Malaria in Nigeria is principally due to Plasmodium falciparum and, to a lesser extent to Plasmodium malariae and Plasmodium ovale. Plasmodium vivax is thought to be absent in Nigeria in particular and sub-Saharan Africa in general, due to the near fixation of the Duffy negative gene in this population. Nevertheless, there are frequent reports of P. vivax infection in Duffy negative individuals in the sub-region, including reports from two countries sharing border with Nigeria to the west (Republic of Benin) and east (Cameroon). Additionally, there were two cases of microscopic vivax-like malaria from Nigerian indigenous population. Hence molecular surveillance of the circulating Plasmodium species in two states (Lagos and Edo) of southwestern Nigeria was carried out. A cross-sectional survey between September 2016 and March 2017 was conducted. 436 febrile patients were included for the present work. Venous blood of these patients was subjected to RDT as well as microscopy. Further, parasite DNA was isolated from positive samples and PCR diagnostic was employed followed by direct sequencing of the 18S rRNA of Plasmodium species as well as sequencing of a portion of the promoter region of the Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines. Samples positive for P. vivax were re-amplified several times and finally using the High Fidelity Taq to rule out any bias introduced. Of the 256 (58.7%) amplifiable malaria parasite DNA, P. falciparum was, as expected, the major cause of infection, either alone 85.5% (219/256; 97 from Edo and 122 from Lagos), or mixed with P. malariae 6.3% (16/256) or with P. vivax 1.6% (4/256). Only one of the five P. vivax isolates was found to be a single infection. DNA sequencing and subsequent alignment of the 18S rRNA of P. vivax with the reference strains displayed very high similarities (100%). Remarkably, the T-33C was identified in all P. vivax samples, thus confirming that all vivax-infected patients in the current study are Duffy negative. The present study gave the first molecular evidence of P. vivax in Nigeria in Duffy negative individuals. Though restricted to two states; Edo in South–South and Lagos in South-west Nigeria, the real burden of this species in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa might have been underestimated, hence there is need to put in place a country-wide, as well as a sub-Saharan Africa-wide surveillance and appropriate control measures.

Background: Malaria in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA) is thought to be mostly caused by Plasmodium falciparum. Recently, growing reports of cases due to Plasmodium ovale, Plasmodium malariae, and Plasmodium vivax have been increasingly observed to play a role in malaria epidemiology in sSA. This in fact is due to the usage of very sensitive diagnostic tools (e.g. PCR), which have highlighted the underestimation of non-falciparum malaria in this sub-region. Plasmodium vivax was historically thought to be absent in sSA due to the high prevalence of the Duffy negativity in individuals residing in this sub-continent. Recent studies reporting detection of vivax malaria in Duffy-negative individuals from Mali, Mauritania, Cameroon challenge this notion. Methods: Following previous report of P. vivax in Duffy-negative individuals in Nigeria, samples were further collected and assessed RDT and/or microscopy. Thereafter, malaria positive samples were subjected to conventional PCR method and DNA sequencing to confirm both single/mixed infections as well as the Duffy status of the individuals. Results: Amplification of Plasmodium gDNA was successful in 59.9% (145/242) of the evaluated isolates and as expected P. falciparum was the most predominant (91.7%) species identified. Interestingly, four P. vivax isolates were identified either as single (3) or mixed (one P. falciparum/P. vivax) infection. Sequencing results confirmed all vivax isolates as truly vivax malaria and the patient were of Duffy-negative genotype. Conclusion: Identification of additional vivax isolates among Duffy-negative individuals from Nigeria, substantiate the expanding body of evidence on the ability of P. vivax to infect RBCs that do not express the DARC gene. Hence, such genetic-epidemiological study should be conducted at the country level in order to evaluate the true burden of P. vivax in Nigeria.

One of the problems encountered in malaria control and elimination is inaccurate diagnosis, resulting from the degree of sensitivity of the different malaria diagnostic tools. Even though microscopy remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, more sensitive and robust diagnostic tools such as polymerase chain reactions (PCR) are used in research settings to monitor interventions and track sub-microscopic infections due to some of the drawbacks of microscopy. Since diagnosis is a critical determinant for rational malaria treatment, it is imperative that accurate diagnosis must be assured for an effective treatment plan. Therefore, this study compared two routinely used point of care malaria diagnostic tools with two molecular tools and discussed their implication for malaria treatment. In this study, 436 individuals with suspected malaria were sampled and systematically tested using four methods, namely rapid diagnostic test (henceforth referred to as malaria RDT- mRDT), microscopy, nested PCR (nPCR), and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Test sensitivities and specificities were compared, and their level of concordance was determined. With nPCR as the gold standard, a false positivity rate of 42.2%, 8.9%, and 57.8% was obtained for mRDT, microscopy, and qPCR. Similarly, false negativity rates of 12.5%, 62.5%, and 0.8% were obtained for each of the methods mentioned above, respectively. Of all the tools assessed, qPCR gave the highest sensitivity (99.2%) and moderate specificity (42.2%), followed by the mRDT kit used (87.5%). With the detection of a high false positivity rate based on mRDT and a substantial proportion of sub-microscopic carriers in this study area by nested/quantitative PCR, we recommend that these molecular tools should be in specialized laboratories within the region to (i) track and treat sub-microscopic carriers to prevent their contribution to malaria transmission; (ii) provide reliable epidemiological data using high throughput testing tools for evaluating malaria interventions.

Background: Characterizing the genetic diversity of malaria parasite populations in different endemic settings (from low to high) could be helpful in determining the effectiveness of malaria interventions. This study comparedPlasmodium falciparumparasite population diversity from two sites with low (pre-elimination) and high transmission in Senegal and Nigeria, respectively.Methods: Parasite genomic DNA was extracted from 187 dried blood spot collected from confirmed uncomplicatedP. falciparummalaria infected patients in Senegal (94) and Nigeria (93). Allelic polymorphism atmerozoite surface protein1 (msp1) andmerozoite surface protein- 2 (msp2) genes were assessed by nested PCR.Results: The most frequentmsp1andmsp2allelic families are the K1 and IC3D7 allelotypes in both Senegal and Nigeria. Multiplicity of infection (MOI) of greater that 1 and thus complex infections was common in both study sites in Senegal (Thies:1.51/2.53; Kedougou:2.2/2.0 formsp1/2) than in Nigeria (Gbagada: 1.39/1.96; Oredo: 1.35/1.75]). The heterozygosity ofmsp1gene was higher inP. falciparumisolates from Senegal (Thies: 0.62; Kedougou: 0.53) than isolates from Nigeria (Gbagada: 0.55; Oredo: 0.50). In Senegal, K1 alleles was associated with heavy than with moderate parasite density. Meanwhile, equal proportions of K1 were observed in both heavy and moderate infection types in Nigeria. The IC3D7 subtype allele of themsp2family was the most frequent in heavily parasitaemic individuals from both countries than in the moderately infected participants.Conclusion: The unexpectedly low genetic diversity of infections high endemic Nigerian setting compared to the low endemic settings in Senegal is suggestive of possible epidemic outbreak in Nigeria.

Africa has defied predictions of being the worst hit by the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which has devastated Europe, the Americas, and some Asian countries. However, with a current second and third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic across other continents, pertinent​ questions have arisen regarding the lower disease severity and seemingly better outcomes in most African countries. Several factors have been proposed as discussed in this review including, underreporting, quick lockdown measures, effective public health intervention, younger population structure, cross-immunity and experience from fighting previous epidemics, such as the Ebola virus outbreak, previous infections or vaccinations, genetic predisposition, and tropical climate. We have discussed the implications of these factors on the magnitude of the outbreak and the better-than-expected outcomes observed in Africa. In addition, other potential factors like vitamin-D deficiency and chronic non-communicable diseases could predispose non-African regions to severe COVID-19 outcome. Therefore, this review further advocates for research to understand the precise mechanisms responsible for the pandemic’s relatively mild impact in Africa and proposed recommendations to prevent an infection surge.

Deadly emerging infectious pathogens pose an unprecedented challenge to health systems and economies, especially across Africa, where health care infrastructure is weak, and poverty rates remain high. Genomic technologies are vital for enhancing the understanding and development of intervention approaches against these pathogens, including Ebola and the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Africa has contributed few genomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to the global pool in growing open access repositories. To bridge this gap, the Africa Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC) is coordinating continent-wide initiatives to establish genomic hubs in selected well-resourced African centres of excellence. This will allow for standardisation and efficient and rapid data generation and curation. However, the strategy to ensure capacity for high-throughput genomics at selected hubs should not overshadow the deployment of portable, field-friendly and technically less demanding genomics technologies in all affected countries. This will enhance small-scale local genomic surveillance in outbreaks, leaving validation and large-scale approaches to be taken at central genomic hubs. The ACDC needs to scale-up its campaign for government support across African Union countries to ensure the sustainable financing of its strategy for increased pathogen genomic intelligence and other interventions in current and inevitable future epidemics in Africa.