Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 25;16(2):e0243687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243687

Human major infections: Tuberculosis, treponematoses, leprosy—A paleopathological perspective of their evolution

Maciej Henneberg 1,2,3,*,#, Kara Holloway-Kew 4,#, Teghan Lucas 3,5,#
Editor: David Caramelli6
PMCID: PMC7906324  PMID: 33630846

Abstract

The key to evolution is reproduction. Pathogens can either kill the human host or can invade the host without causing death, thus ensuring their own survival, reproduction and spread. Tuberculosis, treponematoses and leprosy are widespread chronic infectious diseases whereby the host is not immediately killed. These diseases are examples of the co-evolution of host and pathogen. They can be well studied as the paleopathological record is extensive, spanning over 200 human generations. The paleopathology of each disease has been well documented in the form of published synthetic analyses recording each known case and case frequencies in the samples they were derived from. Here the data from these synthetic analyses were re-analysed to show changes in the prevalence of each disease over time. A total of 69,379 skeletons are included in this study. There was ultimately a decline in the prevalence of each disease over time, this decline was statistically significant (Chi-squared, p<0.001). A trend may start with the increase in the disease’s prevalence before the prevalence declines, in tuberculosis the decline is monotonic. Increase in skeletal changes resulting from the respective diseases appears in the initial period of host-disease contact, followed by a decline resulting from co-adaptation that is mutually beneficial for the disease (spread and maintenance of pathogen) and host (less pathological reactions to the infection). Eventually either the host may become immune or tolerant, or the pathogen tends to be commensalic rather than parasitic.

Introduction

As metazoans, humans host whole ecosystems of microbiota and adapt to them. Many of the small organisms living in the human body, or on its surface, are harmless (commensals) or even helpful (symbionts). Some others, however, are harmful (pathogens). These pathogens, like all organisms, are subject to natural selection, and thus aim to maximize their reproductive success. This can be achieved either by shortening their generation time and increasing the number of offspring to the extent that the pathogen will kill the host quickly thus increasing its virulence [1], or by slowing reproduction while reducing virulence or changing its antigenic reactions to ensure its own survival in host tissues, thus, extending its own reproduction time for many generations [2]. In the long run, it is advantageous for the pathogen to not cause the death of its host, thus ensuring the reproductive success of the pathogen [3]. At the same time, survival of the host can be only ensured through reproductive success. Therefore, there are basically only two possible outcomes of an initial interaction of a metazoan organism and an invading pathogen. Either (1) the pathogen is so strongly detrimental to the host’s organism that it will kill it quickly, or (2) the host and pathogen become eventually adapted to each other which ends with the pathogen becoming a commensal or even a symbiont [4, 5]. Tuberculosis is an example of this process in progress because only about 5–10% of individuals infected with Mycobacterium develop the disease though it has not become a symbiont yet [6].

The first outcome (1) does not support the spread of a pathogen, especially if sick people are isolated from the rest of the community and rules of hygiene are strictly adhered to. The second provides examples of evolutionary change. Since microorganisms have very fast turnover of generations and microevolution in humans can occur relatively fast, tracing co-evolution of human hosts and pathogens can provide good grounds for the study of evolutionary processes [710]. Studying humans, rather than other organisms, as hosts is advantageous because good evidence exists in the form of intentionally buried skeletal remains and, eventually, written records.

Tuberculosis, treponematoses and leprosy are well known infectious diseases in the paleopathological record. They have been specifically chosen here to investigate the co-evolution of host and pathogen as they: are widespread in many human populations, have a reasonably well-known pathology (including diagnosing the skeletal signs) and were regularly recorded for at least several centuries. All three are not immediately lethal, and only some of individuals infected show pathological signs in hard tissues (bones and teeth) [11]. This suggests that their pathogens and human hosts have already undergone a part of the co-evolutionary process towards co-adaptation that is trending to commensalism which makes these diseases ideal to investigate coevolution.

Although there were numerous attempts at discerning the origin of these diseases and phylogenetic schemes of pathogens were proposed and discussed [1218] there is still a need for more work to achieve clarity and consensus. We do not propose here to debate issues of origin and phylogeny, just provide a quantitative study of changes through time in manifestation of the three diseases.

Literary and artistic sources from the past also provide some evidence of the three major infectious diseases depicting changes occurring in soft tissues reaching back as far as Ancient Egypt [1922]. These, however, are difficult to study quantitatively.

Diseases which manifest on hard tissues can be studied in past populations in a quantitative manner through paleopathology; a relatively new discipline, which has already become well-established providing broad insights into origin of diseases, their etiology and history [23] Its methods have been developed by interdisciplinary collaborations and are now rigorously applied [24]. The manifestation of these diseases is preserved for as long as the skeletal remains persist. Due to the preservation of pathological signs on skeletons, it is possible to trace the process of co-evolution of the three major infectious diseases as far back as specimens have been found.

Though this is a benefit, the drawback is that major systemic infections—tuberculosis, treponemal diseases, leprosy—do not produce bone lesions in all sufferers and that preservation of skeletal materials varies. However, the frequencies of cases of a given disease in skeletal samples can be obtained. These are proxies of the prevalence of a given disease and of its severity, mixed together: the more prevalent the disease was and severe enough to be expressed in pathological changes in hard tissues, the greater the frequency of skeletons bearing its signs among all skeletons in a given sample archaeologically recovered from an old burial site. A previous study [25] has shown a decline in skeletal lesions due to tuberculosis in skeletal remains over a long time period (7250 BCE to 1899 CE) and it would be of interest to determine whether this observation also occurs for other major infections: treponemal diseases and leprosy.

Although the literature does not allow strict epidemiological meta-analyses of palaeopathological cases, there are large studies synthesizing information about manifestations of major chronic infections in skeletal materials that encourage narrative speculative overview of evolutionary changes in their host-pathogen relations. This paper presents such an overview.

Materials and methods

A large number of paleopathological descriptions of various past skeletal materials have been published. Descriptions of the pathological signs in the published materials were sufficient to make a diagnosis. Various methods were used for diagnosis, these include: ancient DNA, analysis of pathological changes in the skeletal and dental material, microscopic changes in hard tissues. These observations were used in differential diagnoses in peer reviewed papers. In the current paper we compare the three previously published, the fullest to date, synthetic analyses of the three infections in order to find whether frequencies of their manifestations in skeletal samples changed significantly through time on entire continents because such widespread changes can hardly be a result of locally changing environmental conditions. Changes in observed frequencies are a result of natural phenomena and human activities unrelated to purposeful elimination of pathogens from hosts’ bodies because until the 20th century there were no effective pharmacological methods to cure these diseases.

Tuberculosis

Holloway et al. reported all paleopathology cases of tuberculosis, with no limits on geographic location [25]. A total of 531 cases were reported for three different time periods between 7250 BCE to 1899 CE. The three periods as reported by Holloway et al. are pre-urbanised, early urbanised and early modern [25]. The exact dates of these periods vary depending on the geographical location of sites, for a full description of dates see Holloway et al. Among 531 sites reported, there were 91 for which total sample size of the collection of skeletons at a site where they were found was not known [25]. Thus, we could analyse frequencies of 440 cases among the total sample of 43,520 skeletons. Details in the S1 Table and more details in the Appendix A in Holloway et al. [25].

Treponematoses

Powell and Cook reported all paleopathology cases of treponematoses from America dated from 6000 BCE to the present [26]. The term ‘treponematoses’ is a broad term used to describe four separate diseases, namely, yaws, pinta, endemic syphilis and venereal syphilis, all forms of treponematoses are considered by Powell and Cook [26]. A total of 775 cases of treponematoses in a total sample of 8717 skeletons were reported for four different time periods. This publication is a contribution of multiple authors with each chapter focussing on all of the reported paleopathology cases of treponematoses in different regions in America. The periods as defined by Powell and Cook are as follows: 6000 BCE-1000 BCE, 1000 BCE-1000 CE, 1000 CE-1942 CE, 1942 CE-present [26]. All authors which contributed to this publication, have used studies which applied differential diagnoses to identify treponematoses in skeletal samples. Cases from other parts of the world, were subject to debates until very recently and not systematically reported [18]. No specific exclusion criteria were stated for this source other than incomplete data not being reported [26]. The data were obtained from ‘demographic profile’ summary tables which reported the total number of skeletons analysed at each site and the total number of cases for each site [26]. It is now made clear in paleopathological literature that all diseases included into the term “treponematosis” are caused by the same pathogen (Treponema pallidum) despite their phenotypic manifestations that depend on environmental conditions and age at infection [18].

Leprosy

A study by Schreier reports 1645 paleopathological cases of leprosy among the total of 17,142 skeletons dated between 3125 BCE and 1905 CE as represented by four different periods [27]. The periods are defined as follows: Bronze Age (Pre 600 BCE), Iron Age (500 BCE-1050 CE), Middle Ages (1050 CE-1536 CE) and Early Modern Era (1536 CE-1905 CE). All known cases from the literature were included in the synthetic analysis after removal of duplicate cases and those provided by non peer-reviewed sources [27]. The cases of leprosy were grouped into six geographical regions: Northern Europe, Central and Western Europe, Mediterranean, Asia, Oceania and New World. We, however, run the analysis for the whole world, because continental samples were of insufficient size. In all analyses, the Bronze Age and Iron Age have been combined to increase sample size. Thus, the total number of periods analysed in this study is three. Details of all cases can be found in the S1 Table and in the Appendix A in Schreier [27].

Statistical analyses

The authors of the synthetic analyses separated their data into specific periods relevant to the history of the disease. In the current paper, midpoint dates of periods were calculated by averaging dates of individual samples included in that period rather than considering simple half-way between “begin” and “end” dates of each period, because distributions of individual samples in some periods were not symmetrical. The dates reported by the synthetic analyses of each of the diseases, were converted to years ‘before present’ for ease of comparison, in archaeological terms, ‘present’ is defined as 1950.

LOESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) function of SPSS v. 24 was used to fit curves representing changes through time of frequencies of each disease manifestation in skeletal samples. Frequencies in individual samples are subject to large random variations due to various archaeological methods of retrieval of skeletal remains, kinds of burials (eg. primary individual or secondary multiple etc), state of preservation of hard tissues varying depending on taphonomic conditions and human intervention in the past (eg. mummification, placement in stone cysts, sarcophagi etc.) and diagnostic methods applied by researchers who originally described pathologies. Therefore, any detectable directional changes through time, however small, are worth attention and statistical testing. Since no test of the significance of the LOESS curve was available, to provide tests of statistical significance of general direction of trends we have constructed contingency tables. Contingency tables including the number of skeletons showing signs of a disease and the number of skeletons free of pathological changes for each disease in each period were constructed. Significance of observed changes was determined by Chi-squared values (significance level <0.05) and Cramer’s V values were used to show the effect size. Value of Cramer’s V, also known as the ‘phi’ coefficient calculable from contingency tables, is a measure of statistical association similar to correlation coefficients in parametric regressions and thus in the case of this study estimates the portion of variance in disease prevalence explained by the change of time.

Results

Tuberculosis shows decreasing frequency of skeletal signs over time (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Logarithmed frequency of skeletal signs of tuberculosis by date.

Fig 1

LOESS curve fitted with 95% of points included and tricube kernel.

The overall frequency of the skeletal signs of the disease is relatively low, just 1% (Table 1) with a maximum of 27% except for two outliers that have a reported frequency of 100%. However, these are the cases that only have a sample size of two skeletons, likely from sites not fully explored. They are included in the analysis because they meet formal criteria—published reports include sample size. No outliers were removed from the sample arbitrarily. LOESS regression line of frequencies on dates provided by Holloway et al. declines slowly through time with the rate of the decline increasing in the last 2000 years [25]. There is a statistically significant decline of the prevalence of tuberculosis through time, Chi-squared = 37.92, df = 2 (p < 0.0001), Cramer’s V = 0.0294 (Table 1).

Table 1. Frequency of bone signs of tuberculosis in consecutive periods of human history.

Periods (CE) Midpoint dates (BP)* N cases** N total Frequency (%)
Pre-urbanised 4700 149 9593 1∙55
Early urbanised 1300 161 18533 0∙87
Early modern 300 130 15704 0∙82
TOTAL 440 43520 1∙01

Chi squared = 37.92 (p < 0.0001), Cramer’s V = 0.0294.

Treponematoses in America show a slow increase in frequencies towards approximately 3000 years ago, then a period of relative stability followed by a faster decrease in the last 1000 years, approximately (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Logarithmed frequency of skeletal signs of treponematoses by date.

Fig 2

LOESS curve fitted with 70% of points included and tricube kernel. Frequency scale logarithmic.

Again, there are some frequencies of 100%, however, these have no more than 4 skeletons in the sample size, therefore, they are likely outliers, but included here to avoid arbitrary curtailment of data available in the literature. Apart from the outliers, the greatest frequency was reported at 77.2% while the total approaches 9%. The midpoints of the dates for each period, recalculated as years before present, are as follows: 4900 BP, 1742 BP, 612 BP and 349 BP. The total prevalence in each of these periods is 5.75%, 9.06%, 10.41% and 3.91% respectively. There is a statistically significant difference between the prevalence of treponematoses in the four periods: Chi-squared 50.35, df = 3 (p < .0001), Cramer’s V = 0.076 (Table 2).

Table 2. Frequency of bone signs of treponematosis in consecutive periods of American history.

Periods (CE) Midpoint dates (BP)* N cases N total Frequency (%)
-6000 - -1000 5500 106 1844 5∙75
-1000- +1000 1950 121 1396 8∙67
1000–1492 700 531 5102 10∙41
1493–1900 300 17 435 3∙91
TOTAL 775 8717 8∙89

*rounded to full/mid centuries.

Chi-squared 50.35 (p < 0.0001), Cramer’s V = 0.076.

LOESS curve for leprosy over time shows overall decline, with a local peak at the Middle Ages, corresponding to the well-documented period when leprosaria were organised in Europe (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Frequency of skeletal signs of leprosy by date.

Fig 3

LOESS curve fitted with 60% of points included and tricube kernel.

Like in tuberculosis and treponematoses, there are sites with 100% frequency of skeletons showing signs of the disease, however, these are likely outliers. The highest prevalence, disregarding obvious outliers, is 95%. This is very high, especially with a sample size of 635 skeletons. This is most likely the effect of leprosaria having separate cemeteries, thus selectively burying diseased individuals away from the general population. The majority of sites where the presence of leprosy was reported have a prevalence between 10% and 90%. The total frequency approaches 10%. There is a statistically significant difference between the prevalence of leprosy in each of the three defined periods: Chi-squared 865.61 (df = 2, p < .0001). Cramer’s V = 0.215 (Table 3).

Table 3. Frequency of bone signs of leprosy in consecutive periods of human history.

Periods (CE) Midpoint dates (BP)* N cases N total Frequency (%)
-6000 - +1050 5500 158 17790 0∙89
1050- +1536 650 1478 8931 16∙55
1537–1905 250 9 421 2∙14
TOTAL 1645 17142 9∙60

*rounded to full/mid centuries.

Chi-squared 865.61 (p < 0.0001) Cramer’s V = 0.214.

Discussion

The data we analysed, although abundant in terms of archaeologically retrieved burials, suffer from likely errors of reporting. The most important among them is the “publication bias” similar to that in the public health reports–if the presence of signs of the disease were not detected in a particular skeletal sample (frequency = 0), this sample is not included in synthetic analyses, simply because no publication regarding this sample mentioned the disease, thus it was not “detectable” in the literature. As examples of this situation may serve large collections of skeletons (N>200), carefully excavated from Medieval burial grounds of Ostrow Lednicki, Poland [28, 29] or of Classical Antiquity—Metaponto, Italy [30, 31] studied by paleopathologists. In the first one, no signs of leprosy nor tuberculosis were found, in the second, tuberculosis was reported, but leprosy not found. Various burial sites hold skeletons of people who died over longer or shorter periods and from a number of different causes. An extreme example of this is the sample from Pompeii [32] that for paleopathological analyses presents a “survey” of a living population who died within some 16 hours in contrast to samples from burial grounds where practically all individuals died of natural, rather than catastrophic, causes over several centuries. Another source of error is inconsistent application of diagnostic criteria changing through the period in which palaeopathology was practiced and varying among authors. Finally, widespread theoretical “consensus” may have prevented some authors from publishing observations contrary to the prevailing opinion. The recent debate regarding the Columbian origin of syphilis in Europe made us study data on the frequency of signs of treponematoses only in America since this continent has no “theoretical bias” which would influence publication of observations [18, 33, 34].

Leprosy has a much higher prevalence in many sites surveyed than do treponematoses and tuberculosis. The reason for this is simple, special establishments—leprosaria existed whereby all deceased affected by the disease would be buried together, away from people who died of other causes. One of the last leprosaria in Europe—Metković. Croatia—was closed as late as 1925 [35].

There are cases where infected persons were buried with non-infected persons, although leprosaria were a common way to prevent the disease from spreading thus concentrating dying lepers in adjacent cemeteries. Social stigma attached to leprosy contributed to the isolation of patients from the rest of the society and their concentration in leprosaria.

Each of the three diseases shows a decline towards modern times. In treponematosis and in leprosy there is an initial increase in the prevalence of skeletal signs (Tables 2 and 3), while prevalence of skeletal signs of tuberculosis shows a steady decrease (Table 1). It can be postulated that tuberculosis came into contact with humans earlier than the other two diseases and thus experienced a period of increase before the first cases were captured in skeletal samples. Before the advent of agriculture, human groups had low density and burial grounds contained small numbers of individuals, while preservation of older skeletal material is on average less likely than more recent ones and therefore this initial period of tuberculosis increase is not captured by archaeologically recovered skeletal material. Overall frequency of tuberculosis in materials studied is only about 1%, approximately 10 times lower than that of the other two diseases. This, of course, can be interpreted as a result of different pathophysiology of diseases, but may indicate higher degree of co-adaptation of tuberculosis and humans. Tuberculosis is transmitted by airborne pathogens [36, 37], while leprosy transmission, though possible via airborne droplets, requires close physical contact [38], and treponematoses require body fluid contact to be transmitted thus they could become widespread only when population density increased due, eg. to agriculture. Therefore, only since the advent of agriculture these diseases could spread in human populations evidenced by increase in prevalence and after some time undergo the co-evolution manifesting in decline of their severity.

Frequency of macroscopically observed pathological signs of a given disease in hard tissues is a joint result of the prevalence of the disease and its severity. Both prevalence and severity depend on a number of factors, only one of them being the evolved interaction between host and pathogen. Besides effective therapeutic intervention characteristic for modern medicine, ecological characteristics of past societies such as climate, population density, population distribution and location of population centres, modes of transport, commercial exchanges, nutrition, shelters and clothing, distribution of wealth and, however largely ineffective, early therapeutic practices, certainly had some effects on diseases’ prevalence and severity of their signs and symptoms. Influences of all the mentioned factors, and possibly many others, need to be studied in detail. Our broad overview of changes through time, in a large number of skeletal samples representing a variety of ecological, cultural and socio-economic circumstances, and based on frequencies subject to numerous sources of error, and even bias, shows a commonality between manifestations of three different chronic infections having different pathophysiologies and modes of transmission. We suggest that the underlying common factor of these changes is the co-evolution of hosts and pathogens, though it is not possible to indicate which member of the host-pathogen pair underwent greater evolutionary change. What is clear, however, is that adaptation of both has been sufficient to allow them reproductive success. Adaptation can occur only through the process of evolution. It can be achieved by changes in pathogens, in host’s immune systems and in host’s bodies providing greater tolerance to infections [39].

Changes in pathogens

Bacteria causing the three studied diseases cannot survive outside of a host’s organism, thus they have no environmental reservoirs, which contrasts with many other pathogens. It is important that these bacteria balance both virulence and transmission such that they do not kill the host too quickly to allow enough host’s lifetime to facilitate spread [40]. This balance requires ongoing changes in bacterial genetics as a response to host and environmental changes that may affect how well or poorly the bacteria can spread.

Tuberculosis and leprosy have repeating elements in their aDNA, which are used to detect their presence in skeletal samples. For tuberculosis, these elements include IS6110 and IS1081, and for leprosy these are RLEP and REPLEP [41]. There are also genetic variations in these bacteria which allow categorisation into separate groups. For example, “ancient” and “modern” strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis are distinguished by the deletion of a particular section of the genome, known as TbD1; the M. tuberculosis specific deletion [42].

Stone and colleagues [43] have reviewed multiple previous studies that have examined the genetic heterogeneity within the group of bacteria that cause tuberculosis. This group is known as the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and includes M. tuberculosis (humans), M. africanum (humans), M. canetti (humans), M. bovis (cattle), M. microti (voles), M. caprae (goats) and M. pinnipedii (seals and sea lions). Even within these MTBC members, there are multiple sub-groups, with differences in their genomes. Evolutionary theories have been proposed, stating that the last common ancestor for the MTBC was at least 15,000 years ago, though estimates vary in the literature. It is clear that the MTBC has been present for at least several thousand years, providing a long period for co-evolution to occur.

Unlike M. tuberculosis, leprosy is caused primarily by only one species: Mycobacterium leprae.

It has a smaller genome than in other mycobacteria and a large number of pseudogenes (~27% of genome) and non-coding sequences (~23.5% of genome) [44]. The genetic variation of M. leprae has not been as thoroughly studied in the archaeological record as has M. tuberculosis. Based on investigation of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), two evolutionary hypotheses have been proposed; one suggests that the bacteria arose in East Africa, while the other suggests Central Asia.

There is evidence of adaptation to local host and environmental situations for both modern and historical strains of M. tuberculosis and M. leprae; different strains are found in different geographical areas [41, 45]. Additionally, multiple different strains can occur in the same geographical region at the same time. For example [46] have reported that during the 18th and 19th centuries in Britain, there were multiple strains of M. tuberculosis present and infection with multiple strains at the same time also occurred.

The genome of M. leprae has also changed over time, and a high amount of genetic diversity existed across Medieval Europe [47]. Four different strains of leprosy have been discovered during the Early Medieval Period (476–800 CE) and during the High Medieval Period (1000–1250 CE), three different strains have been found at the same archaeological site. One of the strains found in the later period is known to infect red squirrels and it is possible that this was a source of zoonotic infection. It has been reported that the fur of the red squirrel was a trade item during that period and these animals were also sometimes kept as pets.

Ancient DNA extracted from specimens found in different geographical areas and time periods, shows that genetic variations have occurred in the past. One study involved an analysis of samples with lesions typical of tuberculosis from the Abbey of St Mary Graces, London (1350–1538 CE) [48]. The authors examined SNPs in several genes (rpoB, mtp40 and oxyR) and performed spacer-oligonucleotide typing (spoligotyping), which is a technique that has been used to differentiate between members and strains of the MTBC. The ancient strains were similar to modern tuberculosis strains, however, it was reported that these ancient strains did not have any mutations conferring antibiotic resistance, as expected. Another study reported analyses of samples from Hungarian mummies located at Vác, showing that lesions typical of tuberculosis, as well as ancient DNA were present in many of the samples [49]. This study examined several other genes including gyrA and katG, which can be used to differentiate between strains of the MTBC. The results showed that none of the samples were antibiotic resistant, and they belonged to a modern strain of M. tuberculosis. Spoligotyping and further genetic analyses were completed for three samples (a mother and two daughters), showing that although the strain was modern, it was not identical with current strains, indicating that genetic changes have occurred since the 18th and 19th centuries [50]. The study also reported that two different strains were present among these three samples, showing that multiple strains co-existed at the same time. Another study [51] performed genetic analyses for samples derived from Ancient Egypt, which ranged in age from 2050 BCE to 500 BCE. Spoligotyping showed that some of the older samples from 2050–1650 BCE could be M. africanum (a human pathogen, not “modern” genetically and present only in Africa today), while samples from later periods were consistent with M. tuberculosis. The samples from the later period had the TbD1 deletion, indicating a “modern” strain.

Poor preservation is a limitation of using ancient DNA and observed absence of particular sections of the genome may not be evidence of absence in the original organism. This is particularly important for tuberculosis because many of the changes in the genome are deletions of specific sections [42]. It is interesting to note that deletions in the tuberculosis bacterial genome have been shown to result in lower virulence and a lower likelihood of pulmonary cavitations [52], but no change in transmission or pathogenicity indices. However, for leprosy, different strains have not been observed to have differences in virulence [47].

No aDNA of the Treponema pallidum dating before the Columbus’s contact with Americas has been recovered and studied [18].

Human resistance and tolerance revealed by genetic analyses

Several studies have examined variation in specific immunological genes, showing that some are associated with higher susceptibility or resistance to tuberculosis or leprosy [5356]. One such example is the SLC11A1 gene (also known as Natural Resistance-Associated Macrophage Protein 1, NRAMP1) which is associated with natural resistance to intracellular pathogens, including tuberculosis and leprosy. Barnes and colleagues [57] have demonstrated a gradient in this allele, where geographical regions that had a longer time since first settlement (range >6500 years ago to modern times) had a higher frequency of the allele compared to those settled more recently. Spigelman and colleagues [15] also describe variation in the SLC11A1 gene, showing that there was diversity in this gene among two different groups: individuals from Hungary (18th century) and Sudan (500–1400 CE). The authors reported that some alleles appeared to confer resistance to tuberculosis infection. These studies indicate that there may have been changes in the genetics of the host during early urbanisation. However, SLC11A1 is not the only gene that could have changed over time and these diseases are not the only potential influence for these changes. It is likely that there is a complex response to changing pathogen, host and environmental conditions over time.

Earlier considerations of co-evolution of the diseases and humans

Some studies have stated that for tuberculosis to exist in its current form, a certain level of population number and density was required [58]. Through time, tuberculosis (and other diseases) gained opportunities for transmission due to an increasing population density and urbanisation. Therefore, it could be expected that through time, tuberculosis would change to become more virulent, allowing a higher rate of transmission in a more densely populated environment. This would then lead to a higher frequency of lesions on skeletal remains. However, this was not observed in this study, indicating some changes in the bacteria and host may have occurred over time, which could include genetic changes [54].

It is accepted that tuberculosis and leprosy have affected humans for several thousand years. Although it is expected that host and pathogen will adapt to each other over time, this is complicated to study and describe [30]. For tuberculosis and leprosy, the manifestation of the disease is dependent upon many factors including the virulence of the pathogen, host immunity, host environment and host tolerance. Host environmental conditions can include nutrition, living conditions, comorbidities and social factors. For example, following industrialisation, a decline in mortality due to tuberculosis was observed during the 19th century in many major cities, including London and New York. This decline occurred prior to the introduction of antibiotics and was instead due to a number of changes aimed at controlling and preventing tuberculosis and increasing host’s tolerance. These included major sanitation and public health acts, notification of infectious disease requirements, compulsory reporting and development of better diagnostics (e.g. X rays), and improved nutrition [5963]. For leprosy [64], it has been suggested that it is likely to have appeared during urbanisation, as there is no skeletal evidence prior to this. In addition, leprosy requires close contact for infection which required a sufficient population density in order to occur effectively.

The co-evolution of tuberculosis and humans over time, as shown in paleopathological and ancient DNA evidence has been discussed [54]. They state that tuberculosis has adapted to states of both high and low transmission. In some cases, the disease is latent and in others it causes pulmonary symptoms which results in rapid transmission in areas with a high population density. Gagneux [40] describes characteristics of “modern” and “ancient” strains of tuberculosis, where more modern strains are more successful in terms of transmission, virulence and have a shorter latency time, which are related to increases in population density over time.

Treponemal diseases are now known to have occurred all over the world for a long time preceding the travel of Columbus to the New World, though their occurrence outside of Americas is not yet synthetically summarised. Their phenotypes differ depending on the environment (eg. bejel in warm dry climates) and the age at primary infection (eg. yaws transmitted in childhood). Studies of ancient DNA and of phylostratigraphy of modern genetic variation of treponemes cannot reach back in time more than a few hundred years, thus no longer-term evolutionary variation of their genomes is known [14, 18].

Co-infections of tuberculosis, leprosy and treponematosis

There have been examples of co-infection of tuberculosis and leprosy reported in the literature, indicating that ancient populations had to combat the pressures of multiple diseases at once. A clear 19th century paleopathological case of co-infection of tuberculosis and treponematosis has been reported, too [65]. In this case, an approximately 10-years old child with signs of congenital syphilis had extensive pathologies of the vertebral column typical for tuberculosis. Weiss and colleagues [66] reported vertebral changes typical of tuberculosis infection in a male skeleton dated to around 1400 CE, buried at the site of a leprosarium. The skeleton also shows skeletal changes indicating leprosy, as well as osteoarthritis and fractures of the clavicle and ribs.

Another study has shown evidence of tuberculosis and leprosy at an Iron Age site in northeastern Thailand, indicating that co-infection was likely, though skeletal signs for both diseases were not present together on the same individuals [67]. Two individuals were described as having skeletal changes consistent with leprosy, while another individual had changes suggesting tuberculosis infection.

Multiple authors have suggested that the historical decline in leprosy was due to an increased mortality due to tuberculosis [41, 59, 68]. This suggestion is supported by the presence of both M. tuberculosis and M. leprae aDNA in skeletal samples dated to the 13th century. Evidence of cross-immunity between the two bacteria exists, however, since many of these skeletons were positive for both tuberculosis and leprosy, this appears unlikely. Additionally, since the effects of leprosy are dependent upon the immune response of the host, it is possible that the lowered immunity of individuals infected with leprosy, accompanied by their poorer living conditions due to stigma, allowed tuberculosis to more easily infect those with leprosy. The increasing mortality in these individuals would have resulted in a decline in the numbers of people with leprosy and ultimately a decline in the disease as a whole.

Conclusion

This analysis shows that all three chronic and widespread infections, when their skeletal signs are studied in the context of paleopathological records of populations where they occurred, eventually were gradually decreasing their severity. In the last 5000 years skeletal signs of tuberculosis become less common, skeletal manifestations of leprosy in Europe declined after the end of the Middle Ages, while skeletal signs of treponematoses in North America declined, especially in the last years before the contact with invading Europeans.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Data used.

Locations, dating, sample size and numbers of pathological cases for each of the studied diseases.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The Authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ewald P. Evolution of Infectious Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Frank S. Immunology and evolution of infectious disease. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Morgan AD, Koskella B. Coevolution of host and pathogen. In: Tibayrenc M. , editor. Genetics and evolution of infectious diseases. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017. p.115–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Campbell J. Invisible invaders: smallpox and other diseases in aboriginal Australia, 1780–1880. Carlton: Melbourne University Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Benedictow OJ. The black death, 1346–1353: The complete history. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Broset E, Gozalo-Asensio J. Adaptive evolution of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex to different hosts. In: Tibayrenc M., editor. Genetics and evolution of infectious diseases. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017. p. 529–552. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Henneberg M. The rate of human morphological human evolution and taxanomic diversity of hominids. Studies in Historical Anthropology. 2006;4(2004):49–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rühli F, Henneberg M. Biological future of humankind: ongoing evolution and the impact of recognition of human biological variation. In: Tibayrenc M and Ayala FJ., editor. On Human Nature, biology, psychology, ethics, politics and religion. New York: Academic Press; 2016. p. 263–275. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.You WP, Henneberg M. Type 1 diabetes prevalence increasing globally and regionally: the role of natural selection and life expectancy at birth. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care. 2016; 4(1): e000161. 10.1136/bmjdrc-2015-000161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.You W, Henneberg M. Cancer incidence increasing globally: The role of relaxed natural selection. Evolutionary Applications. 2018;11(2):140–52. 10.1111/eva.12523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ortner DJ. Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains. New York: Academic Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hershkovitz I, Donoghue HD, Minnikin DE, May H, Lee OY et al. Tuberculosis origin: the Neolithic scenario. Tuberculosis. 2015;95(1):S122–126. 10.1016/j.tube.2015.02.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mark S. The Origin and Spread of Leprosy: Historical, Skeletal, and Molecular Data. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 2018;49(3):367–395. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schuenemann VJ, Avanzi C, Krause-Kyora B, Seitz A, Herbig A, et al. Ancient genomes reveal a high diversity of Mycobacterium leprae in medieval Europe. PLoS Pathogens. 2018;14(5):e1006997. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Spigelman M, Donoghue HD, Abdeen Z, Ereqat S, Sarie I, et al. Evolutionary changes in the genome of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the human genome from 9000 years BP until modern times. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2015;95(1):145–9. 10.1016/j.tube.2015.02.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gagneux S. Ecology and evolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nature Review Microbiology. 2018;16: 202–213. 10.1038/nrmicro.2018.8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Benjak A, Avanzi C, Singh P.Loiseau C, Girma S. et al. Phylogenomics and antimicrobial resistance of the leprosy bacillus Mycobacterium leprae. Nature Communications. 2018; 9(1): 352. 10.1038/s41467-017-02576-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Baker B, Crane-Kramer G, Dee MW, Greoricka LA, Henneberg M, et al. Advancing the understanding of treponemal disease in the past and present. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 2020;171(S70):5–41. 10.1002/ajpa.23988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Varotto E, Ballestriero R. 17th-century sculptural representation of leprosy in Perugia’s Cathedral. Infection. 2018;46(6):893–895. 10.1007/s15010-018-1237-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Papa V, Galassi FM, Varotto E. Representation of spinal tuberculosis in a Ptolemaic dwarf statuette. Vesalius. 2020;26(1):188–195. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fornaciari A, Gaeta R, Giuffra V. Leprosy in the Pisan fresco "Triumph of Death" (1336–1341). Journal of Infection. 2018;77(1):75–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Grzegorczyk W, Grzegorczyk J, Grzegorczyk K. Alleged cases of syphilis immortalized in the Krakow altarpiece by Veit Stoss in the light of new research on the origins of the disease in Europe. Medical Review. 2016;14(3):340–357. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rühli FJ, Galassi FM, Haeusler M. Palaeopathology: Current challenges and medical impact. Clinical Anatomy. 2016;29(7):816–22. 10.1002/ca.22709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Buikstra JE, Cook DC, Bolhofner KL. Introduction: Scientific rigor in paleopathology. International Journal of Paleopathology. 2017;19:80–87. 10.1016/j.ijpp.2017.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Holloway KL, Henneberg RJ, de Barros Lopes M, Henneberg M. Evolution of human tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of paleopathological evidence. HOMO. 2011; 62 (6): 402–458. 10.1016/j.jchb.2011.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Powell ML, Cook CC. The myth of syphilis: The natural history of treponematosis in North America. Gainsville: University Press of Florida; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schreier MA. The Impact of Mycobacterium leprae: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of the Paleopathological Literature. (Dissertation, Boise State University); 2016.
  • 28.Ćwirko- Godycki M, Swedborg I. Anthropometric characteristics of bones from a medieval cemetery at Ostrów Lednicki and analysis of pathological symptoms occurring on them. Przegląd Antropologiczny. 1977; 42(1): 3–36. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wrzesińska A, Wrzesiński J. Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko w Dziekanowicach, stanowisko 22. Stud. Lednickie. 1998; 5:13–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Henneberg M, Henneberg R, Carter JC. Health in colonial Metaponto. National Geographic Research and Exploration. 1992;8(4): 446–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Carter JC. The Necropoleis. Austin: University of Texas Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Henneberg M, Henneberg RJ. Human Skeletal Material from Pompeii: A Unique Source of Information about Ancient Life. Automata (Rome). 2005;1(1): 23–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Harper KN, Zuckerman MK, Harper ML, Kingston JD, Armelagos GJ. The origin and antiquity of syphilis revisited: An Appraisal of Old World pre‐Columbian evidence for treponemal infection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2011;146:99–133. 10.1002/ajpa.21613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ioannou S, Henneberg RJ, Henneberg M. Presence of dental signs of congenital syphilis in pre-modern specimens. Archives of Oral Biology. 2018;85:192–200. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.10.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wokaunn M, Jurić I, Vrbica Z. Between stigma and dawn of medicine: the last leprosarium in Croatia. Croatian Medical Journal. 2006;47(5):759–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wells W. Airborne contagion and air hygiene. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1955. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kompala T, Shenoi SV, Friedland G. Transmission of tuberculosis in resource-limited settings. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 2013; 10(3): 264–72. 10.1007/s11904-013-0164-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Moet FJ, Pahan D, Schuring RP, Oskam L, Richardus JH. Physical distance, genetic relationship, age, and leprosy classification are independent risk factors for leprosy in contacts of patients with leprosy. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2006; 193(3): 346–53. 10.1086/499278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Medzhitov R, Schneider DS, Soares MP. Disease tolerance as a defense strategy. Science. 2012; 335(6071): 936–941. 10.1126/science.1214935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gagneux S. Host-pathogen coevolution in human tuberculosis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B Biological Sciences. 2012; 367(1590): 850–859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Donoghue HD. Tuberculosis and leprosy associated with historical human population movements in Europe and beyond—an overview based on mycobacterial ancient DNA. Annals of Human Biology. 2019; 46(2):120–128. 10.1080/03014460.2019.1624822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Brosch R, Gordon SV, Marmiesse M, Brodin P, Buchrieser K, et al. A new evolutionary scenario for the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. PNAS USA. 2002; 99(6): 3684–9. 10.1073/pnas.052548299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Stone AC, Wilbur AK, Buikstra JE, Roberts CA. Tuberculosis and leprosy in perspective. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2009;140: 66–94. 10.1002/ajpa.21185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Monot M, Honore N, Garnier T, Araoz R, Coppée JY, et al. On the origin of leprosy. Science. 2005; 308(5724): 1040–1042. 10.1126/science/1109759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Baker L, Brown T, Maiden MC, Drobniewski F. Silent nucleotide polymorphisms and a phylogeny for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2004;10(9): 1568–1577. 10.3201/eid1009.040046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Müller R, Roberts CA, Brown TA. Genotyping of ancient Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains reveals historic genetic diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2014; 281(1781):20133236. 10.1098/rspb.2013.3236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schuenemann VJ, Kumar Lankapalli A, Barquera R, Nelson EA, Hernández DI, et al. Historic Treponema pallidum genomes from colonial Mexico retrieved from archaeological remains. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2018;12(6): e0006447. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Taylor GM, Goyal M, Legge AJ, Shaw RJ, Young D. Genotypic analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from medieval human remains. Microbiology (Reading, Engl). 1999;145(4): 899–904. 10.1099/13500872-145-4-899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fletcher HA, Donoghue HD, Holton J, Pap I, Spigelman M. Widespread occurrence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA from 18th-19th century Hungarians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2003;120(2):144–52. 10.1002/ajpa.10114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fletcher HA, Donoghue HD, Taylor GM, van der Zanden AG, Spigelman M. Molecular analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA from a family of 18th century Hungarians. Microbiology (Reading, Engl). 2003;149(1):143–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zink AR, Sola C, Reischl U, Grabner W, Rastogi N, et al. Characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex DNAs from Egyptian Mummies by Spoligotyping. Journal of Clinical Microbiology.2003;41(1):359–367. 10.1128/jcm.41.1.359-367.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kato-Maeda M, Rhee JT, Gingeras TR, Salamon H, Drenkow J, et al. Comparing genomes within the species Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Genome Research. 2001;11(4): 547–54. 10.1101/gr.166401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bellamy R. Susceptibility to mycobacterial infections: the importance of host genetics. Genes and Immunity.2003;4(1): 4–11. 10.1038/sj.gene.6363915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Brites D, Gagneux S. Co-evolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Homo sapiens. Immunological Reviews.2015;264(1): 6–24. 10.1111/imr.12264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Witas HW, Donoghue HD, Kubiak D. Molecular studies on ancient M. tuberculosis and M. leprae: methods of pathogen and host DNA analysis. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2015;34(9):1733–1749. 10.1007/s10096-015-2427-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cheepsattayakorn A, Cheepsattayakorn R. Human genetic influence on susceptibility of tuberculosis: from infection to disease. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand.2009; 92(1):136–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Barnes I, Duda A, Pybus OG, Thomas MG. Ancient urbanization predicts genetic resistance to tuberculosis. Evolution. 2011;65(3):842–8. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01132.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Manchester K. Tuberculosis and leprosy in antiquity: an interpretation. Medical History.1984;28(2):162–173. 10.1017/s0025727300035705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Holloway KL, Staub K, Rühli F, Henneberg M. Lessons from history of socioeconomic improvements: a new approach to treating multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2014;46(5):600–20. 10.1017/S0021932013000527 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Fairchild AL, Oppenheimer GM (1998) Public health nihilism vs pragmatism: history, politics, and the control of tuberculosis. American Journal ofPublic Health. 1998; 88(7):1105–1117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Szreter S. The importance of social intervention in Britain’s mortality decline c. 1850–1914: a re-interpretation of the role of public health. Social History of Medicine. 1988;1(1):1–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wilson LG. Commentary: medicine, population, and tuberculosis. International Journal of Epidemiology.2005;34(3):521–524. 10.1093/ije/dyh196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Drolet GJ, Lowell AM. A Half Century’s Progress Against Tuberculosis in New York City: 1900–1950.New York: New York Tuberculosis and Health Association, New York; 1952. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Pinhasi R, Foley R, Donoghue HD. Reconsidering the antiquity of leprosy. Science. 2006; 312(5775): 846.16690842 [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ioannou S, Henneberg M, Henneberg RJ, Anson T. Diagnosis of mercurial teeth in a possible case of congenital syphilis and tuberculosis in a 19th century child skeleton. Journal of Anthropology. 2015; 2015: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Weiss DL, Moller-Christensen V. An unusual case of tuberculosis in a medieval leper. Danish Medical Bulletin.1971; 18(1):11–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Tayles N, Buckley H. Leprosy and tuberculosis in Iron Age Southeast Asia?. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2004;125(3):239–256. 10.1002/ajpa.10378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Donoghue HD, Marcsik A, Matheson C, Vernon K, Nuorala E, et al. Co-infection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae in human archaeological samples: a possible explanation for the historical decline of leprosy. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2005; 272(1561): 389–394. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David Caramelli

21 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-37249

Human major infections: tuberculosis, treponematoses, leprosy – a paleopathological perspective of their evolution

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Henneberg,

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 Feb 04 2021 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,

David Caramelli, 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

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.) 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

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

4.) Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

the manuscript you submitted is well-presented and in my opinion should be accepted. I would, however, recommend some changes in order to improve its overall quality:

- leprosarium/leprosaria is the correct form, not leprosorium/leprosoria. Plus, maybe the authors could mention the social stigma associated with leprosy, evident from the Bible on, since leprosy patients would be expelled from their communities as they were considered cursed by God;

- leprosy, tuberculosis and syphilis can also be investigated in the past by re-assessing artistic sources, which provide insights on their presentations, which is particularly helpful in terms of soft-tissue assessment: some references that could be quoted are:

Varotto E, Ballestriero R. 17th-century sculptural representation of leprosy in Perugia's Cathedral. Infection. 2018 Dec;46(6):893-895. doi: 10.1007/s15010-018-1237-y;

Papa V, Galassi FM, Varotto E. ‘Representation of spinal tuberculosis in a Ptolemaic dwarf statuette’. In: Van Hee R, do Sameiro Barroso M, Galassi FM (eds), special issue of Vesalius, Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the International Society for the History of Medicine ‘Aesculapius in Lisbon’, 3-7 September 2018, 2020, pp. 188-196.

Fornaciari A, Gaeta R, Giuffra V. Leprosy in the Pisan fresco "Triumph of Death" (1336-1341). J Infect. 2018 Jul;77(1):75-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.04.015.

- in the bibliography the authors include (ref. 53) the Buzic and Giuffra paper: I would avoid this reference because the paper is very general and draws on previous papers, not really a good quality one to be included in this venue. I would suggest opting for a more prestigious (genetics-based) paper discussing the evolution of tuberculosis. They could include in their discussion the following paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550673/

- p. 12 "while leprosy transmission requires close physical contact" ==> this is correct, but airborne transmission via droplets is also described, so I would rephrase the sentence

Reviewer #2: The paper reads well and offers an interesting global analysis of the problems of some of the major infections at the heart of the paleopathological debate.

I think the authors should add more references about the origins of the discussed diseases and recent phylogenetic studies about them. In addition, a couple of general theoretical papers on the paleopathological approaches that could be mentioned in the ref. list are:

Rühli FJ et al. Palaeopathology: Current challenges and medical impact. Clin Anat. 2016 Oct;29(7):816-22. doi: 10.1002/ca.22709.

Buikstra JE, Cook DC, Bolhofner KL. Introduction: Scientific rigor in paleopathology. Int J Paleopathol. 2017 Dec;19:80-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2017.08.005.

I would also add some description of the historical role of leprosaria:

Wokaunn M, Jurić I, Vrbica Z. Between stigma and dawn of medicine: the last leprosarium in Croatia. Croat Med J. 2006 Oct;47(5):759-66.

The introduction is correct but a bit long, I think it can be shortened (I would cut 2-3 lines and make it more direct).

I noted some spelling errors here and there, so I would recommend reading the manuscript again carefully.

**********

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: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 25;16(2):e0243687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243687.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Jan 2021

THERE WERE NO EDITOR’S COMMENTS. BELOW WE RESPOND TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS INSERTING OUR RESPONSES IN CAPITALS (FOR EASY DISTINCTION) AFTER EACH COMMENT. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO REVIEWERS FOR THEIR HELPFUL COMMENTS.

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

the manuscript you submitted is well-presented and in my opinion should be accepted. I would, however, recommend some changes in order to improve its overall quality:

- leprosarium/leprosaria is the correct form, not leprosorium/leprosoria.

WE HAVE CORRECTED SPELLING OF LEPROSARIA THROUGHOUT

Plus, maybe the authors could mention the social stigma associated with leprosy, evident from the Bible on, since leprosy patients would be expelled from their communities as they were considered cursed by God;

WE HAVE ADDED A SENTENCE ABOUT THE SOCIAL STIGMA IN THE DICUSSION (LINE 491-2)

- leprosy, tuberculosis and syphilis can also be investigated in the past by re-assessing artistic sources, which provide insights on their presentations, which is particularly helpful in terms of soft-tissue assessment: some references that could be quoted are:

Varotto E, Ballestriero R. 17th-century sculptural representation of leprosy in Perugia's Cathedral. Infection. 2018 Dec;46(6):893-895. doi: 10.1007/s15010-018-1237-y;

Papa V, Galassi FM, Varotto E. ‘Representation of spinal tuberculosis in a Ptolemaic dwarf statuette’. In: Van Hee R, do Sameiro Barroso M, Galassi FM (eds), special issue of Vesalius, Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the International Society for the History of Medicine ‘Aesculapius in Lisbon’, 3-7 September 2018, 2020, pp. 188-196.

Fornaciari A, Gaeta R, Giuffra V. Leprosy in the Pisan fresco "Triumph of Death" (1336-1341). J Infect. 2018 Jul;77(1):75-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.04.015.

WE HAVE ADDED TEXT ABOUT ARTISTIC SOURCES , CITED REFERENCES SUGGESTED, AND ONE MORE REFERENCE. LINES 160-163.

- in the bibliography the authors include (ref. 53) the Buzic and Giuffra paper:

WE HAVE REMOVED THE BUZIC AND GIUFFRA REFERENCE

I would avoid this reference because the paper is very general and draws on previous papers, not really a good quality one to be included in this venue. I would suggest opting for a more prestigious (genetics-based) paper discussing the evolution of tuberculosis. They could include in their discussion the following paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550673/

WE INCLUDED MORE GENERAL, THAN THE ONE SUGGESTED, REFERENCES ON THE GENETICS OF TUBERCULOSIS (NUMBERS IN OUR LIST OF REFERENCES 15 (SPIGELMANN ET AL.), 16 (GAGNEUX )

- p. 12 "while leprosy transmission requires close physical contact" ==> this is correct, but airborne transmission via droplets is also described, so I would rephrase the sentence

REPHRASED, LINES 520-1

Reviewer #2: The paper reads well and offers an interesting global analysis of the problems of some of the major infections at the heart of the paleopathological debate.

I think the authors should add more references about the origins of the discussed diseases and recent phylogenetic studies about them.

RFERENCES ON THE ORIGIN AND PHYLOGENIES WERE ADDED (ITEMS 12-18) IN A TEXT IN LINES 160-163

In addition, a couple of general theoretical papers on the paleopathological approaches that could be mentioned in the ref. list are:

Rühli FJ et al. Palaeopathology: Current challenges and medical impact. Clin Anat. 2016 Oct;29(7):816-22. doi: 10.1002/ca.22709.

Buikstra JE, Cook DC, Bolhofner KL. Introduction: Scientific rigor in paleopathology. Int J Paleopathol. 2017 Dec;19:80-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2017.08.005.

I would also add some description of the historical role of leprosaria:

Wokaunn M, Jurić I, Vrbica Z. Between stigma and dawn of medicine: the last leprosarium in Croatia. Croat Med J. 2006 Oct;47(5):759-66.

ALL THE ABOVE REFERENCES WERE ADDED: numbers 23, 24 and 35 IN THE LIST OF REFERENCES. AND MENTIONED IN TEXT IN PARAGRAPHS RELEVANT TO THEIR CONTENTS

The introduction is correct but a bit long, I think it can be shortened (I would cut 2-3 lines and make it more direct).

WE HAVE CUT THE FIRST LINE OF THE INTRODUCTION, BUT THEN, SINCE REVIEWERS SUGGESTED VARIOUS ADDITIONS, WE COULD NOT SHORTEN THE INTRODUCTION MORE

I noted some spelling errors here and there, so I would recommend reading the manuscript again carefully.

ALL THREE AUTHORS READ THE MANUSCRIPT AGAIN AND CORRECTED SPELLING ERRORS. TWO OF THE AUTHORS ARE NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS.

Decision Letter 1

David Caramelli

1 Feb 2021

Human major infections: tuberculosis, treponematoses, leprosy – a paleopathological perspective of their evolution

PONE-D-20-37249R1

Dear Dr. Henneberg,

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,

David Caramelli, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

David Caramelli

3 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-37249R1

Human major infections: tuberculosis, treponematoses, leprosy – a paleopathological perspective of their evolution

Dear Dr. Henneberg:

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

Professor David Caramelli

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 Table. Data used.

    Locations, dating, sample size and numbers of pathological cases for each of the studied diseases.

    (XLSX)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES