Background Gut microbiota were recently shown to impact malaria disease progression and outcome, and prior studies have shown that Plasmodium infections increase the likelihood of enteric bacteria causing systemic infections. Currently, it is not known whether Plasmodium infection impacts human gut microbiota as a prelude to bacteremia or whether antimalarials affect gut microbiota. Our goal was to determine to what degree Plasmodium infections and antimalarial treatment affect human gut microbiota. Methods One hundred Kenyan infants underwent active surveillance for malaria from birth to 10 months of age. Each malaria episode was treated with artemether-lumefantrine (AL). Any other treatments, including antibiotics, were recorded. Stool samples were collected on an approximately biweekly basis. Ten children were selected on the basis of stool samples having been collected before (n = 27) or after (n = 17) a malaria episode and without antibiotics having been administered between collections. These samples were subjected to 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid gene (V3–V4 region) sequencing. Results Bacterial community network analysis revealed no obvious differences in the before and after malaria/AL samples, which was consistent with no difference in alpha and beta diversity and taxonomic analysis at the family and genus level with one exception. At the sequence variant (SV) level, akin to bacterial species, only 1 of the top 100 SVs was significantly different. In addition, predicted metagenome analysis revealed no significant difference in metagenomic capacity between before and after malaria/AL samples. The number of malaria episodes, 1 versus 2, explained significant variation in gut microbiota composition of the infants. Conclusions In-depth bioinformatics analysis of stool bacteria has revealed for the first time that human malaria episode/AL treatment have minimal effects on gut microbiota in Kenyan infants.

Background. International recommendations for the control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasize the central role of laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent, at scale. The availability of testing reagents, laboratory equipment and qualified staff are important bottlenecks to achieving this. Elsewhere, pooled testing (i.e. combining multiple samples in the same reaction) has been suggested to increase testing capacities in the pandemic period. Methods. We discuss our experience with SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on the Kenyan Coast. Results. In mid-May, 2020, our RT-PCR testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 was improved by ~100% as a result of adoption of a six-sample pooled testing strategy. This was accompanied with a concomitant saving of ~50% of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test kits at both the RNA extraction and RT-PCR stages. However, pooled testing came with a slight decline of test sensitivity. The RT-PCR cycle threshold value (ΔCt) was ~1.59 higher for samples tested in pools compared to samples tested singly. Conclusions. Pooled testing is a useful strategy to increase SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing capacity especially in low-income settings.

Background. International recommendations for the control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasize the central role of laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent, at scale. The availability of testing reagents, laboratory equipment and qualified staff are important bottlenecks to achieving this. Elsewhere, pooled testing (i.e. combining multiple samples in the same reaction) has been suggested to increase testing capacities in the pandemic period. Methods. We discuss our experience with SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on the Kenyan Coast. Results. In mid-May, 2020, our RT-PCR testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 was improved by ~100% as a result of adoption of a six-sample pooled testing strategy. This was accompanied with a concomitant saving of ~50% of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test kits at both the RNA extraction and RT-PCR stages. However, pooled testing came with a slight decline of test sensitivity. The RT-PCR cycle threshold value (ΔCt) was ~1.59 higher for samples tested in pools compared to samples tested singly. Conclusions. Pooled testing is a useful strategy to increase SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing capacity especially in low-income settings.

No abstract

No abstract