Table 4 Overlap between spatial and molecular clustering
From: Methods used in the spatial analysis of tuberculosis epidemiology: a systematic review
Authors | Country | Genotyping methods | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
Bishai WR, et al. 1998 [95] | USA | IS6110-RFLP and PGRS | Genotypic clusters with epidemiologic links were spatially clustered but 76% of DNA clustered cases lack epidemiologic links. |
Mathema B, et al. 2002 [169] | USA | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | Genotypic clusters showed spatial aggregation |
Richardson M, et al. 2002 [72] | South Africa | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | Spatial aggregation of genotypic clusters was limited |
Nguyen D, et al. 2003 [69] | Canada | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | Genotypically similar cases were not more spatially clustered than genotypically unique cases |
Moonan P, et al. 2004 [61] | USA | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | Genotypic clusters were spatially heterogeneous |
Jacobson L, et al. 2005 [59] | Mexico | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | Spatial patterns were similar for both cases categorised as reactivation or recent transmission |
Haase I, et al. 2007 [2] | Canada | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | In spatial TB clusters of immigrants, there was significant genotype similarity |
Higgs B, et al. 2007 [25] | USA | IS6110-RFLP and PGRS | Space-time clusters contained genotypic clusters |
USA | IS6110-RFLP and spoligotyping | Genotypically clustered cases were randomly distributed across space | |
Evans JT, et al. 2011 [66] | UK | Spoligotyping and MIRU-VNTR | Genotypic clusters showed spatial aggregation |
Nava-Aguilera E, et al. 2011 [67] | Mexico | Spoligotyping | Genotypic clusters were not spatially aggregated |
Prussing C, et al. 2013 [57] | USA | Spoligotyping and 12- MIRU-VNTR | Cases in geospatial clusters were equally or less likely to share similar genotypes than cases outside geospatial clusters |
Tuite AR, et al. 2013 [94] | Canada | Spoligotyping and 24-MIRU-VNTR | The proportion of cases in genotypic clusters was five times that seen in spatial clusters (23% vs 5%) |
Kammerer JS, et al. 2013 [28] | USA | Spoligotyping and 12-MIRU-VNTR | Genotypically similar cases were spatially clustered |
Verma A, et al. 2014 [1] | Canada | IS6110-RFLP and Spoligotyping | Space-time clusters contained few or no genotypically similar cases |
Izumi K, et al. 2015 [65] | Japan | IS6110-RFLP | Both genotypically similar and unique strains formed spatial hotspots |
Chamie G, et al. 2015 [194] | Uganda | Spoligotyping | Genotypic clusters shared social gathering sites (clinic, place of worship, market or bar) |
Chan-Yeung M, et al. 2005 [47] | Hong Kong | IS6110-RFLP | Spatial locations of genotypic clusters and unique cases did not differ by their sociodemographic characteristics |
Gurjav U, et al. 2016 [70] | Australia | 24-MIRU-VNTR | Spatial hotspots were characterised by a high proportion of unique strains; less than 4% of cases in spatial clusters were genotypically similar |
Ribeiro FK, et al. 2016Â [62] | Brazil | IS6110-RFLP and Spoligotyping | Genotypic clusters were spatially clustered |
Saavedra-Campos M, et al. 2016 [71] | England | 24-MIRU-VNTR | 10% of cases clustered spatially and genotypically |
Seraphin MN, et al. 2016 [64] | USA | Spoligotyping and 24-MIRU-VNTR | 22% of cases among USA-born and 5% among foreign-born clustered spatially and genotypically |
Yuen CM, et al. 2016 [68] | USA | Spoligotyping and 24-MIRU-VNTR | Genotype clustered cases were spatially heterogeneous |
Yeboah-Manu D, et al. 2016 [63] | Ghana | IS6110 and rpoB PCR | Genotypic clusters showed spatial aggregation |
Zelner J, et al. 2016 [60] | Peru | 24-MIRU-VNTR | Genotypic clusters showed spatial aggregation |