↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of gene amplifications related to drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum using droplet digital PCR

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measurement of gene amplifications related to drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum using droplet digital PCR
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12936-021-03659-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suttipat Srisutham, Kanokon Suwannasin, Rungniran Sugaram, Arjen M. Dondorp, Mallika Imwong

Abstract

Copy number variations (CNVs) of the Plasmodium falciparum multidrug resistance 1 (pfmdr1), P. falciparum plasmepsin2 (pfplasmepsin2) and P. falciparum GTP cyclohydrolase 1 (pfgch1) genes are associated with anti-malarial drug resistance in P. falciparum malaria. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays have been developed for accurate assessment of CNVs in several human genes. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate ddPCR assays for detection of the CNVs of P. falciparum genes associated with resistance to anti-malarial drugs. A multiplex ddPCR assay was developed to detect the CNVs in the pfmdr1 and pfplasmepsin2 genes, while a duplex ddPCR assay was developed to detect CNV in the pfgch1 gene. The gene copy number (GCN) quantification limit, as well as the accuracy and precision of the ddPCR assays were determined and compared to conventional quantitative PCR (qPCR). In order to reduce the cost of testing, a multiplex ddPCR assay of two target genes, pfmdr1 and pfplasmepsin2, was validated. In addition, the CNVs of genes of field samples collected from Thailand from 2015 to 2019 (n = 84) were assessed by ddPCR and results were compared to qPCR as the reference assay. There were no significant differences between the GCN results obtained from uniplex and multiplex ddPCR assays for detection of CNVs in the pfmdr1 and pfplasmepsin2 genes (p = 0.363 and 0.330, respectively). Based on the obtained gene copy number quantification limit, the accuracy and percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) value of the multiplex ddPCR assay were 95% and 5%, respectively, for detection of the CNV of the pfmdr1 gene, and 91% and 5% for detection of the CNV of the pfplasmepsin2 gene. There was no significant difference in gene copy numbers assessed by uniplex or duplex ddPCR assays regarding CNV in the pfgch1 gene (p = 0.276). The accuracy and %RSD value of the duplex ddPCR assay were 95% and 4%, respectively, regarding pfgch1 GCN. In the P. falciparum field samples, pfmdr1 and pfplasmepsin2 GCNs were amplified in 15% and 27% of samples from Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, while pfgch1 GCN was amplified in 50% of samples from Yala, Thailand. There was 100% agreement between the GCN results obtained from the ddPCR and qPCR assays (κ = 1.00). The results suggested that multiplex ddPCR assay is the optional assay for the accurate detection of gene copy number without requiring calibration standards, while the cost and required time are reduced. Based on the results of this study, criteria for GCN detection by ddPCR analysis were generated. The developed ddPCR assays are simple, accurate, precise and cost-effective tools for detection of the CNVs in the pfmdr1, pfplasmepsin2 and pfgch1 genes of P. falciparum. The ddPCR assay is a useful additional tool for the surveillance of anti-malarial drug resistance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 12 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2021.
All research outputs
#13,929,802
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,267
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,048
of 422,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#84
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.