Chapter 17 Yersinia pestis

Chapter 17 Yersinia pestis 17.1 General overview of Yersinia pestis and plague Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague, is a Gram-negative fa...
Author: Robyn Houston
3 downloads 2 Views 628KB Size
Chapter 17 Yersinia pestis

17.1 General overview of Yersinia pestis and plague

Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague, is a Gram-negative facultative anaerobic bipolarstaining bacillus bacterium belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae. It has been classified as a Category A bioterrorism agent for public health preparedness by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Plague is a dreadful disease of long standing. It has been the cause of three pandemics, and has led to the deaths of millions of people, the devastation of cities and villages, and the collapse of governments and civilizations. Small outbreaks of plague continue to occur throughout the world, and at least 2000 cases of plague are reported annually. At the present time, plague remains a serious problem for international public health, and its risk has been assessed using quantitative modeling approaches.Plague may be manifested in one of three forms: bubonic, pneumonic and septicemic (Lathem et al. 2005). Among the three forms of plague, pneumonic plague is particularly dangerous, with incubation period of 3 to 5 days and mortality rate approaching 100% unless antibiotic treatment is initiated within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms. Plague is transmitted to humans from infected flees and rodents are reservoirs of the disease. While over 200 mammalian species have been reported to be naturally infected with Y. pestis, rodents are the most important hosts for plague (Perry and Fetherston 1997). Currently, most human plague cases in the world are classified as sylvatic plague, namely infection from rural wild animals such as mice, chipmunks, squirrels, gerbils, marmots, voles and rabbits (Christie 1982).Transmission between rodents is achieved by their associated fleas from the infected blood of the host. The organism is not transovarially transmitted from flea-to-flea, and artificially infected larvae clear the organism within 24 hours. Therefore, maintenance of plague in environment is dependent upon cyclic transmission between fleas and mammals (Perry and Fetherston 1997).

17.2 Summary Data Lathem et al. (2005) and Parent et al. (2005) respectively inoculated C57BL/6 mice intranasally

with the Y. pestis virulent wild-type CO92 strain and with the KIM D27 strain. Rogers et al. (2007) administered the Y. pestis CO92 strain to BALB/c mice via intraperitoneal route. Table 17.1. Summary of the Y. pestis data and best fits

Experiment Number

Reference

Host Type/Pathogen Strain

Route/ # of Doses

Dose Units

Response

Best Fit Model

Optimized Parameter(s)

LD50

1

Lathem et al, 2005

Mouse/ CO92

Intranasal/4

CFU

death

Exponential

K=1.63E-3

426.08

2

Parent et al, 2005

Mouse/ KIM D27

Intranasal/4

CFU

death

Exponential

K=1.07E-4

6473

3

Rogers et al, 2007

Mouse/ CO92

Intraperitoneal/5

CFU

death

Exponential

K=3.45E-2

20.12

17.3 Optimized Models and Uncertainty and Fitting Analyses 17.3.1. Output for experiment 1. Table 17.2: Mouse/ CO92 model data Dose Dead Survived Total 1.00E+02 1 3 4 1.00E+03 3 1 4 1.00E+04 4 0 4 1.00E+05 4 0 4 Lathem et al, 2005.

Table 17.3. Goodness of Fit and Model Selection χ20.95,1 Model

Deviance

Exponenti al

0.34



DF

0.14

2

p-value 7.81

3 0.20

Beta Poisson

pvalue

χ20.95,m-k

3.84 0.659

0.953 5.99 0.931

Exponential is best fitting model

Table 17.4 Optimized parameters for the best fitting (exponential), obtained from 10,000 bootstrap iterations Parameter

MLE Estimate

Percentiles 0.5%

2.5%

5%

95%

97.5%

99.5%

k

0.0016

3.62E-04

5.5E-04

6.22E-04

7.02E-03

7.02E-03

1.39E-02

LD50 (spores)

426.08

45.00

98.71

98.71

1114.95

1261.23

1916.64

Figure 17.1 Parameter histogram for exponential model (uncertainty of the parameter)

Figure 17.2 Exponential model plot, with confidence bounds around optimized model

17.3.2. Output for experiment 2. Table 17.5: Mouse/ KIM D27 model data Dose Dead Survived Total 1.00E+02 0 10 10 1.00E+03 2 8 10 1.00E+04 6 4 10 1.00E+05 10 0 10 Parent et al, 2005.

Table 17.6. Goodness of Fit and Model Selection χ20.95,1 Model

Deviance

Exponenti al

1.21



DF

3 0.14

Beta Poisson

1.07

2

pvalue

χ20.95,m-k p-value 7.81

3.84

0.750

0.711

5.99 0.585

Exponential is best fitting model Table 17.7 Optimized parameters for the best fitting (exponential), obtained from 10,000 bootstrap iterations Parameter

MLE Estimate

Percentiles 0.5%

2.5%

5%

95%

97.5%

99.5%

k

1.07E-04

3.85E-05

4.89E-05

5.57E-05

1.93E-04

2.22E-04

3.29E-04

LD50 (spores)

6473

2106

3121

3593

12446

14175

18025

Figure 17.3 Parameter histogram for exponential model (uncertainty of the parameter)

Figure 17.4 Exponential model plot, with confidence bounds around optimized model

17.3.3. Output for experiment 3. Table 17.8: Mouse/ CO92 model data Dose Dead Survived Total 2.00E+00 0 20 20 8.00E+00 5 15 20 2.60E+01 13 7 20 7.40E+01 9 1 10 2.57E+02 10 0 10 Rogers et al, 2007.

Table 17.9. Goodness of Fit and Model Selection χ20.95,1 Model

Deviance

Exponenti al

3.12

Beta Poisson

3.12



DF

4 1.00 E-04 3

pvalue

χ20.95,m-k p-value 9.49

3.84

0.539

0.992

7.81 0.374

Exponential is best fitting model

Table 17.10 Optimized parameters for the best fitting (exponential), obtained from 10,000 bootstrap iterations Parameter

MLE Estimate

Percentiles 0.5%

2.5%

5%

95%

97.5%

99.5%

k

0.034

0.020

0.023

0.024

0.049

0.053

0.061

LD50 (spores)

20.12

11.44

13.03

14.11

28.43

30.26

34.77

Figure 17.5 Parameter histogram for exponential model (uncertainty of the parameter)

Figure 17.6 Exponential model plot, with confidence bounds around optimized model

17.4. Summary Noting a significant difference of LD50 between the inhalation (1.4x104 pfu) and subcutaneous (0.2 pfu) routes has been identified, which suggests a substantial variation of virulence with infection site. This could also attribute to the difference between out-bred and in-bred origins.

References Christie, A. B. (1982). "Plague: review of ecology." Ecol. Dis. 1: 111-115. Lathem, W. W., et al. (2005). "Progression of Primary Pneumonic Plague: A Mouse Model of Infection, Pathology, and Bacterial Transcriptional Activity." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(49): 17786-17791. Parent, M. A., et al. (2005). "Cell-Mediated Protection against Pulmonary Yersinia pestis Infection." Infection and Immunity 73(11): 7304-7310. Perry, R. D. and J. D. Fetherston (1997). "Yersinia pestis-Etiologic Agent of Plague." Clinical Microbiology Reviews 10(1): 35-66. Rogers, J. V., et al. (2007). "Transcriptional Responses in Spleens from Mice Exposed to Yersinia pestis CO92." Microbial Pathogenesis 43: 67-77.