Prevalence of antibodies to the circumsporozite protein of Plasmodium vivax in five different regions of Korea

Lee, Kap No; Suh, In Bum; Chang, Eun Ah; Kim, Soon Duck; Cho, Nam Sun; Park, Phil Whan; An, Seong Soo A.; Park, Ok; Lim, Chae Woo

doi:10.1046/j.1360-2276.2003.01136.x

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other antigens were also shown to be markers of P. vivax infection, but only in single populations (PvMSP-3α, PvMSP-9 RIRII , PvDBP, and PvRBP1). Serosurveillance using PvCSP in Korea [63][64][65][66][67] and PvMSP-1 19 and PvAMA1 in Vanuatu [68], Cambodia [69], and Somalia [70] has been employed to successfully map P. vivax transmission, and data from this review support their use in serosurveillance campaigns. However, this review highlights that further studies, conducted in diverse geographical settings and including additional antigens, are needed to ensure the generalizability of results across different populations with variable P. vivax transmission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunological markers of Plasmodium vivax exposure and immunity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cutts¹,

Powell²,

Agius³

et al. 2014

BMC Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Identifying Plasmodium vivax antigen-specific antibodies associated with P. vivax infection and protective immunity is key to the development of serosurveillance tools and vaccines for malaria. Antibody targets of P. vivax can be identified by seroepidemiological studies of individuals living in P. vivax-endemic areas, and is an important strategy given the limited ability to culture P. vivax in vitro. There have been numerous studies investigating the association between P. vivax antibody responses and P. vivax infection, but there has been no standardization of results to enable comparisons across populations. Methods: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of population-based, cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies of individuals living in P. vivax-endemic areas. We searched 6 databases and identified 18 studies that met predefined inclusion and quality criteria, and examined the association between antibody responses to P. vivax antigens and P. vivax malaria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunological markers of Plasmodium vivax exposure and immunity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cutts¹,

Powell²,

Agius³

et al. 2014

BMC Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Antibodies are incredibly useful indicators for malaria transmission as they remain detectable after the infection has passed, therefore allowing a wider time period in which a blood sample can be taken and still indicate that an individual has been exposed to P. vivax [ 100 ]. Additionally, some antibody responses increase with age, thereby becoming a marker of lifetime exposure, which is useful for assessing transmission at a population level, as well as historically [ 46 , 51 , 101 ]. As such, serosurveillance is particularly suited to highlighting areas that may require further intervention and control activities to prevent increased transmission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Antibody responses can reliably provide a wealth of information regarding local transmission [ 47 , 78 , 102 , 103 ]; however, it is important to note that different environments will generate differing serological patterns. Therefore, factors that may affect the antibody response (such as transmission intensity and population immunological background) must be considered when establishing serosurveillance systems [ 44 , 74 , 101 ]. It is imperative that optimal serological markers are defined and validated for use in relevant environmental conditions, as the heterogeneity of antibody response may lead some antigens to be advantageous in certain contexts but disadvantageous in others [ 6 , 8 , 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, utilising serological markers that are generated in response to vaccination should be avoided in areas where vaccination programs occur to prevent misrepresentation of local transmission [ 69 ]. Care must also be taken to ensure results are considered with respect to the local context, including transmission history, immunological background and parasite diversity [ 101 , 102 , 104 ]. This includes the assumption that, where evidence of past exposure is presumed to indicate historical transmission, there is low resident mobility, and the exposure did not occur external to the local environment [ 105 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Serological Markers for the Surveillance of Plasmodium vivax Malaria: A Scoping Review

Kartal,

Mueller,

Longley

2023

Pathogens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utilisation of serological surveillance methods for malaria has the potential to identify individuals exposed to Plasmodium vivax, including asymptomatic carriers. However, the application of serosurveillance varies globally, including variations in methodology and transmission context. No systematic review exists describing the advantages and disadvantages of utilising serosurveillance in various settings. Collation and comparison of these results is a necessary first step to standardise and validate the use of serology for the surveillance of P. vivax in specific transmission contexts. A scoping review was performed of P. vivax serosurveillance applications globally. Ninety-four studies were found that met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies were examined to determine the advantages and disadvantages of serosurveillance experienced in each study. If studies reported seroprevalence results, this information was also captured. Measurement of antibodies serves as a proxy by which individuals exposed to P. vivax may be indirectly identified, including those with asymptomatic infections, which may be missed by other technologies. Other thematic advantages identified included the ease and simplicity of serological assays compared to both microscopy and molecular diagnostics. Seroprevalence rates varied widely from 0–93%. Methodologies must be validated across various transmission contexts to ensure the applicability and comparability of results. Other thematic disadvantages identified included challenges with species cross-reactivity and determining changes in transmission patterns in both the short- and long-term. Serosurveillance requires further refinement to be fully realised as an actionable tool. Some work has begun in this area, but more is required.

show abstract

“…Although malaria antibody tests for P. vivax are not reliable enough for screening donated blood, until now, other malaria tests, such as rapid diagnostic tests, PCR and microscopy, have not been useful mass screening methods in large blood-processing centers with huge numbers of samples. ELISA is a fast, relatively inexpensive, and reliable way to detect malaria [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. While malaria antibody ELISA tests have frequently been used to investigate the spread of malaria, there are few available brand kits of the malaria antigen ELISA test [ 21 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Use of Malaria Antigen and Antibody Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Blood Screening of Plasmodium vivax in the Republic of Korea

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the newly developed Genedia malaria antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test and to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of the combined use of the Genedia malaria antigen and antibody ELISA tests to detect Plasmodium vivax in blood samples. Materials and Methods: In all, 1,070 samples were analyzed: 300 P. vivax-infected patients, 41 samples from posttreatment patients upon follow-up and 729 healthy volunteers. The Genedia malaria antigen ELISA test and the Genedia malaria antibody ELISA 2.0 test were evaluated and compared to polymerase chain reaction and microscopy. Results: The Genedia malaria antigen ELISA test had a clinical sensitivity of 94.7% (284/300) and a clinical specificity of 99.3% (724/729). The Genedia malaria antibody ELISA 2.0 test had a clinical sensitivity of 94.0% (282/300) and a clinical specificity of 98.4% (717/729). The Genedia malaria antigen ELISA test was able to detect 13 confirmed P. vivax cases without antibodies against P. vivax, whereas the Genedia malaria antibody ELISA 2.0 test detected 11 confirmed P. vivax cases nonreactive to the Genedia malaria antigen ELISA test, and 25 cases from 41 follow-up samples nonreactive in the Genedia malaria antigen ELISA test. The combined Genedia malaria antigen and antibody ELISA 2.0 tests had a clinical sensitivity of 98.3% (295/300) and a clinical specificity of 97.9% (714/729). Conclusion: The combination of antigen and antibody ELISAs improved the diagnostic sensitivity in P. vivax-confirmed cases in the Republic of Korea.

show abstract

Prevalence of antibodies to the circumsporozite protein of Plasmodium vivax in five different regions of Korea

Cited by 9 publications

References 20 publications

Immunological markers of Plasmodium vivax exposure and immunity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Immunological markers of Plasmodium vivax exposure and immunity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Using Serological Markers for the Surveillance of Plasmodium vivax Malaria: A Scoping Review

Combined Use of Malaria Antigen and Antibody Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Blood Screening of <b><i>Plasmodium vivax </i></b>in the Republic of Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About