Cited by 199Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Genetic DynamicsSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology

When are pathogen genome sequences informative of transmission events?

Open access
Campbell, Finlay, Strang, Camilla, Ferguson, Neil, Cori, Anne, Jombart, Thibaut·2018·PLOS Pathogens

Abstract

Recent years have seen the development of numerous methodologies for reconstructing transmission trees in infectious disease outbreaks from densely sampled whole genome sequence data. However, a fundamental and as of yet poorly addressed limitation of such approaches is the requirement for genetic diversity to arise on epidemiological timescales. Specifically, the position of infected individuals in a transmission tree can only be resolved by genetic data if mutations have accumulated between the sampled pathogen genomes. To quantify and compare the useful genetic diversity expected from genetic data in different pathogen outbreaks, we introduce here the concept of 'transmission divergence', defined as the number of mutations separating whole genome sequences sampled from transmission pairs. Using parameter values obtained by literature review, we simulate outbreak scenarios alongside sequence evolution using two models described in the literature to describe transmission divergence of ten major outbreak-causing pathogens. We find that while mean values vary significantly between the pathogens considered, their transmission divergence is generally very low, with many outbreaks characterised by large numbers of genetically identical transmission pairs. We describe the impact of transmission divergence on our ability to reconstruct outbreaks using two outbreak reconstruction tools, the R packages outbreaker and phybreak, and demonstrate that, in agreement with previous observations, genetic sequence data of rapidly evolving pathogens such as RNA viruses can provide valuable information on individual transmission events. Conversely, sequence data of pathogens with lower mean transmission divergence, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Shigella sonnei and Clostridium difficile, provide little to no information about individual transmission events. Our results highlight the informational limitations of genetic sequence data in certain outbreak scenarios, and demonstrate the need to expand the toolkit of outbreak reconstruction tools to integrate other types of epidemiological data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006885

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Genomic data might be of limited value in inferring transmission trends in future MVD epidemics.

    “and hence genomic data might be of limited value in inferring transmission trends in future MVD epidemics (56).”

    From Marburg virus disease outbreaks, mathematical models, and disease parameters: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says limited genetic diversity can restrict the use of whole-genome sequences to reconstruct transmission chains, including in some outbreaks of rapidly evolving RNA viruses. But the paper does not study Marburg virus disease (MVD), and its findings concern individual transmission events rather than broader transmission trends. Applying that limitation to future MVD epidemics is an extrapolation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The reported substitution rates for MV are substantially lower than those reported for Ebola.

    “The reported substitution rates are substantially lower than those reported for Ebola (56).”

    From Marburg virus disease outbreaks, mathematical models, and disease parameters: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [56]

    Table 1 (Results > Transmission divergence; page unavailable) reports an Ebola virus mutation rate of 0.31 × 10⁻⁵ per site per day. It gives no rate for MV, so the cited paper does not establish that MV’s reported substitution rates are substantially lower. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. A Karkey, 2015, A high-resolution genomic analysis of multidrug-resistant hospital outbreaks of Klebsiella pneumoniae, EMBO Mol Med, 7, 227, 10.15252/emmm.201404767 · DOI
  2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Systematic review on the incubation and infectiousness/shedding period of communicable diseases in children. 2016;Stockholm.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campbell, F., Strang, C., Ferguson, N., Cori, A., & Jombart, T.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Animal Health Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Campbell, Finlay
  • Cori, Anne
  • Jombart, Thibaut
Venue
PLOS Pathogens
Published
2018-02-08
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
e1006885
ISSN
  • 1553-7366 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7374
OpenAlex
W2786722019
Cited by
199
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Pathogens (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (HPRU-2012-10080)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/R015600/1)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U01GM110721)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Keywords
whole genome sequencing, transmission trees, genetic diversity, pathogen evolution, RNA viruses, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Shigella sonnei, Clostridium difficile, phylogenetic inference, infectious disease outbreaks
MeSH terms
Whole Genome Sequencing, Bacteria, Base Sequence, Chromosome Mapping, Communicable Diseases, Disease Outbreaks, Humans, Phylogeny, Genetic Variation, Viruses, Genome, Viral, Genome, Bacterial, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Disease Transmission, Infectious, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review