Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243493

Molecular characterization and drug resistance patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Getu Diriba 1,2,*, Abebaw Kebede 1,3, Habteyes Hailu Tola 1, Bazezew Yenew 1, Shewki Moga 1, Desalegn Addise 1, Ayinalem Alemu 1, Zemedu Mohammed 1, Muluwork Getahun 1, Mengistu Fantahun 4, Mengistu Tadesse 1, Biniyam Dagne 1, Misikir Amare 1, Gebeyehu Assefa 5, Dessie Abera 2, Kassu Desta 2
Editor: Shampa Anupurba6
PMCID: PMC7721190  PMID: 33284842

Abstract

Background

Molecular characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is important to understand the pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of tuberculosis (TB). However, there is limited information on molecular characteristics and drug-resistant patterns of MTB in patients with extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) in Ethiopia. Thus, this study aimed to determine the molecular characteristics and drug resistance patterns of MTB in patients with EPTB in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

This study was conducted on frozen stored isolates of EPTB survey conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A drug susceptibility test was performed using BACTEC-MGIT 960. Species and strain identification were performed using the Geno-Type MTBC and spoligotyping technique, respectively. Data were entered into the MIRU-VNTRplus database to assess the spoligotype patterns of MTB. Analysis was performed using SPSS version 23, and participants’ characteristics were presented by numbers and proportions.

Results

Of 151 MTB isolates, 29 (19.2%) were resistant to at least one drug. The highest proportion of isolates was resistant to Isoniazid (14.6%) and Pyrazinamide (14.6%). Nine percent of isolates had multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), and 21.4% of them had pre-extensively drug-resistant TB (pre-XDR-TB). Among the 151 MTB isolates characterized by spoligotyping, 142 (94.6%) had known patterns, while 9 (6.0%) isolates were not matched with the MIRU-VNTRplus spoligotype database. Of the isolates which had known patterns, 2% was M.bovis while 98% M. tuberculosis. Forty-one different spoligotype patterns were identified. The most frequently identified SpolDB4 (SIT) wereSIT149 (21.2%), SIT53 (14.6%) and SIT26 (9.6%). The predominant genotypes identified were T (53.6%), Central Asia Strain (19.2%) and Haarlem (9.9%).

Conclusion

The present study showed a high proportion of MDR-TB and pre-XDR-TB among EPTB patients. The strains were mostly grouped into SIT149, SIT53, and SIT26. The T family lineage was the most prevalent genotype. MDR-TB and pre-XDR-TB prevention is required to combat these strains in EPTB. A large scale study is required to describe the molecular characteristics and drug resistance patterns of MTB isolates in EPTB patients.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be the major public health problem and it is the top cause of death from a single infectious disease [1]. One-third of the world’s population has been estimated to be infected by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Based on the 2019 Global TB Report, 10.0 million new TB cases are estimated to occur. Ethiopia is among the 30 high TB, TB/HIV, and MDR-TB burden countries. World Health Organization (WHO) estimates TB incidence to be 151 per 100, 000 population in Ethiopia. Furthermore, the rate of RR/MDR-TB was 0.71% in new and 16% in previously treated cases [2]. There are two types of TB based on the anatomical sites where the disease is manifested. These are pulmonary TB (PTB) and extra-pulmonary TB (EPTB) [3]. Extrapulmonary TB is an important clinical problem as it accounts for about 15–20% of TB burden, and its prevalence is higher in patients co-infected with HIV [47].

Molecular characterization and drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex (MTBC) strains are important to understand the transmission dynamics and drug resistance pattern. Various types of molecular typing techniques based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprints have been developed and used to diagnose and characterize MTBC [8]. Extrapulmonary TB specimens have several inhibitors (include host proteins, blood, and eukaryotic DNA) that compromise the quality of PCR amplification leading to low sensitivity and false-negative results [9]. However, in resource-limited settings, spoligotyping is an important tool to analyze the distribution of various MTB genotype strains [10]. It is a PCR-based method for the detection and typing of the MTBC based on polymorphism in direct repeat locus of mycobacterial chromosome [10]. It offers important advantages such as the genotyping of strains from clinical samples that show a unique hybridization pattern [11]. Genotyping is the most valuable method to understand the MTB strains that are circulating in a community [12]. It is also the most important diagnostic method in the identification of MTB strains.

There are a few studies have been reported on the genetic variability and drug resistance patterns of MTB in patients with EPTB in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [13, 14]. Besides, there is no strong EPTB surveillance data on genetic diversity and drug resistance patterns of MTBC that causes EPTB in Ethiopia [15]. Information from this study could play a crucial role to provide an overview of the genetic variation of MTBC from EPTB. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the molecular characterization and drug resistance patterns of MTBC circulating from EPTB in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study settings

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 151 culture-positive EPTB patients to determine the molecular characteristics and drug resistance patterns of MTB among culture-confirmed EPTB patients’ specimens in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia which covers an area of 527 square kilometers with a total population of 3,384,569 [16]. The current study was conducted on clinical isolates of MTBC from two previous EPTB studies conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. One of the survey data included in the current study which was conducted on 152 patients with EPTB is published [17], while the second survey which is not published enrolled 778 patients. Sixty-eight EPTB presumptive patients were MTBC positive out of 152 from the first survey, whereas 85 were positive from 778 patients from the second survey. In total, 153(16.5%) MTBC isolates were obtained from a total of 930 patients from the two previous studies. Since two isolates were not recovered by sub-culturing, 151 MTBC isolates were used in the present study. In both studies, patients were enrolled consecutively upon arrival.

Drug susceptibility testing

First-line phenotypic drug susceptibility test

Five first-line drugs such as streptomycin (STM), isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RIF) ethambutol (EMB), and pyrazinamide (PZA) were tested using Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube 960 (MGIT 960) system. The drug susceptibility test (DST) was performed by Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (AST) set with the proportional method recommended by the WHO [19]. The concentrations of the drugs in media were: STM 1.0μg/ml, INH 0.1μg/ml, RIF 1.0μg/ml, EMB 5μg/ml and PZA 100μg/ml. A growth tube was used for comparison. The bacterial inocula were diluted to 1:100 before inoculation into the growth control tube and 0.5 mL bacterial suspension was added into the growth control tube [18]. The inoculated tubes were incubated in the MGIT 960 system and monitored every hour for an increase in fluorescence. For SIRE sensitivity MGIT 960 tubes were incubated for a maximum of 13 days and 21 days for PZA.

Second-line phenotypic drug susceptibility test

Second-line DST was performed for all MDR-TB isolates using MGIT 960 systems. All liquid MGIT-positive MTB culture within 1 to 5 days were used for second-line DST. 800μl SIRE supplement and 100μl working drug solution were added into the MGIT tube which contained 7ml modified Middlebrook 7H9. A working solution of each drug was prepared at the concentration level of ofloxacin (OFX) 2.0μg/ml, capreomycin (CAP) 1.25μg/ml, amikacin (AMK) 1.0μg/ml, kanamycin (KAN) 2.5μg/ml, moxifloxacin (MOX) 2.5μg/mland ethionamide (ETH) 2.5 μg/ml based on the manufacturer recommendations [19, 20].

Species and strain identification

Geno-Type MTBC is a qualitative in-vitro test performed from cultured materials for the identification of species or strains belonging to the MTBCwhich include M.tuberculosis/M.canettii, M.bovis, M.africanum, M.microti, Subspecies of bovis, M.caprae, M.bovis BCG [21]. Spoligotyping to identify the species and strains was performed based on the method described elsewhere. A PCR-based amplification of the Direct Repeat (DR) region of the isolate was performed using oligonucleotide primers derived from the DR sequence. The amplified product was hybridized followed by subsequent membrane washing processes. Known strains of BCG and H37Rv were used as positive controls, and molecular grade water was used as a negative control. Hybridized DNA was detected by the enhanced chemiluminescence method. The presence or absence of a spacer was used as the basis of the interpretation of the result. The whole procedure was performed as described by Kamerbeek et al. [22].

Data analysis

The spoligotypes obtained from the laboratory result were entered into the MIRU-VNTRplus and compared with the existing Spoligotype International Type number. Data were double entered into SPSS version 23. Genotypic, phenotypic, and demographic data were described by number and percentage. The level of statistical significance was set at a p-value ≤ 0.05.

Ethical consideration and consent

This study obtained ethical approval from the Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences Research and Ethics Review Committee, Addis Ababa University. Stored isolates collected from patients that had provided informed consent in a previous study were used in the study and it was not feasible to trace and seek additional informed consent from the study participants. To ensure confidentiality, access to the results and documents were kept in a locked area. Information that identifies individual participants was not used in this study.

Results

Demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants

Of 151 EPTB isolates included in this study, eighty-two (54.3%) were from male patients. The mean age was 32.3 (±17.3 SD) years and 89 (59%) of the patients were in the age group of 15 to 39 years. Of the total enrolled patients, 99 (65.6%) were tuberculosis lymphadenitis, while 32 (12.2%) pleural tuberculosis [Table 1].

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of EPTB patients in Addis Ababa Ethiopia (n = 151), 2020.

Characteristics Number Percentage (%)
Age (in year)
<15 16 10.6
15–39 89 58.9
40–59 33 21.9
>60 13 8.6
Gender
Female 69 45.7
Male 82 54.3
HIV status
Non-reactive 96 63.6
Reactive 34 22.5
Unknown 21 13.9
Marital status
Married 98 64.9
Single 44 29.1
Separated 9 6.0
Educational status
Illiterate 42 27.8
Primary School 77 51.0
Secondary School 24 15.9
Higher Education 8 5.3
Occupation
Housewife 13 8.6
Daily laborer 46 30.5
Government employee 12 7.9
Unemployed 38 25.2
Other 42 27.8
Diabetes Mellitus
Yes 14 9.3
No 137 90.7
MDR-TB contact
Yes 7 4.6
No 144 95.4
TB Category
New cases 137 90.7
Re-treatment 14 9.3
Specimen type
Abscess 1 0.7
Ascetic Fluid 5 3.3
CSF 3 2.0
Lymph node aspirate 99 65.6
Pleural Fluid 32 12.2
Peritoneal fluid 8 5.3
Pericardium fluid 1 1.0
Pus 2 2.0

First-line phenotypic drug sensitivity test

One hundred fifty-one isolates for which phenotypic DST was performed, 122 (80.8%) were sensitive to all first-line drugs (STM, INH, RIF EMB, and PZA). However, 29(19.2%) of isolates were resistant to at least one or more drugs. INH and PZA resistance proportion was the same (22, 14.6%) [Table 2]. The proportion of MDR-TB was 14 (9.3%), which included 3 of 14 (21.4%) previously treated and 11 of 137 (8%) newly treated cases [Table 2].

Table 2. Phenotyping drug resistance profiles for first-line drugs among confirmed EPTB patients by patient history profile, 2020.

Drug resistance pattern Isolates from new cases, n (%) Isolates from previously treated cases, n % Total n (%)
Total tested Isolate 137 14 151
Susceptible 115(83.9) 7(50.0) 122(80.8)
Resistance to any drug
STM 7(5.1) 2(14.2) 9 (6.0)
INH 19(13.8) 3(21.4) 22 (14.6)
RIF 11(8.0) 3(21.4) 14 (9.3)
EMB 3(2.2) - 3 (2.0)
PZA 19(13.9) 3(21.4) 22(14.6)
Mono resistance
INH 2(1.5) 1(7.1) 3 (2.0)
PZA 8(5.8) 1(7.1) 9(5.9)
Resistance to more than one drug
INH + RIF 11(8.0) 3(21.4) 14(9.3)
INH + PZA 12(8.6) 3(21.4) 15(9.9)
INH + STM 7(5.1) 2(14.3) 9(6.0)
INH + EMB 3(2.2) - 3(1.32)
INH + RIF + STM 4(2.9) 1(7.1) 5(3.3)
INH + RIF + EMB 2(1.5) - 2(1.3)
INH + RIF + PZA 8(5.8) 2(14.3) 10(6.6)
INH + RIF + EMB + PZA 1(0.7) - 1(0.7)
STM + INH + RIF + PZA 4(2.9) 1(7.1) 5(3.3)
INH + RIF or MDR 11(8.0) 3(21.4) 14 (9.3)

STM-Streptomycin, INH-Isoniazid, RIF-Rifampicin, EMB-Ethambutol, PZA-Pyrazinamide, MDR-Multi drug resistance.

Second-line phenotypic drug sensitivity test

Second-line drugs (AMK, CAP, ETH, KAN, MOX, and OFX) DST was conducted for a total of 14 (9.3%) MDR isolates. Of 14 isolates 2 (14.3%) were resistant to MOX, while 1 (7.1%) to CAP. Seven percent of isolates were resistant to ETH, whereas 2 (14.3%) resistant to OFX. Of the 14 MDR-TB isolates, three (21.4%) were pre-XDR-TB [Table 3]. One of the three (33.3%) previously treated and two of eleven (18.2%) new cases were found to be pre-XDR cases. XDR-TB cases were not observed in the present study.

Table 3. Drug resistance profiles for second-line drugs MDR-TB cases according to new cases and previously treated cases (n = 14), 2020.

Drug resistance pattern Isolates from new cases, n (%) Isolates from previously treated cases, n (%) Total n (%)
Total Isolate 11 3 14
Amikacin - - -
Capromycin 1(9.1) - 1 (7.1)
Ethionamide 1(9.1) - 1(7.1)
Kanamycin - - -
Ofloxacin 1(9.1) 1(33.3) 2 (14.3)
Moxifloxacin 1(9.1) 1(33.3) 2 (14.3)
Pre-XDR 2(18.2) 1(33.3) 3 (21.4)

XDR-Extensively Drug-Resistant.

Species identification of M. tuberculosis complex

Of 151 isolates, 148 (98.0%) were identified as M. tuberculosis while three (2.0%) were M. bovis.

Strain typing (spoligotyping)

All 151 MTB isolates were characterized by spoligotyping. Of 151 MTB isolates, 142(94.0%) displayed known patterns, while nine (6.0%) isolates not matched to the MIRU-VNTRplusdatabase. Accordingly, 41 different spoligotype patterns were identified and categorized under 11 families [Table 4]. The most predominant strain types observed were SIT149 33 (21.2%), SIT53 22 (14.6%), and SIT26 14 (9.6%). The most predominant lineages identified were T family 81 (53.6%), Central Asia Strain 29 (19.2%), Haarlem 15 (9.9%) and unknown 9 (6.0%) [Table 4].

Table 4. Spoligotyping pattern, octal codes, SIT and lineage of extrapulmonary M. tuberculosis isolates (n = 151), May, 2020.

Lineage /Family SIT No. (%) Octal Number Spoligotype pattern
Beijing 1 1(0.7) 000000000003771 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■■
X1 336 1(0.7) 777776777760731 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■□■■■
Haarlem 15(9.9)
 H1 47 1(0.7) 777777774020771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□■□□□□■■■■■■■
 H3 116 1(0.7) 777767775720771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■□■□□□□■■■■■■■
 H3 121 1(0.7) 777777775720771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■□■□□□□■■■■■■■
 H3 3 2(1.3) 000000007720771 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■□■□■■■■■■■■
 H3 50 2(1.3) 777777777720771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■□□□□■■■■■■■
 H3 764 4(2.6) 777757777720771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■□□□□■■■■■■■
 H4 777 4(2.6) 777777777420771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□■□□□□■■■■■■■
Bovis 3(2.0)
 Bovis1 694 2(1.3)  777776777760731 ■■□■■■■■□■■■■□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□
 Bovis1 820 1(0.7) 676763777777600 ■■□■■■■■□■■■■■□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□
T 81(53.6)
 T1 1129 2(1.3) 776777777760771 ■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T1 131 9(6.0) 777717777760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T1 393 3(2.0) 777757777760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T1 3315 1(0.7) 376777737760771 □■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T1 53 22(14.6) 777777777760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T2 52 2(2.3) 777777777760731 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T2 875 2(1.3) 777717777760731 ■■■■■■■■■■■□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■□■■■
 T3 1745 1(0.7) 773737777760771 ■■■■■■□■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T3 37 6(4.0) 777737777760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 T3-ETH 149 33(21.2) 777000377760771 ■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
Ural 6(4.0)
 U 1729 1(0.7) 700000004177771 ■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
 U 910 4(2.6) 700000007177771 ■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
 U 602 1(0.7) 777777770000771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■
Unknown strain 9(6.0)
Not defined Not defined 1(0.7) 700000017774771 ■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■■■□□■■■■■■■
Not defined Not defined 1(0.7) 777774777420771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□■■■■■■■■■■□□□■□□□□■■■■■■■
Not defined Not defined 2(1.3) 770000037760771 ■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
Not defined Not defined 1(0.7) 777737377720771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■■■□■□□□□■■■■■■■
Not defined Not defined 2(1.3) 017777777760731 □□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■□■■■
Not defined Not defined 2(1.3) 777777747420771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□■■■■□□□■□□□□■■■■■■■
Latin American Mediterranean 6(4.0)
 LAM9 1176 2(1.3) 777757607760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 LAM9 42 3(2.0) 777777607760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
 LAM7 Tur 41 1(0.7) 777777404760771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□■□□■■■■■□□□□■■■■■■■
East African Indian 1(0.7)
 EAI5 126 1(0.7) 477777777413771 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□■■■■□■□□□□■■■■■■■
Central Asia Strain 29(19.2)
 CAS 22 7(4.6) 703777400001771 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■
 CAS1-Delhi 25 2(1.3) 703777740003171 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□■■□□■■■■■
 CAS1-Delhi 26 14(9.3) 703777740003771 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■■
 CAS1-Delhi 289 3(2.0) 703777740003571 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■□■■■■■
 CAS 357 1(0.7) 703777740000771 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■
 CAS1-Delhi 429 1(0.7) 703777740003731 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■□■■■
 CAS1-Delhi 794 1(0.7) 703757740003771 ■■■□□□□■■■■■■□■■■■■■■■■□□□□□□□□□□□■■■■■■■■■

CAS-Central Asia Strain, EAI-East African Indian, LAM-Latin American Mediterranean, ETH-Ethiopia, H-Haarlem, SIT-Spoligotype International Type.

Discussion

In the current study, the molecular characteristics and drug resistance profiles of MTBC isolates from non-pulmonary sources were determined. The overall proportion of MDR-TB in new cases was 11 (8%) and 3 (21.4%) in previously treated cases. Of MDR-TB isolates, 3 (21.4%) were pre-XDR-TB. Two percent of isolates were INH mono-resistant. The molecular characteristics result showed that the T family was the most dominant 81 (53.6%) followed by Central Asia Strain 29 (19.2%) and Haarlem 15 (9.9%). The overall prevalence of M.bovis was 2% [3].

In the current study resistance to INH was the most frequent. This proportion is higher than the earlier result reported from Ethiopia [23] and Thailand [24]. However, our finding is similar to the results reported in India [25] and South Korea [26]. Another two studies reported from India indicated higher proportions of INH resistance (>30%) [27, 28] than our finding. In this study, INH mono-resistance was 3 (2%) which is relatively similar to the earlier study reported from Ethiopia [29] and India [27]. Another study reported from North India [30] indicated a higher proportion of INH mono-resistance than our result. This difference could be due to variation in treatment adherence, mutations, early introduction of drugs in the country, and high dose INH use for MDR treatment.

Resistance to PZA was also the most frequent in the current study. Although we could not find a previous study that determined the proportion of resistance against PZA in EPTB specimens, the study reported on both pulmonary TB and EPTB indicated similar results with our findings [31]. In contrast, a study reported from Myanmar [32] showed a high proportion of resistance against PZA in both pulmonary and EPTB specimens. The difference between previous findings and our result might be due to the burden of MDR-TB and treatment adherence levels in the study areas. Although the proportion of PZA resistance is high in MTBC cases, the phenotypic PZA susceptibility test is rarely performed due to technical difficulties. Currently, the MGIT 960 liquid culture method is the only WHO recommended methodology for PZA susceptibility testing, but this test is associated with a high rate of false-positive resistance results [33, 34]. Due to this limitation, the sequencing method is a more promising technique for the rapid and accurate detection of PZA resistance [34].

In our study, the proportion of MDR-TB among new and previously treated patients was 9.3% [14] in EPTB patients. Previous studies reported from India indicated a higher MDR-TB cases proportion than our findings [25, 27, 28]. In contrast, two studies from Korea [26, 35] one study from Thailand [24], and one study from Ethiopia [23] have reported a lower MDR-TB proportion than our findings. The possible reasons for the difference between our findings and previous studies results could be the non-adherence level, lost to follow up, poor drug supply chain management, and quality of drugs used [36]. Moreover, high MDR-TB in our study might be due to the difference in the study setting where the current study is conducted in an urban setting. However, our findings were consistent with previous studies [26, 28, 30, 37, 38].

The proportion of pre-XDR-TB cases among MDR-TB patients in the present study was 21.4% [3]. The finding of the current study is similar to the previous study reported from India in which the proportion of pre-XDR-TB among MDR-TB patients was 18.4% [30]. In contrast to our findings, a study reported from India indicated a high proportion (38.2%) of pre-XDR-TB among MDR-TB patients [39]. However, a lower proportion was reported in a similar study conducted in Pakistan [40]. This difference most probably occurred due to treatment failure and MDR-TB burden in the study areas, treatment non-adherence, quality of the drug used, and, TB program-related issues.

In the current study, different strain types of MTB; Beijing, X1, Haarlem, Bovis, T, Ethiopia, Ural, Central Asia Strain, East African-Indian, and Latin American-Mediterranean, were identified. There were also some orphan strains assigned to their most appropriate lineage and sub-lineage using the TB insight database. The most frequent of lineages in the current study were T, CAS, and H. The most predominant strain spoligotypes were SIT149, SIT53, and SIT26. These results are in line with two earlier studies reported from Italy [41] and Ethiopia [42]. A study reported from Addis Ababa has also shown a high proportion of SIT53 strain and CAS family strains [41]. The number of SIT149 isolates in our study was thirty-two isolates higher than the number registered in the SITVIT2 international database. This might be due to the association of this familiar strain with East African countries, especially in Ethiopia. Besides, Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia and the place for the African Union with a high inflow of individuals that might be the possible reason for the presence of genetically diversified MTBC strain in the present study.

In the current study, only 3 (2%) of M. bovis were identified among MTBC isolates from EPTB patients. A similar finding has been reported in previous studies of Ethiopia [23], Mozambique [43], Madagascar [44], and India [45]. The low proportion of M. bovis in the present study could be due to the fact that the majority of the participants were urban dwellers which are not associated with livestock.

Our study has some limitations. As the two studies from which the isolates used in the current study did not target presumptive MDR EPTB patients, the finding of the present study cannot be generalized for the second-line drug resistance. Moreover, this study was included participants living in Addis Ababa which could not reflect the actual molecular characteristics and drug resistance patterns in EPTB patients in the country. Besides, the molecular characterization of Mycobacterial tuberculosis strains was not performed using advanced molecular diagnostic tools such as mycobacterial interspersed repetitive unit variable number tandem repeat (MIRU-VNTR) and sequencing other than spoligotyping. However, our findings provide important evidence on molecular characteristics and drug resistance patterns of EPTB.

Conclusion

The present study showed different strain types of MTB circulating in Addis Ababa. T family and Central Asia Strains are the most dominant lineages and SIT149 was the most predominant strain. In the current study, high proportions of MDR-TB and pre-XDR-TB were identified in patients with EPTB. Strengthen MDR-TB and pre-XDR-TB prevention is required to combat these strains in EPTB patients. Further large scale study is recommended to provide comprehensive molecular characteristics and drug resistance patterns in EPTB patients.

Supporting information

S1 File

(SAV)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Ethiopian Public Health Institute and Addis Ababa University for providing materials and facilities during this study. The authors are also grateful for the study participants whose specimens and data were used in this study.

Abbreviations

AMK

Amikacin

CAP

Capreomycin

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

DST

Drug Susceptibility Testing

EMB

Ethambutol

EPHI

Ethiopian Public Health Institute

EPTB

Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis

ETH

Ethionamide

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

INH

Isoniazid

KAN

Kanamycin

MDR-TB

Multidrug Resistant Tuberculosis

MGIT

Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube

MOX

Moxifloxacin

MTB

Mycobacterium tuberculosis

OFX

Ofloxacine

PTB

Pulmonary Tuberculosis

PZA

Pyrazinamide

RIF

Rifampicin

RR

Rifampicin Resistance

SIRE

Streptomycin Isoniazid Rifampicin Ethambutol

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Scientist

STM

Streptomycin

TB

Tuberculosis

VIO

Viomycin

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report. Geneva: WHO press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report. Geneva: WHO press;. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lee JY. Diagnosis and treatment of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2015;78(2):47–55. 10.4046/trd.2015.78.2.47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kulchavenya E. Extrapulmonary tuberculosis: are statistical reports accurate? Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2014;2(2):6170 10.1177/2049936114528173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Purohit M, Mustafa T. Laboratory Diagnosis of Extra-pulmonary Tuberculosis (EPTB) in Resource-constrained Setting: State of the Art, Challenges and the Need. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4): EE01–6. 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12422.5792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report. Geneva: WHO press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kumar A DA, Jena PP, Rongpharpi SR, Gur R. Zeihl Neelsen Stain: Still a Reliable Option for EPTB Diagnosis in Resource Constraint Settings. Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medicine. 2018;03(01). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Seung KJ, Keshavjee S, Rich ML. Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis and Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015;5(9):a017863 10.1101/cshperspect.a017863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kumar R, Kushwaha RAS, Jain A, Hasan Z, Gaur P, Panday S. Tuberculosis Among Household Contacts of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Cases at a Tertiary Hospital in Lucknow, India. International Journal of Life-Sciences Scientific Research. 2018;4(2):1707–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhang J, Abadia E, Refregier G, Tafaj S, Boschiroli ML, Guillard B, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex CRISPR genotyping: improving efficiency, throughput and discriminative power of ‘spoligotyping’ with new spacers and a microbead-based hybridization assay. J Med Microbiol. 2010;59(3):285–94. 10.1099/jmm.0.016949-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chakravorty S, Sen MK, Tyagi JS. Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by smear, culture, and PCR using universal sample processing technology. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(9):4357–62. 10.1128/JCM.43.9.4357-4362.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Suzana S, Shanmugam S, Uma Devi KR, Swarna Latha PN, Michael JS. Spoligotyping of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates at a tertiary care hospital in India. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22(6):703–7. 10.1111/tmi.12875 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mehta PK, Raj A, Singh N, Khuller GK. Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by PCR. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012;66(1):20–36. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00987.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sankar MM, Singh J, Diana SC, Singh S. Molecular characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from North Indian patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2013;93(1):75–83. 10.1016/j.tube.2012.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Brudey K, Driscoll JR, Rigouts L, Prodinger WM, Gori A, Al-Hajoj SA, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex genetic diversity: mining the fourth international spoligotyping database (SpolDB4) for classification, population genetics and epidemiology. BMC Microbiol. 2006;6:23 10.1186/1471-2180-6-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Worku T, Mengistu Z, Semahegn A, Tesfaye G. Rehabilitation for cancer patients at Black Lion hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Palliat Care. 2017;16(1):53 10.1186/s12904-017-0235-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fantahun M, Kebede A, Yenew B, Gemechu T, Mamuye Y, Tadesse M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay and non-molecular methods for the diagnosis of tuberculosis lymphadenitis. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222402 10.1371/journal.pone.0222402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhao P, Fang F, Yu Q, Guo J, Zhang JH, Qu J, et al. Evaluation of BACTEC MGIT 960 system for testing susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to first-line drugs in China. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e99659 10.1371/journal.pone.0099659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Owusu E, Newman MJ. Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility (MODS) Assay: A Convenient Method for Determining Antibiogram of Clinical Isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Ghana. Med Sci (Basel). 2020;8(1). 10.3390/medsci8010005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maningi NE, Malinga LA, Antiabong JF, Lekalakala RM, Mbelle NM. Comparison of line probe assay to BACTEC MGIT 960 system for susceptibility testing of first and second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs in a referral laboratory in South Africa. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):795 10.1186/s12879-017-2898-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Neonakis IK, Gitti Z, Petinaki E, Maraki S, Spandidos DA. Evaluation of the GenoType MTBC assay for differentiating 120 clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex isolates. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;26(2):151–2. 10.1007/s10096-007-0255-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kamberek J, Schouls L, Kolk A, Van Agterveld M, Van Soolingen D, Kuijper S et al. Simultaneous Detection and Strain Differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for Diagnosis and Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1997;35(4):907–14. 10.1128/JCM.35.4.907-914.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Korma W, Mihret A, Hussien J, Anthony R, Lakew M, Aseffa A. Clinical, molecular and drug sensitivity pattern of mycobacterial isolates from extra-pulmonary tuberculosis cases in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:456 10.1186/s12879-015-1177-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Boonsarngsuk V, Mangkang K, Santanirand P. Prevalence and risk factors of drug-resistant extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(6):2101–9. 10.1111/crj.12779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hanif M, Sharma S, Chopra K, Sharma M, Dwivedi K, Sidiq Z, et al. Detection of multidrug resistance and extensively drug resistance among smear-negative extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases in a reference laboratory. Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal (BBRJ). 2018;2(2):132. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lee HY, Lee J, Lee YS, Kim MY, Lee HK, Lee YM, et al. Drug-resistance pattern of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains from patients with pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis during 2006 to 2013 in a Korean tertiary medical center. Korean J Intern Med. 2015;30(3):325–34. 10.3904/kjim.2015.30.3.325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dusthackeer A, Sekar G, Chidambaram S, Kumar V, Mehta P, Swaminathan S. Drug resistance among extrapulmonary TB patients: Six years experience from a supranational reference laboratory. Indian J Med Res. 2015;142(5):568–74. 10.4103/0971-5916.171284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Maurya AK, Kant S, Nag VL, Kushwaha RA, Dhole TN. Trends of anti-tuberculosis drug resistance pattern in new cases and previously treated cases of extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases in referral hospitals in northern India. J Postgrad Med. 2012;58(3):185–9. 10.4103/0022-3859.101379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Biadglegne FTB, Sack U, Rodloff AC. Drug resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from tuberculosis lymphadenitis patients in Ethiopia. Indian J Med Res 2014;140:116–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sharma SK, Chaubey J, Singh BK, Sharma R, Mittal A, Sharma A. Drug resistance patterns among extra-pulmonary tuberculosis cases in a tertiary care centre in North India. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017;21(10):1112–7. 10.5588/ijtld.16.0939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Khan MT, Malik SI, Ali S, Masood N, Nadeem T, Khan AS, et al. Pyrazinamide resistance and mutations in pncA among isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):116 10.1186/s12879-019-3764-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Aung WW, Ei PW, Nyunt WW, Htwe MM, Win SM, Aye KT, et al. Pyrazinamide Resistance among Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis Clinical Isolates in Myanmar. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(3). 10.1128/AAC.01984-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rahman A, Ferdous SS, Ahmed S, Rahman SMM, Uddin MKM, Pholwat S, et al. Pyrazinamide Susceptibility and pncA Mutation Profiles of Mycobacterium tuberculosis among Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Patients in Bangladesh. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(9). 10.1128/AAC.00511-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Technologies for the detection of mutations associated with drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex: technical guide World Health Organization 2018.
  • 35.Mok J, Kang BH, Kim HJ, Lee SJ, Lee T, Lee HK, et al. Drug resistance in extra-pulmonary tuberculosis in South Korea: comparison with pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2019;23(2):151–6. 10.5588/ijtld.18.0109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.WHO treatment guidelines for drugresistant tuberculosis. 2016.
  • 37.Pang Y, An J, Shu W, Huo F, Chu N, Gao M, et al. Epidemiology of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis among Inpatients, China, 2008–2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(3):457–64. 10.3201/eid2503.180572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shibabaw A, Gelaw B, Gebreyes W, Robinson R, Wang SH, Tessema B. The burden of pre-extensively and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis among MDR-TB patients in the Amhara region, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229040 10.1371/journal.pone.0229040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Desai U, Joshi JM. Extrapulmonary drug-resistant tuberculosis at a drug-resistant tuberculosis center, Mumbai: Our experience—Hope in the midst of despair! Lung India. 2019;36(1):3–7. 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_192_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tahseen S, Ambreen A, Masood F, Qadir M, Hussain A, Jamil M, et al. Primary drug resistance in extra-pulmonary tuberculosis: a hospital-based prospective study from Pakistan. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2019;23(8):900–6. 10.5588/ijtld.18.0531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lari N, Rindi L., Cristofani R., Rastogi N., Tortoli E., & Garzelli C. Association of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex isolates of BOVIS and Central Asian (CAS) genotypic lineages with extrapulmonary disease. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15(6):538–43. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.02712.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Garedew L, Mihret A, Ameni G. Molecular typing of mycobacteria isolated from extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients at Debre Birhan Referral Hospital, central Ethiopia. Scand J Infect Dis. 2013;45(7):512–8. 10.3109/00365548.2013.773068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Viegas SO, Ghebremichael S, Massawo L, Alberto M, Fernandes FC, Monteiro E, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis causing tuberculous lymphadenitis in Maputo, Mozambique. BMC Microbiol. 2015;15:268 10.1186/s12866-015-0603-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rasolofo-Razanamparany V MD, Rasolonavalona T, Ramarokoto H, Rakotomanana F, Aurégan G. Prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis in human pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis in Madagascar. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(7):632–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kandhakumari G, Stephen S, Sivakumar S, Narayanan S. Spoligotype patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolated from extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients in Puducherry, India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2015;33(2):267–70. 10.4103/0255-0857.154871 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shampa Anupurba

28 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-17590

Molecular Characterization and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Diriba,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shampa Anupurba, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The language has to be substantially modified in order to be comprehensible

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Manuscript by Diriba et al reports on the characteristics of M.tuberculosis strains isolated from extrapulmonary TB patients residing in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia). Specifically, phenotypic drug susceptibility patterns and spoligotypes of 151 MTBC strains were analysed and reported.

Subject of the study is of interest as Ethiopia still very much remains a white spot in TB world phylogeography while drug resistance patterns of MTBC strains circulating there are still poorly understood especially in extrapulmonary TB isolates.

That said, in my opinion, the manuscript has a number of serious problems which need to be fixed before it can be considered for publicatrion.

First of all, quality of written English is poor and certain fragments are not fully comprehensible. This applies predominantly to Introduction and Discussion section. Grammar is key problem (passive/active voice; tenses etc). Text should be proof read, ideally by a native speaker, and revised/corrected accordingly.

Content wise, study design is a key problem. Authors refer to one published and one unpublished study when describing study settings and patient population, but it's far from clear how many specimens were taken from what study, how patients were enrolled and specimens collected (consecutive specimens? convenience sample? individial vs serial isolates? inclusion criteria? etc). Having read the paper authors were referring to (Fantahun et al., PLoS ONE 2019) i realised it included 152 specimens and nearly all the clinical, epidemiological and demographic characteristics were almost the same (current study included 151 specimens), so it's worth expanding and clarifying on whether exactly the same selection of isolates was tested in the current study.

Depending on representativeness of the study population (which should be clarified as discussed above), all the conclusions and considerations with regards to prevalence of specific drug resistances, spoligotypes, and other characteristics vs other Ethiopian studies and reports from other countries should be adjusted. If this collection was essentially a convenience sample, no firm conclusions regarding prevalence could be made.

Another problem is hypothesis and principal aim of the study. What was the reason for genotyping and how exactly this type of knowledge can contribute to TB management in Ethiopia especially (as authors rightly state) EPTB is not as transmissible? I suggest to put this study into a broader context of TB/MTBC phylogeography; to this end use of another database (VNTR-MIRUplus) as an alternative or compelentary to SITVIT could be recommended.

Other points:

- author state that "Lymph node TB was the most common site involved..." (Page 9, Line 211-212). However, this will be heavily influenced by inclusion criteria (see above) - if only patients suspected of having Lymph node impairment have been enrolled, than this is not a surprising finding. As I say, defining inclusion criteria will help significantly.

- PZA sensitivity: authors rightly state that reproducibility of phenotypic PZA testing is not ideal. It's worth referring to the recent WHO guidelines (eg 2018) where sequencing is recommended as a reference method.

- Both Background and Discussion sections, as well as fragments of Materials and Methods are far too long and should be shortened. In Introduction. authors should concentrate on their hypothesis and what is known so far; in Discussion messages should be more concise. Pages 10-12 are very difficult to read as they are overloaded with non-relevant information, this should be significantly shortened. In Methods (Page 6) a simple reference to Spoligotyping methodology (eg Kamerbeek et al) will suffice, no need to describe it in details.

Reviewer #2: The molecular typing of EPTB isolates (which is often neglected by programme managers) from Ethiopia is appreciated. The samples size is also not very large but acceptable. The findings of M. bovis in about 2% a important finding. However, the study has following concerns and these need to be addressed.

1. The language needs significant improvisation. The Introduction is not very focused on the need of this study. Some of the studies cited in the introduction do not find place in discussion at all, which have clear message and the excerpts should have been cited in discussion as well.

2.Like Introduction the discussion is diffuse and lacks a flow. It has a number of repetitions, and irrelevant statement.

3. The major limitation of the study is that conclusions are based on Spoligotyping. We know that spoligotypic classification lacks discriminatory power and therefore, MIRU-VNTR must have been done. However, considering that this study is coming from Ethiopia, I would not insist on this aspect, but the authors must create a separate para on the limitation of this study, wherein why MIRU-VNTR could not be done, must be mentioned.

**********

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: Yes: Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof. Sarman Singh

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243493.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Sep 2020

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your informative comments on our manuscript entitled “Molecular Characterization and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia”. We have addressed your comments one by one. We also appreciate you for allowing us to revise our manuscript and correct errors in the previous version. We thank the reviewers for their informative comments, and our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are given below. Also, we would like to inform you that we have used highlights to indicate where we made changes in response to the reviewers’ comments.

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: Manuscript by Diriba et al reports on the characteristics of M.tuberculosis strains isolated from extrapulmonary TB patients residing in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia). Specifically, phenotypic drug susceptibility patterns and spoligotypes of 151 MTBC strains were analysed and reported. Subject of the study is of interest as Ethiopia still very much remains a white spot in TB world phylogeography while drug resistance patterns of MTBC strains circulating there are still poorly understood especially in extrapulmonary TB isolates.That said, in my opinion, the manuscript has a number of serious problems which need to be fixed before it can be considered for publicatrion.

1. First of all, quality of written English is poor and certain fragments are not fully comprehensible. This applies predominantly to Introduction and Discussion section. Grammar is key problem (passive/active voice; tenses etc). Text should be proof read, ideally by a native speaker, and revised/corrected accordingly.

Response: Thank you very much for your informative comments. We have addressed you comments across the manuscript. Errors related to language usage and grammer have revised by native English speaker.

2. Content wise, study design is a key problem. Authors refer to one published and one unpublished study when describing study settings and patient population, but it's far from clear how many specimens were taken from what study, how patients were enrolled and specimens collected (consecutive specimens? convenience sample? individial vs serial isolates? inclusion criteria? etc). Having read the paper authors were referring to (Fantahun et al., PLoS ONE 2019) i realised it included 152 specimens and nearly all the clinical, epidemiological and demographic characteristics were almost the same (current study included 151 specimens), so it's worth expanding and clarifying on whether exactly the same selection of isolates was tested in the current study.

Response: Thank you for the pertinent comment. To address this comment we have described the process of sampling and how many isolates were taken from the previously published study and unpulished study as follows

The current study was conducted on clinical isolates of MTBC from two previous EPTB studies conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. One of the survey data used in the current study was published and the study participants were 152 patients with EPTB (17) while the second survey which is not published was enrolled 778 patients. Sixty eight EPTB presumptive patients were MTBC positive out of 152 (from the first survey), whereas 85 were positive from 778 patients (from second survey). In total, 153(16.5%) MTBCs isolates were obtained from the total of 930 patients from the two previous studies. Since two isolates were not recovered by sub-culturing, 151 MTBC isolates were used in the present study. In both studies, patients were enrolled consecutively from upon the arrival of the participants. In the previous studies from which isolates used in the current study, single sample per patient was collected and tested for TB using culture and Xpert MTB/RIF assay.

3. Depending on representativeness of the study population (which should be clarified as discussed above), all the conclusions and considerations with regards to prevalence of specific drug resistances, spoligotypes, and other characteristics vs other Ethiopian studies and reports from other countries should be adjusted. If this collection was essentially a convenience sample, no firm conclusions regarding prevalence could be made.

Response: Thank you for the critical observation. We have retrieved MTBC clinical isolates from the previous two EPTB studies. We believe these two studies were based on statistically determined sample size and the sampling the study participants are represented of their respective study population. This study mainly aimed to document the genotypic and phenotypic charactersitics of the isolates from the two studies. Thus, there are clear difference between previous studies and our study aims.

4. Another problem is hypothesis and principal aim of the study. What was the reason for genotyping and how exactly this type of knowledge can contribute to TB management in Ethiopia especially (as authors rightly state) EPTB is not as transmissible? I suggest to put this study into a broader context of TB/MTBC phylogeography; to this end use of another database (VNTR-MIRUplus) as an alternative or compelentary to SITVIT could be recommended.

Response:

Thank you very much for your crtical observation. We have addressed your comment by adding the reasons why gewnotyping method was used and the value of this technique for the TB management in Ethiopia (line 78-80). Since we did not conduct VNTR-MIRUplus due to lack of the technique in our setup, we could not compare our result with the indicated database as complimentary to SITVIT databse. To address this comment we have added a sentence in the limitation part of this study.

5- Other points: author state that "Lymph node TB was the most common site involved..." (Page 9, Line 211-212). However, this will be heavily influenced by inclusion criteria (see above) - if only patients suspected of having Lymph node impairment have been enrolled, than this is not a surprising finding. As I say, defining inclusion criteria will help significantly.

Response: We have indicated as "Lymph node TB was the most common site involved..." just to give good insight about the source of the MTBC isolates in detail. We have removed this sentence from the discaussion parts to address your comment.

6- PZA sensitivity: authors rightly state that reproducibility of phenotypic PZA testing is not ideal. It's worth referring to the recent WHO guidelines (eg 2018) where sequencing is recommended as a reference method.

Response: Corrected accordingly to the comment. We have indicated in the discussion section as WHO has recently recommends sequencing as a reference method (Line 196-201)

7- Both Background and Discussion sections, as well as fragments of Materials and Methods are far too long and should be shortened. In Introduction. authors should concentrate on their hypothesis and what is known so far; in Discussion messages should be more concise. Pages 10-12 are very difficult to read as they are overloaded with non-relevant information, this should be significantly shortened. In Methods (Page 6) a simple reference to Spoligotyping methodology (eg Kamerbeek et al) will suffice, no need to describe it in details.

Response: Thank you for the pertinent comment and suggestion. We have corrected all errors based on your comment.

Reviewer reports: #2

Reviewer #2: The molecular typing of EPTB isolates (which is often neglected by programme managers) from Ethiopia is appreciated. The samples size is also not very large but acceptable. The findings of M. bovis in about 2% a important finding. However, the study has following concerns and these need to be addressed.

1. The language needs significant improvisation. The Introduction is not very focused on the need of this study. Some of the studies cited in the introduction do not find place in discussion at all, which have clear message and the excerpts should have been cited in discussion as well.

Response: Thank you for the informative comments and suggestions. We have revised the introduction to focus to our study aobjective. We have revised the introduction and discussion section based on your comment to clarify and focuse.

2. Like Introduction the discussion is diffuse and lacks a flow. It has a number of repetitions, and irrelevant statement.

Response: We removed inrrelevant statements and revised the introduction and discussion sections in detail.

3. The major limitation of the study is that conclusions are based on Spoligotyping. We know that spoligotypic classification lacks discriminatory power and therefore, MIRU-VNTR must have been done. However, considering that this study is coming from Ethiopia, I would not insist on this aspect, but the authors must create a separate para on the limitation of this study, wherein why MIRU-VNTR could not be done, must be mentioned.

Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We did not conduct advanced molecular tests such as MIRU-VTRN and sequencing due to lack of the setup. To address this comment, we have included an explanation in the limitation part of the revised manuscript (Line 241-244).

Yours, Sincerely

Getu Diriba

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Shampa Anupurba

5 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-17590R1

Molecular Characterization and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Diriba,

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

The reviewers have gone through your manuscript thoroughly and given their comments.Please try to improve it further. Much improvement is needed in the discussion section. Moreover, the English is still poor with grammatical mistakes and mixing of tenses. Apart from their suggestions, I have tried to correct the language although I would still suggest that a native speaking person should be consulted.Further as suggested, it is advised that MIRU-VNTR database be used.

Line 33- 'strain' instead of strains

Line 46- 'strains were' instead of strain was

Line 63- Insert 'is' between disease and manifested

Line 64- Delete 'EPTB occurs in any part of the body except for the lungs'. 'Replace 'It becomes' with 'EPTB is'

Line 68- 'are' instead of 'become'

Lines 71-72- Can be rewritten as 'EPTB specimens have several inhibitors (...) that compromise the quality of PCR amplification leading to low sensitivity and false-negative results'.

Line 74- Delete 'remaining'

Line 79- Insert 'are' between 'that'and 'circulating'

Line 81-Delete 'Even though EPTB is a public health problem in Ethiopia' and start with 'There are a few studies that have reported .....

Line 95- Delete 'was' after study

Line 96- Delete ''was' after published and 'in' after enrolled

Line 99 Delete 's' after MTBC

Line 101- Delete 'from' after consecutively

Line 108- pyrazinamide instead of Pyrazinamide

Line 111- RFP should be replaced by RIF and rephrase the sentence

Line 113- 'The bacterial inocula...'

Line 114- '0.5 ml of 1:100 dilution was added into tube containing no drug'

Line 115- 'every hour' and delete one after every

Line 122-124-All names of drugs should be in lower case. Also moxifloxacin (MOX) should be added.

Line 125- 'strain identification' instead of strains

Line 127- Replace 'The complexes that identified are' with 'which include...'

Line 133- Replace 'however' with 'and'

Line 135- Replace 'base' by 'basis'

Line 146- Delete 'Since' and write 'isolates' instead of isolate

Line 155- '99(65.6%)had tuberculous lymphadenitis while 12.2% had pleural. If total number of lymph node aspirates were maximum, then the number of TB lymphadenitis would also be highest. This should be checked. Also, Table 1 can be deleted.

Line 159- Delete 'of'

Line 160- Replace 'list' with 'least', delete 'of'

Line 161-'The proportion of MDR-TB was 9.3%, which included 3 of 14 (21.4%) previously treated and 11 of 137 (8%) newly treated cases.

Line 167- Delete 'developed'

Lines 167-168- One of the three (33.3%) previously treated and two of eleven (18.2%) new cases were found to be pre XDR cases.

Line 171-...three (2.0%) 'were' M. bovis

Line 172- Delete entire line

Line 175- Delete 'were'

Line 176- 'Of those isolates their patterns are known...' may be rephrased as 'The isolates with known patterns...'

Line 184- Replace prevalence by 'proportion'

Line 185- Replace 21.14% by 21.4%. Delete 'developed'

Table 2 - In last row under column previously treated correct 21.14% to 21.4%

Line 188- Delete 'which'

Line 202- Replace 'the' by 'a' and shown by 'showed'

Line 211- 9.3% instead of high

Line 213- Delete 'the previous'

Line 218- Insert 'the fact that ' after due to and omit comma

Line 219- Delete 'findings' after studies.

Line 220- Delete 'high'

Line 221- Delete 'is'

Line 224- Replace the by 'a'

Lines 225-227- Similar explanation for disparity of results are repeatedly used throughout Discussion which should be avoided. Instead authors may first mention similarities and differences between their findings and findings from other studies and mention the probable reason in the end.

Line 231- Replace 'prevalent' by 'frequent'

Line 234- 'has' instead of is

Lines 238-240- Rephrase, also check 'activates'

Line 244- Insert 'fact that' after due to the

Line 247- 'study did not target presumptive MDR EPTB patients', Compare with Line 218. Proper selection criteria should be mentioned under Materials and Methods before drawing inferences.

Line 252- MIRU-VNTR should be expanded

Reference 22 should be corrected

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shampa Anupurba, MD

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank Authors for addressing most of the Reviewer's comments which in my opinion helped to improve the manuscript and make conclusions better supported by the data also highlighting the study limitations.

However there is a number of points that need to be addressed before the manuscript could be accepted for publication:

- although Authors state the manuscript has been reviewed by a native English speaker, problems with English grammar persist. There are multiple errors and inaccuracies mainly in the Abstract and Introduction and also methods which, if remain uncorrected, will affect reader's experience and understanding. Examples include:

- Line 49 "The strain was mostly grouped into SIT149, SIT53 and SIT26" (should be "strainS");

- Lines 49-50 (again strainS i.e. plural but not strain single);

- Lines 71-73 - Materials (not assays) have inhibitors

- Lines 95-97 "One of the survey data used in the current study was published 152 patients with EPTB (17) while the second survey which is not published was enrolled 778 patients - problems with passive/active voices

- etc.

I strongly recommend that text again is revised, double checked and multiple inaccuracies corrected.

Factual errors/inaccuracies:

- Lines 149-150; 129 plus 29 is equal to 158 but a total number of strains was 151; please correct and re-calculate proportions if necessary;

- Line 181 and 190: please re-phrase as INH and PZA resistance prevalence was the same.

- Line 211-212: please avoid using "high" in relation to pre-XDR proportion as absolute numbers are very low (3 out of 14). Please re-phrase to avoid misleading.

Other points:

- Lines 174-180 and whole Discussion section; please provide absolute numbers (not only proportions) as numbers are generally low and presenting proportions alone is misleading.

- I fully appreciate what authors are saying about lack of resources and inability to do MIRU-VNTR typing. However my suggestion regarding MIRU-VNTRplus database was not about performing VNTR; i recommended using this resource to re-classify strains using novel (and widely recognised) nomenclature. It's up to the Editor to decide whether it's essential; personally i think using more advanced nomenclature provided by MIRU-VNTRplus will make conclusions stronger and, importantly, more generalisable .

Reviewer #2: I regret to mention that manuscript is not yet publishable. Several concerns have not yet been addressed despite very positive suggestions.

For example "Line 81 to: Even though EPTB is a public health problem in Ethiopia, few studies have been reported on the genetic variability and drug resistance patterns of MTB in patients with EPTB in Addis Ababa (13, 14). Besides, there is no strong EPTB surveillance data on genetic diversity" How the EPTB is a public health problem? Usually only PTB is. So authors should provide some literature to make this statement. Also in these lines they mention "no strong EPTb surveillance data" ? What this means, authors need to explain. This study is about the molecular characterization of isolate. Which is clear from the isolates they included from two previous studies. Indeed this makes me puzzled. Why authors are again repeating the methods like staining and culture and single sample or otherwise. This study could have been straight if they were starting from the isolates recovered from previous two studies and they could have referred the previous studies.

2. I also it irrelevant and difficult to assimilate how they categorize the clinical details of all patients while including only number of Mycobacterial isolates (Table 1). This table is irrelevant.

There are several other issues in the study, especially the design and interpretation. Indeed this manuscript has very little chance to improve with suggestions and should be rejected. However, it is up to the editor to take decision.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prof Sarman Singh

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 7;15(12):e0243493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243493.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Oct 2020

Cover letter for revised manuscript number: PONE-D-20-17590R2

Title: Molecular Characterization and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Revisions based on the comments, and questions of the editor and the reviewers

Editor

The reviewers have gone through your manuscript thoroughly and given their comments. Please try to improve it further. Much improvement is needed in the discussion section. Moreover, the English is still poor with grammatical mistakes and mixing of tenses. Apart from their suggestions, I have tried to correct the language although I would still suggest that a native speaking person should be consulted. Further as suggested, it is advised that MIRU-VNTR database be used.

Response: Thank you for the constructive comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript is language checked with a native speaker and based on your and the reviewers’ suggestion we applied the MIRU-VNTRplus database at this stage. Also, the discussions section is revised accordingly based on the comments. Besides the grammatical issues and the words were revised based on the editor suggestions and comments. Sentences are rephrased based on the given directions, and we track changed all the corrections in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

Although Authors state the manuscript has been reviewed by a native English speaker, problems with English grammar persist. There are multiple errors and inaccuracies mainly in the Abstract and Introduction and also methods which, if remain uncorrected, will affect reader's experience and understanding. Examples include:

- Line 49 "The strain was mostly grouped into SIT149, SIT53 and SIT26" (should be "strainS");

- Lines 49-50 (again strainS i.e. plural but not strain single);

- Lines 71-73 - Materials (not assays) have inhibitors

- Lines 95-97 "One of the survey data used in the current study was published 152 patients with EPTB (17) while the second survey which is not published was enrolled 778 patients - problems with passive/active voices

- etc.

I strongly recommend that text again is revised, double checked and multiple inaccuracies corrected.

Response: Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions. The current manuscript is language checked with a native speaker

Factual errors/inaccuracies:

- Lines 149-150; 129 plus 29 is equal to 158 but a total number of strains was 151; please correct and re-calculate proportions if necessary;

Response: Thank you for the comment, it is corrected now.

- Line 181 and 190: please re-phrase as INH and PZA resistance prevalence was the same.

Response: Thank you for the comment, we re-phrased it accordingly.

- Line 211-212: please avoid using "high" in relation to pre-XDR proportion as absolute numbers are very low (3 out of 14). Please re-phrase to avoid misleading.

Response: Thank you for the comment, we revised it accordingly.

- Lines 174-180 and whole Discussion section; please provide absolute numbers (not only proportions) as numbers are generally low and presenting proportions alone is misleading.

Response: Thank you for the comment; we revised using the absolute numbers based on the suggestion you given.

- I fully appreciate what authors are saying about lack of resources and inability to do MIRU-VNTR typing. However my suggestion regarding MIRU-VNTRplus database was not about performing VNTR; i recommended using this resource to re-classify strains using novel (and widely recognised) nomenclature. It's up to the Editor to decide whether it's essential; personally i think using more advanced nomenclature provided by MIRU-VNTRplus will make conclusions stronger and, importantly, more generalisable .

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion, we applied the MIRU-VNTRplus database and we revised the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer #2:

I regret to mention that manuscript is not yet publishable. Several concerns have not yet been addressed despite very positive suggestions.

For example "Line 81 to: Even though EPTB is a public health problem in Ethiopia, few studies have been reported on the genetic variability and drug resistance patterns of MTB in patients with EPTB in Addis Ababa (13, 14). Besides, there is no strong EPTB surveillance data on genetic diversity" How the EPTB is a public health problem? Usually only PTB is. So authors should provide some literature to make this statement. Also in these lines they mention "no strong EPTb surveillance data" ? What this means, authors need to explain. This study is about the molecular characterization of isolate. Which is clear from the isolates they included from two previous studies. Indeed this makes me puzzled. Why authors are again repeating the methods like staining and culture and single sample or otherwise. This study could have been straight if they were starting from the isolates recovered from previous two studies and they could have referred the previous studies.

Response: Thank you for the comments and the concerns. We wrote the sentence “EPTB is a public health problem in Ethiopia” because it accounts for 31% of the TB cases in the country. But, we removed it in the revised manuscript based on the given comment. Since there is limited data on the circulating strains that are causing EPTB in the country including the current study setting, we understand it is a research gap. Besides, strain characterization is not routinely followed in the country. Thus, identifying the circulating MTBC strains causing EPTB is important. The current study is conducted using isolates recovered from previously conducted two studies in the study setting. We wrote the sentence “In the previous studies from which the isolates were used in the current study, a single sample per patient was collected and tested for TB using culture and Xpert MTB/RIF assay” to make clear how EPTB was ruled out. In the revised manuscript we remove this sentence.

2. I also it irrelevant and difficult to assimilate how they categorize the clinical details of all patients while including only number of Mycobacterial isolates (Table 1). This table is irrelevant.

There are several other issues in the study, especially the design and interpretation. Indeed this manuscript has very little chance to improve with suggestions and should be rejected. However, it is up to the editor to take decision.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We considered that it would be important if the demographic and clinical details of EPTB patients are described. For example, among patients with known HIV status, 26.2 % were HIV positive and most (65.6%) of the isolates were isolated from LN samples.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Shampa Anupurba

23 Nov 2020

Molecular Characterization and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-17590R2

Dear Dr. Diriba,

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,

Shampa Anupurba, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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: I would like to thank the Authors for addressing the reviewer's comments and consider manuscript acceptable in its current format

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Shampa Anupurba

26 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-17590R2

Molecular Characterization and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Diriba:

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. Shampa Anupurba

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

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES