, in accordance with published studies from Sudan [12,21]. Previous studies reported that CVIET is the most widespread resistant haplotype in Africa and Asia, while SVMNT is dominant in South America and Oceania [41]. These results show no sign of reduction of chloroquine resistance due to withdrawal of chloroquine as reported earlier that withdrawal of chloroquine would lead to regaining of the sensitivity of malaria parasite to chloroquine [14,42]. This finding may indicate that chloroquine is still being used in these areas.

Mutations in the multidrug resistance gene (Pfmdr1) in this study showed that Y184F was the highest frequency (88.1%), with N86Y being intermediate (53.6%) and the lowest D1246Y (1.5%). The mutation at position 86 is associated with chloroquine resistance [25]. The results of this study are in agreement with previously published data in Sudan [11,13,26]. On the other hand, the Pfmdr1 86Y mutation and/or the Pfmdr1 86Y-Y184 haplotypes were reported to be significantly associated with increased in vitro susceptibility of P. falciparum parasites to lumefantrine [43,44].

There were no additional mutations in the multidrug resistance gene detected at positions 1034, 1042 and 1226 in this study, which have been shown to affect the parasite response to mefloquine, chloroquine, quinine, and halofantrine in vitro [24,43].

Pyrimethamine drug resistance is strongly-linked with mutations in the bifunctional dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase [45]. Characterization of resistant parasites is based on the number of mutations they carry (single, double, triple, quadruple mutants), which is taken to be an indicator of the level of resistance to the drug. In this study, the percentage of double mutant haplotype ICNI was 80.7% and 15.5% for the triple mutant haplotype IRNI. The results of these gene mutations were similar to recent studies conducted in Sudan [20,21]. The low prevalence of the triple mutant haplotype IRNI may be due to low level of C59R mutation which was reported to be absent in Sudan from isolates in 2003 [18,19]. However, it was first detected in one isolate from a study of 63 Isolates in 2012 [46], since then, the frequency of this mutation has increased gradually.

Results of mutations in dihydropteroate synthase, which mediates sulfadoxine drug resistance [17], showed that the occurrence of double mutant haplotype SGEAA was 41% and 26.2% for the triple mutant haplotype SGEGA. This result is similar to a previous study conducted in Sudan in 2016 [20]. In contrast, there is a recent study reporting that the most prevalent haplotype is SGKAA [21].

Since sulfadoxine and pyrimethamine are mostly used in combination (SP), the combined mutations in dhfr+dhps are important to be documented. The results of the frequency of combined mutation showed that the total number of quadruple, quintuple, and hextuple mutations was 131 (71.5%) which indicates a high level of SP resistance [47]. As SP was used in combination therapy as the first line of treatment in Sudan until March 2017 [2], the continued pressure of SP could explain the increasing resistance of the parasite to the drug.

Several polymorphisms in thePfk13 propeller gene have resulted in delayed parasite clearance. The results of Pfk13 showed the occurrence of 22 mutations in 25 (14.2%) samples, 18 non-synonymous mutations and 4 synonymous mutations. The polymorphisms found in these samples were not similar to reported mutations associated with delayed parasite clearance in South East Asia. The non-synonymous mutations described in this study are in agreement with several studies conducted in Africa [4851]. Notably, only two studies in Africa, from Equatorial Guinea [29] and Uganda [30] have reported C580Y and A675V mutations that are similar to those in South East Asia and lead artemisinin resistance [52]. Seven of the 18 non-synonymous mutations reported in this study, were also previously reported in other African countries, namely, V494I in Mozambique, C542Y in Burkina Faso and Zambia, W565Stop Central Africa, R575T Chinese immigrant in Ghana, G625R, A626T in Gabon and Y635C in Rwanda [28,5356]. The remaining eleven mutations are novel mutations and further in vitro studies are needed to explore their relationships with artemisinin resistance [57].

Mutations of artemisinin resistance genetic background have been analyzed for four genes. Mutations were observed only in one gene Pfcrt (N326S, I356T). Mutations in the genetic background genes may have lead collectively to the emergence of K13 gene mutations in South East Asia [31]. As it appears there are mutations in only one member of the group and hence favor of the absence of Pfk13 mutations.

Next generation sequencing was performed to detect the exonuclease gene mutation which has been reported together with plasmepsin II-III amplification to be linked with piperaquine resistance in South East Asia [32]. There was no mutation detected in the exonuclease gene in this study. However, we have not performed plasmepsin II-III amplification. Piperaquine is the partner drug of the DHA-PPQ, the second line of treatment in Sudan. Absence of exonuclease mutation is encouraging as DHA-PPQ will continue to be effective. Further studies are required to monitor P. falciparum plasmepsin genes in Africa.

Conclusions

This study has shown high frequency of mutations in Pfcrt, Pfdhfr and Pfdhps genes. Quadruple and Quintuple combination of mutations of DHFR and DHPS were highly frequent. The above mutations are associated with chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) resistance. Many SNPs in Pfk13 not linked with delayed parasite clearance were observed. Exonuclease E415G mutation which is linked with piperaquine resistance was not reported.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

S2 File

(XLSX)

S3 File

(PDF)

S1 Data

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank with gratitude the MalariaGEN staff of Wellcome Sanger Institute Centre, UK staff of Wellcome Sanger Institute Centre, UK for their kind contribution and proofreading the final manuscript. Further information about MalariaGen can be accessed on https://www.malariagen.net/projects/spotmalaria [malariagen.net]; the project is coordinated by the MalariaGEN Resource Centre with funding from Wellcome (098051, 090770). MalariaGEN P. falciparum data release v6.3 is available online http://lookseq.sanger.ac.uk/mystudies.

Data Availability

This publication uses data generated using Sudanese samples in collaboration with MalariaGEN SpotMalaria Project (https://www.malariagen.net/projects/spotmalaria). Sequences data including nucleotide sequencing information were deposited in the public repository European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), with accession numbers provided as supplementary data (S2 Suppl).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.WHO. World Malaria Report 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019; https://www.who.int/publications-detail/world-malaria-report-2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Federal Ministry of Health. Sudan malaria treatment protocol. 2017; https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/2019/07/Sudan-Malaria-Treatment-Protocol_2017.pdf.
  • 3.Winskill P., et al. , Prioritizing the scale-up of interventions for malaria control and elimination. Malar J, 2019. 18(1): p. 122 10.1186/s12936-019-2755-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. WHO malaria treatment protocol. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018; https://www.who.int/malaria/areas/treatment/overview/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Adeel A.A., Drug-resistant malaria in Sudan: A review of evidence and scenarios for the future. Sudan J Paediatr, 2012. 12(1): p. 8–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Malik E.M., et al. , From chloroquine to artemisinin-based combination therapy: the Sudanese experience. Malar J, 2006. 5: p. 65 10.1186/1475-2875-5-65 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.WHO. World Malaria Report 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008; https://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/9789241563697/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.WHO. World Malaria Report 2018. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018; https://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world-malaria-report-2018/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mita T., Tanabe K., and Kita K., Spread and evolution of Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance. Parasitol Int, 2009. 58(3): p. 201–9. 10.1016/j.parint.2009.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Picot S., et al. , A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for correlation between molecular markers of parasite resistance and treatment outcome in falciparum malaria. Malar J, 2009. 8: p. 89 10.1186/1475-2875-8-89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Menegon M., et al. , Frequency distribution of antimalarial drug resistance alleles among Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Gezira State, central Sudan, and Gedarif State, eastern Sudan. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2010. 83(2): p. 250–257. 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mohammed W.S.A., et al. , Cross sectional study to determine chloroquine resistance among Plasmodium falciparum clinical isolates from Khartoum, Sudan. F1000Research, 2018. 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tagelsir N., et al. , High frequency of Plasmodium falciparum PfCRT K76T and PfpghN86Y in patients clearing infection after chloroquine treatment in the Sudan. Acta tropica, 2006. 97(1): p. 19–25. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2005.07.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lu F., et al. , Return of chloroquine sensitivity to Africa? Surveillance of African Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance through malaria imported to China. Parasites & vectors, 2017. 10(1): p. 355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sisowath C., et al. , In vivo selection of Plasmodium falciparum parasites carrying the chloroquine-susceptible pfcrt K76 allele after treatment with artemether-lumefantrine in Africa. J Infect Dis, 2009. 199(5): p. 750–7. 10.1086/596738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Laufer M.K., et al. , Return of chloroquine antimalarial efficacy in Malawi. N Engl J Med, 2006. 355(19): p. 1959–66. 10.1056/NEJMoa062032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gregson A. and Plowe C.V., Mechanisms of resistance of malaria parasites to antifolates. Pharmacol Rev, 2005. 57(1): p. 117–45. 10.1124/pr.57.1.4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Al-Saai S., et al. , Distinct haplotypes of dhfr and dhps among Plasmodium falciparum isolates in an area of high level of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) resistance in eastern Sudan. Infect Genet Evol, 2009. 9(5): p. 778–83. 10.1016/j.meegid.2009.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Osman M.E., et al. , Field-based evidence for linkage of mutations associated with chloroquine (pfcrt/pfmdr1) and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (pfdhfr/pfdhps) resistance and for the fitness cost of mutiple mutations in P. falciparum. Infect Genet Evol, 2007. 7(1): p. 52–9. 10.1016/j.meegid.2006.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Adeel A.A., et al. , High efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine and declining efficacy of artesunate + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine against Plasmodium falciparum in Sudan (2010–2015): evidence from in vivo and molecular marker studies. Malar J, 2016. 15(1): p. 285 10.1186/s12936-016-1339-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bakhiet A., et al. , Evolution of Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance genes following artemisinin com bination therapy in Sudan. Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Venkatesan M., et al. , Polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter and multidrug resistance 1 genes: parasite risk factors that affect treatment outcomes for P. falciparum malaria after artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate-amodiaquine. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2014. 91(4): p. 833–843. 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nsobya S.L., et al. , In vitro sensitivities of Plasmodium falciparum to different antimalarial drugs in Uganda. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2010. 54(3): p. 1200–6. 10.1128/AAC.01412-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Reed M.B., et al. , Pgh1 modulates sensitivity and resistance to multiple antimalarials in Plasmodium falciparum. Nature, 2000. 403(6772): p. 906–9. 10.1038/35002615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Foote S.J., et al. , Several alleles of the multidrug-resistance gene are closely linked to chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum. Nature, 1990. 345(6272): p. 255–8. 10.1038/345255a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Anderson T.J., et al. , Molecular assessment of drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum from Bahr El Gazal province, Sudan. Tropical medicine & international health, 2003. 8(12): p. 1068–1073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ariey F., et al. , A molecular marker of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature, 2014. 505(7481): p. 50–5. 10.1038/nature12876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Taylor S.M., et al. , Absence of putative artemisinin resistance mutations among Plasmodium falciparum in Sub-Saharan Africa: a molecular epidemiologic study. J Infect Dis, 2015. 211(5): p. 680–8. 10.1093/infdis/jiu467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lu F., et al. , Emergence of indigenous artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in Africa. New England Journal of Medicine, 2017. 376(10): p. 991–993. 10.1056/NEJMc1612765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ikeda M., et al. , Artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum with high survival rates, Uganda, 2014–2016. Emerging infectious diseases, 2018. 24(4): p 718 10.3201/eid2404.170141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Miotto O., et al. , Genetic architecture of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum. Nat Genet, 2015. 47(3): p. 226–34. 10.1038/ng.3189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Amato R., et al. , Genetic markers associated with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine failure in Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Cambodia: a genotype-phenotype association study. Lancet Infect Dis, 2017. 17(2): p. 164–173. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30409-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.WHO. Basic malaria microscopy:Part I Learner’s guide. 2nd ed Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010; https://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/9241547820/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shen Z., et al. , MPprimer: a program for reliable multiplex PCR primer design. BMC Bioinformatics, 2010. 11(1): p. 143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Oyola S.O., et al. , Whole genome sequencing of Plasmodium falciparum from dried blood spots using selective whole genome amplification. Malaria journal, 2016. 15(1): p. 597 10.1186/s12936-016-1641-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lalremruata A., et al. , Species and genotype diversity of Plasmodium in malaria patients from Gabon analysed by next generation sequencing. Malar J, 2017. 16(1): p. 398 10.1186/s12936-017-2044-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Head S.R., et al. , Library construction for next-generation sequencing: overviews and challenges. Biotechniques, 2014. 56(2): p. 61–77. 10.2144/000114133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pearson R.D., Amato R., and Kwiatkowski D.P., An open dataset of Plasmodium falciparum genome variation in 7,000 worldwide samples. bioRxiv, 2019: p. 824730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Galinsky K., et al. , COIL: a methodology for evaluating malarial complexity of infection using likelihood from single nucleotide polymorphism data. Malar J, 2015. 14: p. 4 10.1186/1475-2875-14-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chang H.H., et al. , THE REAL McCOIL: A method for the concurrent estimation of the complexity of infection and SNP allele frequency for malaria parasites. PLoS Comput Biol, 2017. 13(1): p. e1005348 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Awasthi G. and Das A., Genetics of chloroquine-resistant malaria: a haplotypic view. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, 2013. 108(8): p. 947–61. 10.1590/0074-0276130274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Frosch A.E.P., et al. , Return of Widespread Chloroquine-Sensitive Plasmodium falciparum to Malawi. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2014. 210(7): p. 1110–1114. 10.1093/infdis/jiu216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Veiga M.I., et al. , Globally prevalent PfMDR1 mutations modulate Plasmodium falciparum susceptibility to artemisinin-based combination therapies. Nat Commun, 2016. 7: p. 11553 10.1038/ncomms11553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Malmberg M., et al. , Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance phenotype as assessed by patient antimalarial drug levels and its association with pfmdr1 polymorphisms. J Infect Dis, 2013. 207(5): p. 842–7. 10.1093/infdis/jis747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Peterson D.S., Walliker D., and Wellems T.E., Evidence that a point mutation in dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase confers resistance to pyrimethamine in falciparum malaria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1988. 85(23): p. 9114–8. 10.1073/pnas.85.23.9114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gadalla N.B., et al. , Selection of pfdhfr/pfdhps alleles and declining artesunate/sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine efficacy against Plasmodium falciparum eight years after deployment in eastern Sudan. Malar J, 2013. 12: p. 255 10.1186/1475-2875-12-255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Naidoo I. and Roper C., Mapping 'partially resistant', 'fully resistant', and 'super resistant' malaria. Trends Parasitol, 2013. 29(10): p. 505–15. 10.1016/j.pt.2013.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cooper R.A., et al. , Lack of Artemisinin Resistance in Plasmodium falciparum in Uganda Based on Parasitological and Molecular Assays. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2015. 59(8): p. 5061–4. 10.1128/AAC.00921-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kamau E., et al. , K13-propeller polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum parasites from sub-Saharan Africa. J Infect Dis, 2015. 211(8): p. 1352–5. 10.1093/infdis/jiu608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Isozumi R., et al. , Novel mutations in K13 propeller gene of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum. Emerg Infect Dis, 2015. 21(3): p. 490–2. 10.3201/eid2103.140898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Conrad M.D., et al. , Polymorphisms in K13 and falcipain-2 associated with artemisinin resistance are not prevalent in Plasmodium falciparum isolated from Ugandan children. PLoS One, 2014. 9(8): p. e105690 10.1371/journal.pone.0105690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ashley E.A., et al. , Spread of artemisinin resistance in Plasmodium falciparum malaria. N Engl J Med, 2014. 371(5): p. 411–23. 10.1056/NEJMoa1314981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Escobar C., et al. , Polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum K13-propeller in Angola and Mozambique after the introduction of the ACTs. PLoS One, 2015. 10(3): p. e0119215 10.1371/journal.pone.0119215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Menard D., et al. , A Worldwide Map of Plasmodium falciparum K13-Propeller Polymorphisms. N Engl J Med, 2016. 374(25): p. 2453–64. 10.1056/NEJMoa1513137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Feng J., et al. , Evaluation of antimalarial resistance marker polymorphism in returned migrant workers in China. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2015. 59(1): p. 326–30. 10.1128/AAC.04144-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ouattara A., et al. , Polymorphisms in the K13-propeller gene in artemisinin-susceptible Plasmodium falciparum parasites from Bougoula-Hameau and Bandiagara, Mali. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2015. 92(6): p. 1202–6 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ghorbal M., et al. , Genome editing in the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Biotechnol, 2014. 32(8): p. 819–21. 10.1038/nbt.2925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luzia Helena Carvalho

11 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-34681

Antimalarial drug resistance molecular makers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015-2017

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Hamid,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we felt that your manuscript requires revision, following which it can possibly be reconsidered. Although your manuscript was of interest to the reviewers, major issues were related to study design and data interpretation.   According to the reviewers, a number of methodological concerns should be clarified including study design, sampling and ethical issues (written informed consent?)  For your guidance, a copy of the reviewers' comments was included below.  

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by March 10. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Reviewer’s report:

Title of manuscript: Antimalarial drug resistance markers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015-2017

Hussien et al.

General comments:

This manuscript covers an important topic with high relevance in public health. Since the current malaria control/elimination strategies rely to a greater extent on the use of antimalarials, it is important to monitor the performance of these drugs using different methods. The manuscript is well written but needs major improvements before it can be accepted for publication.

Specific comments:

1. Abstract:

a. The background is rather fragmented with two issues which are not well connected. Authors should revise and re-write the first statement into two separate sentences focusing on the significance and impacts of drug resistance on malaria control/elimination; and the use of molecular markers in the surveillance of drug resistance

b. Of the drug resistance genes mentioned on lines 61-63, I would suggest to include the type of drug(s) which are normally affected by mutations in each of the genes.

c. How was multiplicity of infection determined and why? Since this is not reported in the results, authors may omit it in the abstract.

d. The presentation of results with numbers and percentage is a bit confusing. Since authors reported frequency/prevalence of mutant alleles, I would suggest to give the percentage and keep the number of samples with such alleles in brackets. I would also recommend to either use frequency or prevalence of alleles and not both.

e. Conclusion: author report that no evidence of resistance in piperaquine, mefloquine and halofantrine were detected. They should explain the markers used to assess resistance to piperaquine. Since no prior information is given about the levels of drug resistance to chloroquine (CQ) and SP, it is difficult to understand why they think that CQ resistance has persisted and SP resistance has increased. No background information or levels of resistance to these drugs were given.

2. Background:

a. In the first paragraph, authors should provide more information on the epidemiological profile of malaria in Sudan, including the recent status as well as changes in malaria transmission (if any). They should also provide a brief account and history malaria treatment guidelines in Sudan. Such information will help the reader to understand the type of drugs which have been used in the country in the past 1-5 decades and the level of drug pressure exerted on parasite populations.

b. The entire section needs to be re-organized with each paragraph clearly addressing the same theme.

3. Methods:

a. Why these study sites were selected for the study? Was this part of a different study or it was an independent study?

b. What research questions were being addressed in this study and what was the study design?

c. What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for patients to be included in the study?

d. How were study subjects selected and sampled?

e. How was sample collection done?

f. How were the samples processed and stored in the field and lab before DNA extraction?

g. What was the sample size, overall and in each of the four sites?

h. Please provide the exact duration of sample collection (with start and end dates in months)

i. I would suggest to provide a rationale for selecting the genes which were assessed.

j. How was data analysis done?

4. Results:

a. Please provide a baseline table showing the characteristics and the numbers of patients sampled in each of the four sites

b. What was the mean number of parasite clones (MoI/CoI) per site and overall?

c. Since 149 samples were from one site (Khartoum), I would suggest to group together all samples from all the remaining sites (table 2). Similar stratification should be done for the data presented in table 4. This should allow a meaningful comparison between Khartoum and other sites.

d. I would suggest to give a key under each table to describe all the abbreviations and symbols used.

e. The subheadings on exonuclease E415, k-13 and PBG can be combined into Pfk13 and other genes

5. Discussion and conclusion:

a. Authors mentioned that the results show no signs of reduction in CQ resistance in Sudan. It will be important to give a reason and explain why CQ resistance has persisted in Sudan.

b. Why is SP resistance increasing in Sudan?

c. This study covered for sites but only few samples were collected in the other sites except Khartoum. Authors need to give reasons for this and provide an account of the limitations of this study.

d. If possible, authors should minimize repetition of results in the discussion.

6. Others comments.

a. In the key words, “molecular maker” should be changed to “molecular markers”

b. Authors should revise language and take care of typos

Reviewer #2: Abstract

1) State the method used in establishing multiplicity of infection

2) Sentence, .....from four areas in Sudan from 2015-2017. This sentence is incomplete and also indicate the four areas and how they were selected

3) Highlight the most prevalent K13 mutations

4) Provide results for background mutations

5) Conclusion needs to be revised to reflect the main outcomes of the study

6) Summary of the results on mefloquine, piperaquine and halofantrine resistance are not listed in the abstract and thus should be omitted in the conclusion

7) What were the resistance markers of halofantrine, mefloquine and piperaquine resistance

Introduction

8) line 109, sentence; ...the subsequence years,..... This should be adjusted to ......the subsequent years,.....

9) line 111, sentence;....providing bases for ......., This sentence should be revised to .....providing a basis for....

10) Check the grammar of sentence, line; 118, 119, 122; in addition, this sentences are not clear

11) ACTs introduced in 2004 but treatment protocol change occurring in 2017, seems contradictory, please clarify

12) Cross check on the usage of the term 'artemisinin resistance', this should be adjusted to 'delayed parasite clearance' instead of artemisinin resistance

13) Line 135, 136 provide the reference

14) Line 140-141; is not in line with the title of the manuscript

Materials and Methods

15) How was Plasmodium falciparum confirmed in the study

16) How were the DBS cards prepared, dried, stored. How long was the storage period and how was quality ensured. A study by Schwartrz et al., 2015 showed that storage affect the quality of DNA from DBS

17) Describe the study setting, health facilities where the samples were collected from

18) How was blood collected (quantity)

19) Line 158, define the study participants (sex, age etc)

20) line 159, describe how the Giemsa stain was diluted and how the test was done

21) Line 161-162, provide ethical clearance number and attach the ethical clearance form

22) Provide details of how parasite DNA was extracted and how quality was ensured during the extraction process

23) Provide listing of all the primers and the adapter sequences used in this study. This was not provided and so the accuracy of the genotyping could not be cross checked which is a major limitation of this work

24) Describe the source of the primers used (were the primers from previous studies or you generated them)

25) Data management, Data analysis, are missing and should be included

26) If the primers were generated please describe how this was performed

27) How was the sample size of 226 determined, please justify this sample size. Does this sample size give the study the necessary power to measure the intended outcome?

28) How quality control was ensured in the laboratory tests is not described making it difficult to believe in the findings. Please describe how quality was ensured through out the laboratory processes

Results

29) For all the proportions/prevalence values, please provide the fractions (numerator and denominator)

30) Line 201, which mutations are being referred to ....

31) The number of successful amplifications for K13 mutations is too low, please explain the high observed failure rate

32) What was the most prevalent K13 mutation

Discussion

33) line 258....chloroquine as reported earlier, what does this mean?

34) Please clarify on what you mean on line 262-263

35) There was no intentional screening for markers of resistance to mefloquine, halofantrine and piperaquine and thus this should be removed from the discussion

36) Line 277-284, please explain the result that was found

37) Line 295-296, has any study been done on this before??

38) The result on background mutations need to be explained

Conclusion

39) This should be restricted to genotyping resutls not phenotypic as phenotypic resistance was not measrued

40) What do the authors mean in the sentence, .....good point that this mutation has not been recorded in Sudan....?, Please clarify

Acknowledgement

41) The fact that the DBS were all provided by the department was not mentioned in the methods section, which is a major omission. Please provide details as pointed out in my comments in the methods section. On the ethical point of view what was the purpose of collection of this samples by the department, were they for research and if so please provide ethical clearance of the primary study. Also indicate if the primary study participants consented for their samples to be used in further studies

References

42) The references are adequate, provide the missing references as indicated in earlier sections of my review

Reviewer #3: This is highly validated research for cross-sectional drug resistance markers study in Sudan. Even this ms was not described in vitro of relavant samples and clincal drug sensitivity of patients, it is highly informative for malaria research fields, especially prevalence of drug resistance in one of East Afrian countries.

Major comments>

1. Authors should described the relavant drug resistance and used standard resime drug in clinics of field sites in Sudan for P. falciparum and explained relationship of SNP and used drug currently.

2. What about prevalence of malaria in study areas? Pf only or mixed cases with non-Pf malaria species for treatment. If patients treated and exposured with CQ for Pv previously, how to explain about drug sensitivity?

3. What about in vitro drug sensitivity and/or drug sensitivty clincally for field isolates and relationship with SNP about each drug marker? Please describe in manuscript.

Minor comments>

1. Please correct some of italyic font text and parasite name.

2. Were there any low drug sensitivyt samples from field isolates?

3. Were there any places or patients in local clinics or personal TX still use CQ for Pf instead of ACT Tx?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Moses Ocan (PhD)

Reviewer #3: Yes: Eun-Taek Han

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0235401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235401.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Mar 2020

Date: 23-03-2020

Dear Editor,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and finding it of interest to PLOSONE when revised. We have revised the manuscript extensively following the reviewers’ recommendations and comments and have provided a separate response. The revised manuscript with changes tracking is been submitted with this response. A clean version with final corrections is provided.

We have also provided supplementary data to include the sequence accession numbers and our sequence data sets. Also the ethical approvals were provided. We hope that the manuscript is now ready and acceptable for publication in PLOSONE.

Thanking you,

Dr Muzamil Abdel Hamid and Professor Abdelrahim Mohamed

University of Khartoum.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers Hussien et al 2020.rtf

Decision Letter 1

Luzia Helena Carvalho

14 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-34681R1

Antimalarial drug resistance molecular makers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015-2017

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Hamid,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for review to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if it is revised to address specific points raised now by the reviewers. Specifically, the authors should clarify a couple of topics related to methods and results. A significant number of grammatical errors remained in the revised version of MS. Thus, the language needs to be properly adjusted otherwise it might compromise the publication. At this time, we strongly recommend that the manuscript should go through an in-depth proofreading.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 14. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: 1. In the background, I would recommend to replace reference #1 with the most recent WHO report of 2019

2. In the results, lines 225-230, 244-247, and 253-256 present results of hyplotypes in Pfcrt, Pfdhfr and Pfhps, resppectively. Authors should change the presentation from genotypes to haplotypes to be specific.

3. Tables 4 and 5 were interchanged. This need to be corrected

4. The manuscript still needs language corrections which authors might seek support from native English speakers.

Reviewer #2: COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW OF PONE-D-19-3468_R1

Thanks editor for the opportunity given to me to review the above manuscript. From the initial review it is clear that the authors did make significant adjustments however, there are still areas that need to be addressed to make the manuscript suitable for publication. Here below are the highlights of the areas that need to be addressed.

1. The sampling procedure used during field data collection should be described. How individual patients were selected for inclusion into the study

2. Describe the quality control done by the Sanger Institute Welcome Trust

3. Describe the procedure of Nested PCR and illumina Miseq used

4. Comprehensive grammatical review is needed for this manuscript

5. Specify the conserved mitochondrial gene used in confirming P. falciparum parasite infection and provide details of how this was performed

6. What concentration of Giemsa stain was used in the laboratory diagnosis of malaria (line 178-179)

7. Line 193-914; the information provided in this manuscript must be stand alone. Therefore, the authors should provide the specifications/details of all the primers including the manufacturer. All the primers used in the PCR/Sequencing/Multiplex PCR and how they were designed for each of the SNPs assessed in this study

8. Provide reference for the Nested amplification protocol used in this study

9. Provide details of how the raw sequences were analyzed to establish the mutations/SNPs in this study

10. Line 228-229; identify/specify the mutations being referred to

Thanks

Moses Ocan (PhD)

Reviewer #3: All the contents requsted were addressed well about drug resistant gene mutation in Sudan recently and followed from comments of reviewers.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Deus S. Ishengoma

Reviewer #2: Yes: Moses Ocan (PhD)

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW OF PONE-D-19-3468-R1.doc

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0235401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235401.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Apr 2020

Dear Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Thank you for the kind feedback including the reviewers’ points. We have extensively revised the manuscript including the grammar and language, including the core methodology and results sections (attached two version: clean and one with track changes). Also, our collaborators at MalariaGen, Sanger Institute, UK have extensively revised the methodology procedures including the SNP genotyping and illumina Miseq procedures, so they have made the required corrections as permitted (upcoming methodology paper will be published by Sanger Institute). Also they have kindly offered final proofreading of the manuscript. We also have revised and answered specific points raised by the two reviewers.

We have described the procedures used in short as permitted by Sanger group in UK. However, we cannot disclose the full procedures and exact primers (PCR/Sequencing/Multiplex PCR), QC and design and sequences (as requested by reviewer 2) all these will be published in upcoming methodology manuscript in preparation (Jacob et al.) (see attached email reply from Sanger regarding this issue). For more information feel free to contact Dr Jacob Christopher Jacob ecj9@sanger.ac.uk ; Dr. Kimberly Johnson kim.johnson@bdi.ox.ac.uk and head of the group Dr Sonia Concalves sg19@sanger.ac.uk from MalariaGen, Sanger Institute in the UK.

To add our samples performed at Sanger was a small part of the whole malaria spot project at Sanger. For the purpose of this paper we are more interested in the results presenting the frequencies and mutations/haplotypes of antimalarial drug resistance genes in Sudan including Kelch 13 gene which are of paramount importance to our malaria control program.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dr Muzamil Mahdi and Prof Abdelrahim Osman

Parasitology Dept.

University of Khartoum

Sudan

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answers to the reviewers PLOSONE-D-19-3468-R1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Luzia Helena Carvalho

15 May 2020

PONE-D-19-34681R2

Antimalarial drug resistance molecular makers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015-2017

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamid,

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by  May 30. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: 1. Authors' affiliations should be listed sequentially according the order they appear in the list of authors. This will help to reduce confusion caused by jumping numbers in the affiliations of authors.

2. The information presented on liness 104-107 cannot be prevalence but rather the proportion of infections with Pf, Pv or other species of malaria parasites. Sudan cannot have that high prevelance of parasite infections.

3. On line 180, the word "atteding out patient department" is repeated twice.

4. On line 301, the first statement is incomplete or hanging. I would suggest to merge it with the next statement.

5. Authors should correct minor language problems and typos.

Reviewer #2: All comments raised in the previous review have been addressed by the authors. However, the authors could have provided the details of the primer sets used and their design

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Deus S. Ishengoma

Reviewer #2: Yes: Moses Ocan (PhD)

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 20;15(8):e0235401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235401.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 May 2020

Response Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #1: 1. Authors' affiliations should be listed sequentially according the order they appear in the list of authors. This will help to reduce confusion caused by jumping numbers in the affiliations of authors.

# Authors' affiliations should be listed sequentially according the order they appear in the list of authors.

2. The information presented on liness 104-107 cannot be prevalence but rather the proportion of infections with Pf, Pv or other species of malaria parasites. Sudan cannot have that high prevelance of parasite infections.

# corrected to proportion of infections.

3. On line 180, the word "atteding out patient department" is repeated twice.

# corrected so as avoid word repetition.

4. On line 301, the first statement is incomplete or hanging. I would suggest to merge it with the next statement.

# The sentence was corrected and completed.

5. Authors should correct minor language problems and typos.

# The minor language problems and typos were found and corrected and the manuscript was extensively revised.

Response Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #2: All comments raised in the previous review have been addressed by the authors. However, the authors could have provided the details of the primer sets used and their design

# Thank you. As stated previously and confirmed by Sanger Institute, all details of primer sets and design will appear in the upcoming methodology paper by the MalariaGen Sanger group. This has been stated in the methods section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answers to the reviewers PONE-D-19-34681R2.docx

Decision Letter 3

Luzia Helena Carvalho

16 Jun 2020

Antimalarial drug resistance molecular makers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015-2017

PONE-D-19-34681R3

Dear Dr. Hamid,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed by the authors and suggestions incorporated in the revision manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors have provided adequate responses to the areas of concern raised in the previous version of the manuscript. The manuscript is now ready for publication

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Deus S. Ishengoma

Reviewer #2: Yes: Moses Ocan (PhD)

Acceptance letter

Luzia Helena Carvalho

21 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-34681R3

Antimalarial drug resistance molecular makers of Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Sudan during 2015-2017

Dear Dr. Abdel Hamid:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luzia Helena Carvalho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    S2 File

    (XLSX)

    S3 File

    (PDF)

    S1 Data

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers Hussien et al 2020.rtf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW OF PONE-D-19-3468-R1.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to the reviewers PLOSONE-D-19-3468-R1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to the reviewers PONE-D-19-34681R2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This publication uses data generated using Sudanese samples in collaboration with MalariaGEN SpotMalaria Project (https://www.malariagen.net/projects/spotmalaria). Sequences data including nucleotide sequencing information were deposited in the public repository European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), with accession numbers provided as supplementary data (S2 Suppl).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES