Next Article in Journal
Neonatal Gut Mycobiome: Immunity, Diversity of Fungal Strains, and Individual and Non-Individual Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Phytochemical Analysis of Centaurea calcitrapa L. Aerial Flowering Parts Serial Solvent Extracts and Its Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fifteen Years after the Definition of Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs: What Have We Learned?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/life14070901
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Genetic Diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi in the United States of America: The Least Endemic Country for Chagas Disease

by
Arnau Llovera
1,
Alba Abras
2,*,
Anna Fernández-Arévalo
3,
Cristina Ballart
3,4,
Sandra Heras
2,
Carmen Muñoz
5,6,7,† and
Montserrat Gállego
3,4,8,†
1
Independent Researcher, 17003 Girona, Spain
2
Laboratori d’Ictiologia Genètica, Departament de Biologia, Universitat de Girona, 17003 Girona, Spain
3
Secció de Parasitologia, Departament de Biologia, Sanitat i Medi Ambient, Facultat de Farmàcia i Ciències de l’Alimentació, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
4
Institut de Salut Global de Barcelona (ISGlobal), Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
5
Servei de Microbiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
6
Institut de Recerca Biomèdica Sant Pau, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
7
Departament de Genètica i Microbiologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
8
CIBERINFEC (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Infecciosas), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Life 2024, 14(7), 901; https://doi.org/10.3390/life14070901
Submission received: 21 June 2024 / Revised: 5 July 2024 / Accepted: 15 July 2024 / Published: 19 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights into Leishmaniasis and Chagas Disease: Focus on Diagnosis and Genetic Characterization of the Parasites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chagas disease (CD), caused by Trypanosoma cruzi and endemic in Latin America, has become an emergent health problem in non-endemic countries due to human migration. The United States (US) is the non-Latin American country with the highest CD burden and cannot be considered as non-endemic, since triatomine vectors and reservoir animals have been found. Populations of T. cruzi are divided into genetic subdivisions, which are known as discrete typing units (DTUs): TcI to TcVI and TcBat. Autochthonous human T. cruzi infection in the US is sporadic, but it may change due to environmental factors affecting the geographic distribution of triatomines. We aimed to perform a literature review of the genetic diversity of T. cruzi in triatomine vectors and mammalian hosts, including human cases, in the US. The 34 analyzed studies revealed the presence of T. cruzi in 18 states, which was mainly concentrated in Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico. TcI and TcIV were the principal DTUs identified, being TcI the most genotyped (42.4%; 917/2164). This study represents a first attempt to compile the molecular epidemiology of T. cruzi in the US, which is fundamental for predicting the progression of the infection in the country and could be of great help in its future management.

1. Introduction

Chagas disease (CD), also known as American trypanosomiasis, is a parasitic zoonosis caused by the protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi (Kinetoplastea: Trypanosomatidae). Initially, the disease was restricted to poor rural areas of Latin America (LA), where it is mainly transmitted by hematophagous triatomine vectors (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), commonly known as kissing bugs, that feed on mammalian blood and release infective forms of the parasite with their feces [1]. Trypanosoma cruzi can infect many of the 148 described triatomine species and almost all tissues of more than 180 mammalian species, contributing to the maintenance of the parasite in nature through the interchange of three distinct and interrelated cycles: wild or sylvatic (enzootic), peridomestic, and domestic [2,3,4,5].
Chagas disease began accidentally when humans invaded the wild cycle of T. cruzi and became infected. Since then, the transmission of the parasite evolved from enzootic to anthropozoonotic, being now well established among reservoir mammalian species, vectors, and human beings [6,7]. Although all triatomine species present in the Americas are considered potential vectors of T. cruzi, about 20 species of the genera Triatoma, Rhodnius and Panstrongylus are the most epidemiologically relevant in the transmission to humans [5,8]. Within the vectorial transmission of T. cruzi, there is an alternative pathway known as oral or foodborne, which takes place through the ingestion of beverages and food contaminated with feces of infected triatomines or secretions of parasite reservoirs as well as the consumption of raw/uncooked meat or blood from reservoirs [9]. Transmission can also occur by non-vectorial routes, i.e., blood transfusion, organ, and tissue transplantation, from mother to child during pregnancy or delivery (congenital route) and laboratory accidents [1].
Chagas disease has two stages. The acute phase lasts four to eight weeks and in 90–95% of cases evolves asymptomatically or with generally mild nonspecific signs. Oral transmission is related to more severe symptomatology [9]. The acute phase usually resolves spontaneously with a substantially decrease in parasitemia after approximately 90 days [10]. Congenital CD is considered an acute infection in the newborn and has mortality rates of around 2% [11]. After the acute period, untreated immunocompetent individuals enter the chronic phase, and most of them settle into a chronic asymptomatic stage. One to three decades post-acute infection, 30–40% of T. cruzi-infected patients will lead to symptomatic chronic disease with organ involvement associated with severe cardiac and gastrointestinal disorders [10,11]. The chronic phase is characterized by low and intermittent parasitemia [12].
Today, there are an estimated 6 to 8 million people with CD in the 21 continental LA countries considered endemic for the disease (within the vector distribution area), with 38,000 new cases and 12,000 deaths per year, and about 65 million people at risk of infection [13]. In the last few decades, CD has emerged as a global-scale issue resulting from human flows that have expanded the infection from rural to urban environments and across LA borders to reach non-endemic countries, especially in North America, Europe, and the Western Pacific region [14,15]. With nearly 20 million residents from CD endemic countries, the US is the leading recipient country for LA migrants as well as the non-Latin American country with the highest CD burden [16,17]. Even though most people living with CD in the US came from strictly endemic settings, the country cannot be labeled as non-endemic because there is evidence of established enzootic cycles of T. cruzi in the southern states, including several triatomines and mammalian species, and sporadic cases of autochthonous CD have also been described [3,18]. Therefore, given the particular and ambiguous position of the US in terms of endemicity, it could be roughly termed as the least endemic country for CD.
Regarding genetics, T. cruzi has a marked diversity. Taxonomic studies attempt to identify associations between the intraspecific diversity of the parasite and the clinical presentation of CD [19]. Although certain contributions of the different genotypes to clinical outcomes are intuited, the direct implications of the biological subdivisions of T. cruzi with the various manifestations of CD, as well as the distinct infectivity and virulence rates, have not been yet defined [20,21]. This is probably because human infection is a recent event in the evolutionary history of the parasite [20]. In LA endemic regions, some important clinical aspects have already been broadly defined as well as the type of transmission cycle and the geographic distribution linked to T. cruzi genotypes [21]. In the case of the US, T. cruzi transmission is spreading in the south of the country but is apparently restricted to the wild cycle with sporadic, but increasing, transmission to humans [3,22]. All in all, knowledge about the parasite genetic variability and its distribution in the territory could be of great help considering that the climate change may play a key role in the spread of T. cruzi vectors to the northern states and that they are increasingly tolerant to urbanized environments [12,23,24].
In this framework, the aim of this article was to perform a narrative review of the genetic diversity of T. cruzi in both triatomine vector species and mammalian hosts, including human cases, in the US. It will allow us to describe the current situation of the infection in the US to understand its evolution up to the present day as well as to predict its future steps. The information gathered will be directly applicable to CD management plans and will be useful for its control.

2. Chagas Disease Epidemiology in the US

According to estimates, there are 326,000 to 347,000 people with CD living in the US [17]. The states with the highest CD burden are California, Texas, Florida, and New York, with more than 10,000 reported cases, excluding undocumented immigrants [25]. Despite that fact, the level of underdiagnosis is extremely high (~99%) [26]. Most cases of CD reported in the US correspond to individuals infected in their countries of origin (imported CD). Women of childbearing age are a group of particular concern because approximately 40,000 women of reproductive age that are living in the US have chronic CD [27]. Therefore, assuming a 1% to 5% transmission rate, 400 to 2000 newborns with congenital CD can be estimated.

Autochthonous Human Chagas Disease in the US

Autochthonous human infections due to vector-borne transmission remain rare in the US, but the fact that at least 11 species of triatomines have been recorded in the country cannot be underestimated [3,18]. Lynn et al. [22] found 76 cases of contemporary suspected (47) or confirmed (29) locally acquired CD between the years 2000 and 2018. There was an increase in the detection of chronic CD cases from 2007, corresponding to the introduction of blood donor screening for T. cruzi infection in the US [28]. Afterwards, another autochthonous case diagnosed in 2018 was reported in Missouri [29] and eight additionally suspected (4) or confirmed (4) autochtonous T. cruzi infections were diagnosed from May 2019 to July 2020 via the US blood donor screening system [30]. Previously, five more cases had already been identified, the first of which was notified in 1955 ([18] and references therein).
Taking all these data into account, at least 90 cases of autochthonously acquired CD are estimated to date in the US. Texas is by far the state with the highest number of reported cases of autochthonous CD [22,31]. However, probable or confirmed autochthonous CD cases have been reported in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee [29,32,33].

3. Trypanosoma cruzi Genetic Diversity

The genetic structure of the T. cruzi population has long been considered predominantly clonal because of mostly asexual reproduction by binary fission coupled with occasional genetic exchange [34]. However, the clonal paradigm has been strongly challenged by the reported evidence of frequent recombination by sexual reproduction in the natural populations, which fits with the genetic heterogeneity of the parasite [35,36].
After many unsuccessful attempts to classify the intraspecific taxonomic structure of T. cruzi under alternative nomenclatures, the concept of discrete typing unit (DTU) was first defined in 1998 by Tibayrenc [37] as “sets of stocks that are genetically more related to each other than to any other stock and are identifiable by common molecular markers that act as tags”. Strains within DTUs are not identical clones but groups of interrelated clones that share profiles for a specific panel of markers, so these stocks could be further differentiated using additional markers due to accumulations of discrete mutations and events of genetic exchange [21,38].
The first consensus of T. cruzi intraspecific nomenclature was not reached until 1999 when the DTUs were divided into two groups named T. cruzi I (TcI) and TcII during the Satellite Meeting [39]. Afterwards, TcII was subdivided into five more units termed TcIIa–TcIIe [40,41] which were finally renamed in 2009, together with TcI, with the current nomenclature of six DTUs (TcI to TcVI) as recommended at the Second Satellite Meeting [42] (Table 1). In this same meeting of experts, TcV and TcVI were recognized as hybrid DTUs probably derived from TcII and TcIII. As for the remaining DTUs, TcI and TcII are considered pure ancestral lineages with long-standing independent evolution, while the origin of TcIII and TcIV is still under debate [21,43].
However, the second revision of T. cruzi nomenclature did not include subdivisions for TcI due to the need to complete studies based on additional markers [44]. In 2010, Cura et al. [45] reported five genotypes within TcI, termed TcIa–TcIe, through the characterization of the intergenic region of the mini-exon gene (SL-IR). Genotype TcIe was detected for the first time, whereas TcIa-d had been previously described ([44] and references therein). In addition, a seventh new DTU, called TcBat, closest to TcI and associated with bats was first reported in Brazil by Marcili et al. [46]. To our knowledge, only one case of human T. cruzi infection attributed to the TcBat genotype has been described [47].
DTUs have differential geographical distribution in endemic regions and transmission cycles. In brief, TcI is the most widely distributed DTU in LA and is present in both domestic and sylvatic cycles. TcII, TcV, and TcVI are predominant in domestic cycles and circulate mainly in the Southern Cone. TcIII and TcIV are predominant in sylvatic cycles and are principally found in the Amazon region [21].

4. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs in the US

In this review, a literature search was conducted in the scientific databases Web of Science, Scopus and Pubmed between September 2023 and March 2024 without time or language restrictions to identify relevant publications on the topic. The combination of search terms used to find potential studies was (Trypanosoma cruzi OR Chagas disease) AND (discrete typing unit OR DTU OR genotype OR lineage OR genetic diversity OR genetic variability) AND (United States OR US OR USA). In addition, the references of the retrieved articles were examined for other important publications that might have been missed. Accordingly, we have compiled information on the genetic characterization of T. cruzi in the US from a total of 34 studies that reported the genetic diversity of the parasite by DTUs in mammalian hosts, including humans, and triatomine vectors in different states of the country [31,32,45,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78] (Appendix A: Table A1 and Table A2). Based on the gathered data from these typing studies in the US, 18 states of the country have reported T. cruzi DTUs in mammalian hosts, triatomine vectors or both (Figure 1). Typing protocols and caveats are further described in Section 6.
The global molecular prevalence, i.e., the number of samples with evidence of T. cruzi DNA by PCR or blood culture over the total number of samples tested, was 25.6% (2164/8460) (Table A1 and Table A2). However, it should be noted that this calculation is not precise, since several studies started from samples previously selected as positive [32,63,71,78]. Once excluded, the prevalence drops to 24%. Of these positive specimens, 62.3% were found in triatomine vectors. The vast majority of T. cruzi positives were concentrated in six states: Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Florida, California and Georgia, all of them located in the southern part of the US (Figure 2a). The remaining 12 states reached up to 10 cases, and there were also two T. cruzi positive domestic dogs and one Rhesus macaque reported by Roellig et al. [32] for which the state of origin could not be determined. Indeed, the state of Texas alone accounted for almost 50% of the cases. DTUs TcI and TcIV were the principal lineages identified in the country (Figure 2b), being TcI the most genotyped DTU (42.4%; 917/2164). It was present in eight states and was the predominant DTU in Texas, New Mexico, Florida and Arizona. TcIV was the second most present DTU (25.5%; 551/2164), with records in all the states listed except Arizona. Mixed infections TcI + TcIV were also reported in the 6.1% of the samples included in this study. TcII was only found in Louisiana [49,70]. Finally, the fact that 517 samples (23.9%) could not be characterized cannot be underestimated. Of them, in 141 cases, some DTUs could be ruled out, but the genotype could not be accurately determined. Factors that may have influenced the success of the characterization are discussed in Section 6.

4.1. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs Identified in Hosts

DTUs reported in mammals according to host species and the state of localization are summarized in Table A1. The states with more positive T. cruzi cases among mammals were Texas (408) and Louisiana (250) (Figure 2a). The molecular prevalence in mammalian hosts was 12.3%, excluding studies based on preselected samples [32,63,71]. Most of the samples positive by T. cruzi were obtained from Carnivora (60.6%; 494/815) and particularly from domestic dogs (206/494) (Figure 3). DTUs could not be typed for all samples positive for the presence of T. cruzi DNA. The typing success rate was 66.9% (545/815) with the highest number of uncharacterized samples from carnivores (41.1%; 203/494). In the case of humans, all positive isolates were from autochthonous US cases of T. cruzi infection, and the 70.6% (12/17) were characterized from whole blood [31]. There is no information about the sample source for the remaining five isolates [32].
Regarding T. cruzi typing in mammalian hosts, the most reported DTUs were TcI and TcIV (Figure 3b). TcI was the only genotype found in Didelphimorphia and in the single Chiroptera specimen. Indeed, TcI was present in all orders of mammalian hosts analyzed and was also the most common lineage found in all of them except for Carnivora, in which TcIV was the dominant one. In fact, this was to be expected, since TcI is the most ubiquitous DTU and is present in both domestic and sylvatic cycles [79]. TcIV was found in Carnivora, non-human primates, Rodentia and Cingulata. On the other hand, TcII was detected displaying single infection in two mice (Rodentia) and two racoons (Carnivora) from Louisiana [49,70]. Previously, Majeau et al. [80] had already described raccoons as a major reservoir of T. cruzi in Louisiana with a reported molecular prevalence of 33.6% in two metropolitan areas in this state. The most reported mixed infection involved TcI and TcIV, but other DTU combinations were also detected, including the remaining DTUs except TcBat.

4.2. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs Identified in Vectors

Eleven species of triatomine kissing bugs are found in 27 states distributed across the lower two thirds of the US: Triatoma protracta, T. sanguisuga, T. lecticularia, T. rubida, T. gerstaeckeri, Paratriatoma hirsuta, T. indictiva, T. neotomae, T. rubrofasciata, T. recurva, and T. incrassata [81]. In this review, seven species of Triatoma were reported as positive for T. cruzi (Figure 4). Furthermore, 11 triatomines reported by Curtis-Robles et al. [75] could not be assigned to a specific species. The states with more positive T. cruzi cases among vectors were Texas (1080) and New Mexico (120) (Figure 2). Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs reported in vectors according to triatomine species and the state of localization are listed in Table A2.
The overall molecular prevalence in triatomine vectors was 50.5%, excluding studies based on preselected samples [32,78]. The triatomine species with more reported T. cruzi-positive cases was T. gerstaeckeri, which was followed by T. rubida and T. sanguisuga (Figure 4a). Triatoma gerstaeckeri has a limited range but is common in Texas, which explains the fact that it is the most collected species [18]. TcI and TcIV were reported in all the triatomine species (Figure 4b). In the case of the four T. recurva with T. cruzi collected by Flores-López et al. [78], the unclear DTU refers to TcI or TcIV. The most common DTU was TcI (45.1%; 608/1349) followed by TcIV (28.2%; 381/1349). Overall, 18.3% of the T. cruzi positive triatomines (247/1349) could not be typed (116) or had an unclear DTU (131). The presence of the rest of the DTUs was extremely low. Hwang et al. [72] found that two T. protracta isolates from California were related to TcII and TcVI groups. On the other hand, Dumonteil et al. [77] detected for the first time the presence of TcII/TcV in triatomines in the US. These genotypes were found as part of mixed infections with TcI (2) and TcI + TcIV (1), and the authors were unable to distinguish them at the level of a single DTU.

5. The Importance of Identifying DTUs in the US

Taxonomic studies have attempted to identify associations between DTUs and the clinical presentation of CD and clarify the geographic distribution of T. cruzi genotypes in endemic regions and transmission cycles [19]. The description of the contribution of each T. cruzi DTU to the forms of chronic CD is far from clear and is further hampered by the fact that the pathophysiology of the disease is not only determined by the genetic diversity of the parasite but also by complex host–pathogen interactions (with multiple unknown factors) as well as environmental factors [21,82]. Another point to note is that the full extent of intra-lineage diversity of T. cruzi in the progression of CD has not yet been elucidated. Probably, to identify clear associations between parasite diversity and the disease outcomes, DTUs but also intra-DTU sublevels must be considered [70,83]. Indeed, due to its great intra-diversity, five genotypes within TcI have already been described [44,45]. However, based on the premise that infection with specific strains leads to distinct outcomes, there are a growing number of studies trying to investigate the association of T. cruzi DTUs with different outcomes of CD [82,84]. From the information gathered in this type of studies that assign DTUs to T. cruzi populations, it has been possible to relate the genetic diversity of the parasite with its ecoepidemiological features and the presentation of CD in humans [85]. Except for TcBat, of which only one human case has been described in Colombia [47], and TcIII, which is rare in humans, the remaining DTUs have been associated with clinical manifestations of chronic CD. TcI and TcIV have been linked mainly to cardiac disorders, while TcII, TcV and TcVI have also been connected to digestive outcomes [85]. In addition, TcV has also been related to an increased risk of congenital infection [86].
On the other hand, climate change is an emerging important factor contributing to the epidemiology of CD in general terms but with a particularly important impact in the US due to the endemic condition of the southern part of the country [87]. Consequently, the distribution range of triatomines may expand northward, leading to an increased risk of autochthonous cases of CD in humans, even in areas that are not currently endemic for the infection [23,81]. Studies examining circulating DTUs in the country will help to predict the potential geographic distribution of T. cruzi genotypes in new environmental scenarios. Other factors that may contribute to changes in the epidemiology of CD in the US include increasing migration, rapid population growth, rising urbanization, and growing poverty [87,88].
Regarding treatment, current drugs for treating CD are benznidazol (BZ) and nifurtimox (NF). Both are available from the 1970s, require prolonged treatment and cause severe side effects [89]. It is well documented that treatment should be offered the earlier the better, with proven high efficacy in acute and congenital cases and improved clinical results in the chronic indeterminate phase [90]. Nevertheless, BZ and NF show high variable efficacy, with reported differences in treatment outcomes in distinct geographic areas, as well as in murine models inoculated with different T. cruzi DTUs ([89] and references therein). Although it is not possible to directly connect each DTU to a specific treatment behavior, a variation in pathogenicity and susceptibility to treatment of T. cruzi genotypes is intuited [21,91]. For instance, Vela et al. [92] observed a lower susceptibility of TcI at the trypomastigote stage to BZ. Revollo et al. [93] also reported TcI trypomastigotes as more resistant to BZ and NF, although some TcII and TcV strains behaved similarly. A factor to consider is that susceptibility to treatment may vary within the same DTU and at different stages of the parasite life cycle (i.e., trypomastigote, epimastigote and amastigote) [89,93]. Therefore, knowledge of the identity of T. cruzi DTUs circulating in the US is important to establish possible connections to human infections, to detect differences in lineage behavior to current treatment, and to design and develop new potential therapeutic targets [78].
In essence, understanding the genetic heterogeneity of circulating T. cruzi populations in human hosts, sylvatic and domestic reservoirs and vectors from a comprehensive perspective will be of particular interest to help manage CD in the country [94].

6. The Problem of Identifying DTUs

Molecular tools are the most used to genotype T. cruzi DTUs in humans, reservoirs and vectors. The most common markers for T. cruzi typing are the 24sα rRNA gene, the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit 2 (COII) gene, the mini-exon gene spliced leader intergenic region (SL-IR), and the 18S rRNA gene, among others (Table A1 and Table A2). In addition to the variety of markers, there is a wide range of algorithms and characterization techniques available, which adds even more complexity to the interpretation of the results [95,96,97].
One of the main problems of direct typing in biological samples is the lack of sensitivity due to the single or low copy number of the DNA markers used [98,99,100]. Low and fluctuant parasitemia, typical of the chronic phase of CD, is also another drawback to achieving good accuracy in genotyping [101]. Precisely because they are sometimes not sensitive enough to be used in biological samples, typing schemes are in occasions applied to cultured stocks of the parasite [96]. These kinds of studies involving parasite amplification, either by in vitro culture or by passages in experimental models, may bias the T. cruzi populations [20,100].
Highly repetitive sequences used for the molecular diagnosis of CD, such as satellite DNA (SatDNA) and the minicircle hypervariable region of the kinetoplastic DNA (kDNA), have been proposed as an improved option to increase sensitivity in in vivo typing studies [98,99]. Both sequences are represented in around 105 copies per parasite genome and are therefore easily detectable by molecular techniques [99,102,103]. The main limitation is that the analysis of the signature patterns of each DTU in these highly repetitive markers implies sequencing. In the case of SatDNA, the main limitation is that the proposed approach is not yet capable of distinguishing between the presence of hybrid lineages (TcV and TcVI) and the existence of mixed infections with TcI or TcIII and TcII [98]. More recently, serological typing or serotyping, based on polymorphic antigens that detect strain-specific antibody signatures, has also been suggested as an alternative method to molecular genotyping [100]. However, this approach still needs to be further explored to determine its application in the characterization of T. cruzi DTUs.
Another problem related to T. cruzi genotyping is the tissue tropism detected for different DTUs [95,104]. This phenomenon was first described by Macedo and Pena [105] as the “clonal-histotropic model of the pathogenesis of CD” and is also reported in non-human mammalian hosts [106,107]. Most studies that characterize T. cruzi populations from clinical samples are based on isolates recovered from peripheral blood [95]. It is important to note that blood isolates may not reveal all T. cruzi DTUs infecting a particular patient, as other genotypes may be circulating at low loads or being retained in tissues. Therefore, the mostly present DTU could be having a masking effect with respect to other genotypes [20].
The general advice could be that the accurate classification of T. cruzi DTUs requires the use of several markers, as characterization based on a single marker may lead to the assignment of an erroneous genotype to the isolate [94,105]. Indeed, for an optimal typing, multiple isolates from the patient should be analyzed, since different T. cruzi populations can simultaneously infect the same individual (mixed infections) and not be detected with only one sample [108].

7. Final Remarks

Although most reports of T. cruzi infections in mammals and triatomine vectors occurred in the southern US, new cases are progressively appearing in northern states, such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) with TcIV detected in Illinois and Missouri [57] (Table A1) and the T. sanguisuga also with TcIV in Indiana [75] (Table A2). As pointed out in previous sections, this pattern could increase because of climate change. So, epidemiological surveillance programs for T. cruzi infection in the US should be increased to cover and detect this eventual expansion of the number of cases in both hosts and vectors that can ultimately help to estimate risk to human health [70]. Texas accounts for most reported cases of T. cruzi infection in the country, which is probably influenced by the numerous studies conducted in this state due to its border condition with Mexico. Therefore, the study area should be expanded to be able to draw a true unbiased map of cases in the territory.
TcI has been the most reported DTU in the studies included in this review, being present in 37.9% (309/815) of the mammals analyzed and in 45.1% (608/1349) of the vectors. TcIV was the second most reported DTU, with 20.9% (170/815) of mammals and 28.2% (381/1349) of vectors. TcII, TcV and TcVI were also present in the country but to a lesser extent and mainly as part of mixed infections. These combinations of DTUs were almost entirely reported in the state of Louisiana (Figure 2b). In humans, TcI was reported in 29.4% (5/17) of T. cruzi-positive cases. In two more cases, TcI was found in combination with TcII/TcV/TcVI, although it was not possible to determine which genotype or genotypes were involved [31,32]. The same occurred in four other cases in which non-TcI was found. In the remaining six cases, the DTU could not be determined. It indicates the existence of several circulating DTUs, in addition to TcI, among autochthonous cases of human CD in the USA, which accentuates the need to determine the genotypes present in each human patient.
However, the totality of T. cruzi diversity present in the country is probably not being fully detected because of the low resolution of the characterization markers used, the lack of a typing reference, the bias produced by the main use of peripheral blood as the sample of choice and the low parasitemia in chronic infections. All these factors hamper T. cruzi typing and make the characterization of the parasite complex and laborious. Thus, new markers and technologies are needed to optimize the process and to identify diversity at the intra-DTU level [83,97].
On the other hand, this study also highlights the need for an increased T. cruzi characterization throughout the US to predict the possible future pathways of the infection in the country and to focus strategies to deal with CD. Currently, most cases of CD reported in the US correspond to individuals infected in their countries of origin, and autochthonous human T. cruzi infection occurs sporadically and because of enzootic transmission from sylvatic cycles maintained in animals. However, in such an unstable and changing environmental scenario, CD could become epidemiologically relevant in the country in the near future. In terms of human cases, TcI is the DTU of most concern, but the presence of TcIV in the country, as well as TcII, TcV and TcVI, may lead to potential autochthonous infections by these DTUs in the US. In addition, specific genotypes also appear to circulate in the US. Flores-López et al. [78] identified the so-called TcIV-USA in the southwestern US, which is described as a divergent American branch of TcIV (Table A2). Thus, it is crucial to study the molecular epidemiology of T. cruzi in the area and its progression in the different states of the country. This information may be of special interest in the development of future management and control plans for CD in the US, including screening and epidemiological surveillance protocols in humans but also interventions targeting mammalian T. cruzi hosts that act as a reservoir as well as triatomine vectors.

Author Contributions

A.L. contributed to the data collection as well as the interpretation and writing of the manuscript. A.A. contributed to the conception and design of the study, data collection and interpretation, writing the manuscript, and revision of the manuscript. A.F.-A., C.B. and S.H. contributed to data interpretation and revision of the manuscript. M.G. and C.M. contributed to the conception and design of the study, data interpretation and revision of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The participating UB and ISGbobal investigators are part of the GREPIMER group (Grup de Recerca en Patologia Importada i Malalties Emergents i Re-emergents), which received support from the Generalitat of Catalonia, Universities and Research Department, Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca Spain (AGAUR: 2021 SGR 01562). The ISGlobal research group is supported by the CIBER of Infectious Diseases—Consorcio Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red—(CB 2021), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación and Unión Europea—NextGenerationEU.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and State Research Agency through the “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019–2023” Program (CEX2018-000806-S) and support from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs reported in mammalian hosts per state in the US.
Table A1. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs reported in mammalian hosts per state in the US.
Reference Host State Target Method Molecular Prevalence a
P/Tested (%) 		Typed
typ./P (%) 		DTU (Number)
TcI TcIV Other Mixed Infections
Roellig et al. [32]Human (Homo sapiens sapiens)CASL-IR; 24Sα; 18SPCR; MLEE; RAPD; STR2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
TX2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
LA1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
Domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)n.d.2/2 (100)2/2 (100) 2 *
TN1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 TcI/TcIV *
OK1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
SC1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
CA1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)GA6/6 (100)6/6 (100)6
FL6/6 (100)6/6 (100)6
LA2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
AL1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)GA45/45 (100)45/45 (100)243 *
FL16/16 (100)16/16 (100) 15 *1 TcI/TcIV *
SC1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
MD1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
TN1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta)GA3/3 (100)3/3 (100) 3 *
Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta)n.d.1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
GA1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 TcI/TcIV *
Nine-band armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus)GA1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
LA2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)GA1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 *
Charles et al. [48]Southern plains woodrat (Neotoma micropus)TX24SαPCR; sequencing35/104 (34)23/35 (66)1013
Striped skunks (M. mephitis)TX4/4 (100)4/4 (100)13
Racoon (P. lotor)TX12/20 (60)5/12 (42) 5
Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)TX2/2 (100)2/2 (100) 2
Rock squirrel (Otospermophilus variegatus)TX1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1
Herrera et al. [49]House mouse (Mus musculus); Cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus)LASL-IR; 24Sα; 18SPCR; sequencing34/44 (77)20/34 (59)16 2 TcII1 TcI + TcII
1TcII + TcIV
Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana)LA11/15 (73)3/11 (27)2 1 TcII + TcIV
Hodo et al. [50]Evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis)TXSL-IR; 24Sα; 18S; COIIMTq-PCR1/593 (0.2)1/1 (100)1
Curtis-Robles et al. [51]Racoon (P. lotor)TXTcSC5DSequencing49/70 (70)11/49 (22) 10 1 TcI + TcIV
Aleman et al. [52]Northern pygmy mouse (Bayomis taylori)TX18SSequencing1/4 (25)1/1 (100)1
Southern plains woodrat (N. micropus)TX1/5 (20)1/1 (100)1
White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)TX3/87 (3)3/3 (100)3
Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)TX1/13 (8)1/1 (100)1
Hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus)TX1/2 (50)1/1 (100)1
Mexican spiny pocket mouse (Liomys irroratus)TX1/44 (2)1/1 (100)1
Curtis-Robles et al. [53]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IR; TcSC5DMTq-PCR; sequencing15/86 (17)15/15 (100)95 1 TcI + TcIV
Curtis-Robles et al. [54]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IRMTq-PCR5/184 (3)4/5 (80)4
Garcia et al. [31]Human (H. sapiens sapiens)TXSL-IR; 24Sα; 18SPCR;
sequencing		12/15 (80)6/12 (50) 4 TcII/V/VI2 TcI + TcII/V/VI
Meyers et al. [55]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IRMTq-PCR3/528 (0.6)2/3 (67) 1 1 TcI + TcIV
Hodo et al. [56]Rhesus macaque (M. mulatta)TXSL-IR; 24Sα; 18S; COIIMTq-PCR33/41 (80)33/33 (100)1813 2 TcI + TcIV
Virginia opossum (D. virginiana)TX4/5 (80)4/4 (100)4
Racoon (P. lotor)TX2/5 (40)2/2 (100) 2
Striped skunk (M. mephitis)TX2/3 (67)2/2 (100)11
Vandermark et al. [57]Racoon (P. lotor)ILSL-IR; 24SαPCR; sequencing5 (37 global)5/5 (100) 5
Racoon (P. lotor)KY1 (37 global)1/1 (100) 1
Racoon (P. lotor)MO1 (37 global)1/1 (100) 1
Hodo et al. [58]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IRMTq-PCR53/559 (9)6/53 (11)51
Herrera et al. [59]Rhesus macaque (M. mulatta)LASL-IRNGS; MB7/8 (88)7/7 (100)5 1 TcI + TcIV
1 TcI + TcVI
Pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina)LA2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
Baboon (Papio spp.)LA2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
Dumonteil et al. [60]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)LASL-IRPCR; NGS; MB73/540 (14)40/73 (55)25 10 TcI + TcIV
2 TcI + II + V + VI
2 TcI + II + IV + V + VI
1 TcI + TcII
Hodo et al. [61]Coyote (Canis latrans)TXSL-IR; 24Sα; 18S; COIIMTq-PCR10/120 (8)10/10 (100)10
Racoon (P. lotor)TX15/24 (62)15/15 (100) 15
Meyers et al. [62]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IRMTq-PCR4/1610 (0.2)3/4 (75) 2 1 TcI + TcIV
Pronovost et al. [63]House mouse (M. musculus)LASL-IRNGS; MB2/2 (100)2/2 (100) 1 TcI + II + VI
1 TcII + VI
Cotton mouse (P. gossypinus)LA3/3 (100)3/3 (100) 1 TcII + TcVI
1 TcI + II + VI
1 TcI + II + V + VI
Eastern woodrat (N. floridana)LA1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 TcI + II + IV + VI
Zecca et al. [64]Domestic cat (Felis catus)TXSL-IR; 24Sα; 18S; COIIMTq-PCR3/167 (2)3/3 (100)3
Zecca et al. [65]Virginia opossum (D. virginiana)TXSL-IRMTq-PCR15/100 (15)15/15 (100)15
Dumonteil et al. [66]Domestic cat (Felis catus)LASL-IRPCR; sequencing70/284 (25)19/70 (27) 3 **16 **
Rodríguez et al. [67]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IR; 24Sα;PCR43/95 (45)40/43 (93)309 1 TcI + TcIV
Domestic cat (Felis catus)TX7/24 (42)3/7 (43)21
Cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus)TX1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 TcI + TcIV
Spotted ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus spilosoma)TX1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1 TcI + TcIV
Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis)TX1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)TX1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
Coyote (C. latrans)TX1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
Padilla et al. [68]Cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis)TXLSU; SL-IRPCR59/64 (92)40/59 (68)336 1 TcI + TcIV
Torhorst et al. [69]Virginia opossum (D. virginiana)FLSL-IR; 24Sα; 18S; COIIMTq-PCR58/112 (52)55/58 (95)55
Majeau et al. [70]Racoon (P. lotor)LASL-IRNGS40/119 (34)29/40 (73)19 2 TcII1 TcI + TcIV
7 ***
Landsgaard et al. [71]Domestic dog (C. lupus familiaris)TXSL-IRPCR4/4 (100)3/4 (75)12
CA, California; TX, Texas; LA, Louisiana; n.d., not determined; TN, Tennessee; OK, Oklahoma; SC, South Carolina; GA, Georgia; FL, Florida; AL, Alabama; MD, Maryland; IL, Illinois; KY, Kentucky; MO, Missouri; MLEE, multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; RAPD, random amplified polymorphic DNA; STR, short tandem repeats (microsatellites); NGS, next-generation sequencing; MB, metabarcoding; MTq-PCR, Multiplex TaqMan Real-Time PCR; typ., typed; SL-IR, spliced leader intergenic region of the mini-exon; 18S, 18S ribosomal DNA; 24Sα, 24Sα ribosomal DNA; COII, cytochrome oxidase II; LSU, large subunit rRNA; TcSC5D, TcSC5D gene. a Molecular prevalence was calculated as the number of samples with evidence of T. cruzi DNA by means of PCR or hemoculture (positive, P) with respect to the total number of samples analyzed (tested). Molecular prevalences in Roellig et al. [32], Pronovost et al. [63], and Landsgaard et al. [71] do not match reality since positive samples were pre-selected for the study. * TcIV was typified as TcIIa according to the previous nomenclature (see Table 1). ** Cats were predominantly infected with parasites from TcI and TcVI DTUs, and to a lesser extent from TcIV and TcV DTUs. *** Mixed infections of TcI, TcII, TcIV, TcV and TcVI in different combinations and proportions.
Table A2. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs reported in triatomine vectors per state in the US.
Table A2. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs reported in triatomine vectors per state in the US.
Reference Vector State Target Method Molecular Prevalence a
P/Tested (%) 		Typed
typ./P (%) 		DTU (Number)
TcI TcIV Other Mixed Infections
Roellig et al. [32]Triatoma sanguisugaFLSL-IR; 24Sα; 18SPCR; MLEE; RAPD; STR3/3 (100)3/3 (100)3
T. sanguisugaGA1/1 (100)1/1 (100)1
Triatoma gerstaeckeriTX3/3 (100)3/3 (100)21 *
Cura et al. [45]T. gerstaeckeriTXSL-IRSequencing7/7 (100)7/7 (100)7
Hwang et al. [72]Triatoma protractaCA24Sα; 18SSequencing34/161 (21)2/34 (6) 2 TcII/VI
Herrera et al. [49]T. sanguisugaLASL-IR; 24Sα; 18SPCR; sequencing8/12 (67)6/8 (75)6
Buhaya et al. [73]Triatoma rubidaTXTcSC5DSequencing25/39 (64)24/25 (96)24
Shender et al. [74]T. protractaCASL-IR; 24Sα; HSP60; GPIPCR; PCR-RFLP37/97 (38)22/37 (59)202
Curtis-Robles et al. [53]T. gerstaeckeriTXSL-IR; TcSC5DMTq-PCR; sequencing16/16 (100)16/16 (100)104 2 TcI + TcIV
T. sanguisugaTX13/20 (65)13/13 (100)29 2 TcI + TcIV
Curtis-Robles et al. [54]T. gerstaeckeriTXSL-IRMTq-PCR1/2 (50)1/1 (100)1
Meyers et al. [55]T. gerstaeckeriTXSL-IRMTq-PCR9/18 (50)9/9 (100)61 2 TcI + TcIV
Aleman et al. [52]Triatoma lecticulariaTX18SSequencing13/19 (68)13/13 (100)13
T. sanguisugaTX2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
Curtis-Robles et al. [75]T. gerstaeckeriTXSL-IR; TcSC5DMTq-PCR; sequencing574/897 (64)548/574 (95)294189 65 TcI + TcIV
Triatoma indictivaTX32/67 (48)28/32 (88)917 2 TcI + TcIV
T. lecticulariaTX44/66 (67)42/44 (95)925 8 TcI + TcIV
T. protractaTX3/19 (16)2/3 (67)2
T. rubidaTX11/64 (18)7/11 (64)61
T. sanguisugaTX158/315 (50)135/158 (85)21107 7 TcI + TcIV
Triatoma sp. TX11/29 (38)11/11 (100)47
T. sanguisugaAL1/4 (25)1/1 (100) 1
T. protractaAZ1/7 (14)1/1 (100)1
T. rubidaAZ5/33 (15)4/5 (80)4
T. sanguisugaFL4/25 (16)4/4 (100)13
T. sanguisugaIN1/2 (50)1/1 (100) 1
T. sanguisugaKS1/1 (100)1/1 (100) 1
T. sanguisugaLA3/3 (100)3/3 (100)12
T. sanguisugaMO1/2 (50)0/1 (0)
T. rubidaNM2/7 (29)1/2 (100)1
T. sanguisugaOK1/2 (50)1/1 (100) 1
T. sanguisugaTN1/2 (50)1/1 (100) 1
T. sanguisugaVA3/7 (43)3/3 (100) 3
Curtis-Robles et al. [76]T. gerstaeckeriTXSL-IRMTq-PCR1/11 (9)n.s.n.s. **
T. protractaTX4/9 (44)n.s.n.s. **
T. rubidaTX69/299 (23)n.s.n.s. **
Hodo et al. [56]T. sanguisugaTXSL-IR; 24Sα; 18S; COIIMTq-PCR1/4 (25)1/1 (100)1
Dumonteil et al. [77]T. sanguisugaLASL-IRMTq-PCR; sequencing40/45 (89)40/40 (100)193 15 TcI + TcIV
2 TcI + TcII/V
1 TcI + IV + II/V
Rodríguez et al. [67]T. rubidaTXSL-IR; 24Sα;PCR29/50 (58)27/29 (93)261
T. protractaTX1/2 (50)1/1 (100)1
T. gerstaeckeriTX2/2 (100)2/2 (100)2
T. rubidaNM118/171 (69)117/118 (99)1091 7 TcI + TcIV
Flores-López et al. [78]T. gerstaeckeriTXCOII-ND1; MSH2; DHFR-TS; TcCLBMLST44/n.s.n.s. ***75% ***25% ***
T. lecticulariaTX4/n.s.
T. indictivaTX1/n.s.
T. sanguisugaTX2/n.s.
Triatoma recurvaAZ4/n.s.
FL, Florida; GA, Georgia; TX, Texas; CA, California; LA, Louisiana; AL, Alabama; AZ, Arizona; IN, Indiana; KS, Kansas; MO, Missouri; NM, New Mexico; OK, Oklahoma; TN, Tennessee; VA, Virginia; MLEE, multilocus enzyme electrophoresis; RAPD, random amplified polymorphic DNA; STR, short tandem repeats (microsatellites); typ., typed; SL-IR, spliced leader intergenic region of the mini-exon; 18S, 18S ribosomal DNA; 24Sα, 24Sα ribosomal DNA; COII, cytochrome oxidase II; HSP60, heat-shock protein 60; GPI, glucose phosphate isomerase; COII-ND1, cytochrome oxidase subunit II- NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1 region; MSH2, mismatch-repair class 2; DHFR-TS, dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase; TcCLB, nuclear gene with ID TcCLB.506529.310; TcSC5D, TcSC5D gene; RFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism; MTq-PCR, Multiplex TaqMan Real-Time PCR; MLST, multilocus sequence typing; n.s., not specified. a Molecular prevalence was calculated as the number of samples with evidence of T. cruzi DNA by means of PCR or culture or direct microscopic examination (positive, P) with respect to the total number of samples analyzed (tested). Molecular prevalences in Roellig et al. [32] do not match reality since positive samples were pre-selected for the study. * TcIV was typified as TcIIa according to the previous nomenclature (see Table 1). ** TcI was the only DTU detected but numbers are not detailed. *** TcI was found in the 75% of the infected triatomines (n = 55). The other 25% showed TcIV-USA, a divergent American branch of TcIV.

References

  1. Rassi, A., Jr.; Rassi, A.; Marin-Neto, J.A. Chagas disease. Lancet 2010, 375, 1388–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Noireau, F.; Diosque, P.; Jansen, A.M. Trypanosoma cruzi: Adaptation to its vectors and its hosts. Vet. Res. 2009, 40, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bern, C.; Kjos, S.; Yabsley, M.J.; Montgomery, S.P. Trypanosoma cruzi and Chagas’ Disease in the United States. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 655–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Coura, J.R.; Viñas, P.A.; Junqueira, A.C. Ecoepidemiology, short history and control of Chagas disease in the endemic countries and the new challenge for non-endemic countries. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2014, 109, 856–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Justi, S.A.; Galvão, C. The Evolutionary Origin of Diversity in Chagas Disease Vectors. Trends Parasitol. 2017, 33, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Coura, J.R.; Dias, J.C. Epidemiology, control and surveillance of Chagas disease: 100 years after its discovery. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2009, 104 (Suppl. S1), 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bezerra, C.M.; Cavalcanti, L.P.; Souza, R.C.; Barbosa, S.E.; Xavier, S.C.; Jansen, A.M.; Ramalho, R.D.; Diotaiut, L. Domestic, peridomestic and wild hosts in the transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in the Caatinga area colonised by Triatoma brasiliensis. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2014, 109, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gourbière, S.; Dorn, P.; Tripet, F.; Dumonteil, E. Genetics and evolution of triatomines: From phylogeny to vector control. Heredity 2012, 108, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Velásquez-Ortiz, N.; Ramírez, J.D. Understanding the oral transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi as a veterinary and medical foodborne zoonosis. Res. Vet. Sci. 2020, 132, 448–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pérez-Molina, J.A.; Molina, I. Chagas disease. Lancet 2018, 391, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. De Sousa, A.S.; Vermeij, D.; Ramos, A.N., Jr.; Luquetti, A.O. Chagas disease. Lancet 2023, 403, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Abras, A.; Ballart, C.; Fernández-Arévalo, A.; Pinazo, M.J.; Gascón, J.; Muñoz, C.; Gállego, M. Worldwide Control and Management of Chagas Disease in a New Era of Globalization: A Close Look at Congenital Trypanosoma cruzi Infection. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2022, 35, e0015221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Chagas Disease in the Americas: An Analysis of the Current Situation and Strategic Review of the Regional Agenda. Final Report, 14–16 March 2023, Medellín, Colombia; PAHO: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gascón, J.; Bern, C.; Pinazo, M.J. Chagas disease in Spain, the United States and other non-endemic countries. Acta Trop. 2010, 115, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Albajar-Vinas, P.; Jannin, J. The hidden Chagas disease burden in Europe. Euro Surveill. 2011, 16, 19975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gascón, J.; Requena Méndez, A.; Pinazo Delgado, M.-J. Enfermedad de Chagas en países no endémicos. In Enfermedad de Chagas. Un Enfoque Práctico Basado en la Investigación Médica, 1st ed.; Viotti, R.J., Vigliano, C.A., Eds.; Médica Panamericana: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 56–67. [Google Scholar]
  17. Forsyth, C.J.; Manne-Goehler, J.; Bern, C.; Whitman, J.; Hochberg, N.S.; Edwards, M.; Marcus, R.; Beatty, N.L.; Castro-Sesquen, Y.E.; Coyle, C.; et al. Recommendations for Screening and Diagnosis of Chagas Disease in the United States. J. Infect. Dis. 2022, 225, 1601–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bern, C.; Messenger, L.A.; Whitman, J.D.; Maguire, J.H. Chagas Disease in the United States: A Public Health Approach. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 33, e00023-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abras, A.; Gállego, M.; Muñoz, C.; Juiz, N.A.; Ramírez, J.C.; Cura, C.I.; Tebar, S.; Fernández-Arévalo, A.; Pinazo, M.J.; de la Torre, L.; et al. Identification of Trypanosoma cruzi Discrete Typing Units (DTUs) in Latin-American migrants in Barcelona (Spain). Parasitol. Int. 2017, 66, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cura, C.I.; Schijman, A.G. Relación entre los genotipados de T. cruzi y la presentación clínica de la enfermedad de Chagas. Rev. Esp. Salud Pública 2013, 86, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zingales, B.; Macedo, A.M. Fifteen Years after the Definition of Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs: What Have We Learned? Life 2023, 13, 2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lynn, M.K.; Bossak, B.H.; Sandifer, P.A.; Watson, A.; Nolan, M.S. Contemporary autochthonous human Chagas disease in the USA. Acta Trop. 2020, 205, 105361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Garza, M.; Feria Arroyo, T.P.; Casillas, E.A.; Sanchez-Cordero, V.; Rivaldi, C.L.; Sarkar, S. Projected future distributions of vectors of Trypanosoma cruzi in North America under climate change scenarios. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Carmona-Castro, O.; Moo-Llanes, D.A.; Ramsey, J.M. Impact of climate change on vector transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas, 1909) in North America. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2018, 32, 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Manne-Goehler, J.; Umeh, C.A.; Montgomery, S.P.; Wirtz, V.J. Estimating the Burden of Chagas Disease in the United States. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0005033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Manne-Goehler, J.; Reich, M.R.; Wirtz, V.J. Access to care for Chagas disease in the United States: A health systems analysis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 93, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Edwards, M.S.; Stimpert, K.K.; Bialek, S.R.; Montgomery, S.P. Evaluation and Management of Congenital Chagas Disease in the United States. J. Pediatric. Infect. Dis. Soc. 2019, 8, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Montgomery, S.P.; Parise, M.E.; Dotson, E.M.; Bialek, S.R. What Do We Know About Chagas Disease in the United States? Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2016, 95, 1225–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Turabelidze, G.; Vasudevan, A.; Rojas-Moreno, C.; Montgomery, S.P.; Baker, M.; Pratt, D.; Enyeart, S. Autochthonous Chagas Disease–Missouri, 2018. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lynn, M.K.; Dye-Braumuller, K.C.; Beatty, N.L.; Dorn, P.L.; Klotz, S.A.; Stramer, S.L.; Townsend, R.L.; Kamel, H.; Vannoy, J.M.; Sadler, P.; et al. Evidence of likely autochthonous Chagas disease in the southwestern United States: A case series of Trypanosoma cruzi seropositive blood donors. Transfusion 2022, 62, 1808–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Garcia, M.N.; Burroughs, H.; Gorchakov, R.; Gunter, S.M.; Dumonteil, E.; Murray, K.O.; Herrera, C.P. Molecular identification and genotyping of Trypanosoma cruzi DNA in autochthonous Chagas disease patients from Texas, USA. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 49, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Roellig, D.M.; Brown, E.L.; Barnabé, C.; Tibayrenc, M.; Steurer, F.J.; Yabsley, M.J. Molecular typing of Trypanosoma cruzi isolates, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 1123–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Beatty, N.L.; Klotz, S.A. Autochthonous Chagas Disease in the United States: How Are People Getting Infected? Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 967–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tibayrenc, M.; Ayala, F.J. The clonal theory of parasitic protozoa: 12 years on. Trends Parasitol. 2002, 8, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Berry, A.S.F.; Salazar-Sánchez, R.; Castillo-Neyra, R.; Borrini-Mayorí, K.; Chipana-Ramos, C.; Vargas-Maquera, M.; Ancca-Juarez, J.; Náquira-Velarde, C.; Levy, M.Z.; Brisson, D.; et al. Sexual reproduction in a natural Trypanosoma cruzi population. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schwabl, P.; Imamura, H.; Van den Broeck, F.; Costales, J.A.; Maiguashca-Sánchez, J.; Miles, M.A.; Andersson, B.; Grijalva, M.J.; Llewellyn, M.S. Meiotic sex in Chagas disease parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tibayrenc, M. Genetic epidemiology of parasitic protozoa and other infectious agents: The need for an integrated approach. Int. J. Parasitol. 1998, 8, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zingales, B.; Miles, M.A.; Campbell, D.A.; Tibayrenc, M.; Macedo, A.M.; Teixeira, M.M.; Schijman, A.G.; Llewellyn, M.S.; Lages-Silva, E.; Machado, C.R.; et al. The revised Trypanosoma cruzi subspecific nomenclature: Rationale, epidemiological relevance and research applications. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2012, 12, 240–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Anonymous. Recommendations from a satellite meeting. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 1999, 1, 429–432. [Google Scholar]
  40. Brisse, S.; Dujardin, J.C.; Tibayrenc, M. Identification of six Trypanosoma cruzi lineages by sequence-characterised amplified region markers. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 2000, 111, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brisse, S.; Verhoef, J.; Tibayrenc, M. Characterisation of large and small subunit rRNA and mini-exon genes further supports the distinction of six Trypanosoma cruzi lineages. Int. J. Parasitol. 2001, 31, 1218–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zingales, B.; Andrade, S.G.; Briones, M.R.; Campbell, D.A.; Chiari, E.; Fernandes, O.; Guhl, F.; Lages-Silva, E.; Macedo, A.M.; Machado, C.R.; et al. Second Satellite Meeting. A new consensus for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific nomenclature: Second revision meeting recommends TcI to TcVI. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2009, 104, 1051–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zingales, B.; Bartholomeu, D.C. Trypanosoma cruzi genetic diversity: Impact on transmission cycles and Chagas disease. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2022, 117, e210193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guhl, F.; Ramírez, J.D. Trypanosoma cruzi I diversity: Towards the need of genetic subdivision? Acta Trop. 2011, 119, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cura, C.I.; Mejía-Jaramillo, A.M.; Duffy, T.; Burgos, J.M.; Rodriguero, M.; Cardinal, M.V.; Kjos, S.; Gurgel-Gonçalves, R.; Blanchet, D.; De Pablos, L.M.; et al. Trypanosoma cruzi I genotypes in different geographical regions and transmission cycles based on a microsatellite motif of the intergenic spacer of spliced-leader genes. Int. J. Parasitol. 2010, 40, 1599–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Marcili, A.; Lima, L.; Cavazzana, M.; Junqueira, A.C.; Veludo, H.H.; Maia Da Silva, F.; Campaner, M.; Paiva, F.; Nunes, V.L.; Teixeira, M.M. A new genotype of Trypanosoma cruzi associated with bats evidenced by phylogenetic analyses using SSU rDNA, cytochrome b and Histone H2B genes and genotyping based on ITS1 rDNA. Parasitology 2009, 136, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ramírez, J.D.; Hernández, C.; Montilla, M.; Zambrano, P.; Flórez, A.C.; Parra, E.; Cucunubá, Z.M. First report of human Trypanosoma cruzi infection attributed to TcBat genotype. Zoonoses Public Health 2014, 61, 477–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Charles, R.A.; Kjos, S.; Ellis, A.E.; Barnes, J.C.; Yabsley, M.J. Southern plains woodrats (Neotoma micropus) from southern Texas are important reservoirs of two genotypes of Trypanosoma cruzi and host of a putative novel Trypanosoma species. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013, 13, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Herrera, C.P.; Licon, M.H.; Nation, C.S.; Jameson, S.B.; Wesson, D.M. Genotype diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi in small rodents and Triatoma sanguisuga from a rural area in New Orleans, Louisiana. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hodo, C.L.; Goodwin, C.C.; Mayes, B.C.; Mariscal, J.A.; Waldrup, K.A.; Hamer, S.A. Trypanosome species, including Trypanosoma cruzi, in sylvatic and peridomestic bats of Texas, USA. Acta Trop. 2016, 164, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Curtis-Robles, R.; Lewis, B.C.; Hamer, S.A. High Trypanosoma cruzi infection prevalence associated with minimal cardiac pathology among wild carnivores in central Texas. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2016, 5, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aleman, A.; Guerra, T.; Maikis, T.J.; Milholland, M.T.; Castro-Arellano, I.; Forstner, M.R.J.; Hahn, D. The Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi, the Causal Agent of Chagas Disease, in Texas Rodent Populations. Ecohealth 2017, 14, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Curtis-Robles, R.; Snowden, K.F.; Dominguez, B.; Dinges, L.; Rodgers, S.; Mays, G.; Hamer, S.A. Epidemiology and Molecular Typing of Trypanosoma cruzi in Naturally-Infected Hound Dogs and Associated Triatomine Vectors in Texas, USA. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Curtis-Robles, R.; Zecca, I.B.; Roman-Cruz, V.; Carbajal, E.S.; Auckland, L.D.; Flores, I.; Millard, A.V.; Hamer, S.A. Trypanosoma cruzi (Agent of Chagas Disease) in Sympatric Human and Dog Populations in “Colonias” of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 96, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Meyers, A.C.; Meinders, M.; Hamer, S.A. Widespread Trypanosoma cruzi infection in government working dogs along the Texas-Mexico border: Discordant serology, parasite genotyping and associated vectors. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hodo, C.L.; Wilkerson, G.K.; Birkner, E.C.; Gray, S.B.; Hamer, S.A. Trypanosoma cruzi Transmission Among Captive Nonhuman Primates, Wildlife, and Vectors. EcoHealth 2018, 15, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vandermark, C.; Zieman, E.; Boyles, E.; Nielsen, C.K.; Davis, C.; Jiménez, F.A. Trypanosoma cruzi strain TcIV infects raccoons from Illinois. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2018, 113, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hodo, C.L.; Rodriguez, J.Y.; Curtis-Robles, R.; Zecca, I.B.; Snowden, K.F.; Cummings, K.J.; Hamer, S.A. Repeated cross-sectional study of Trypanosoma cruzi in shelter dogs in Texas, in the context of Dirofilaria immitis and tick-borne pathogen prevalence. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2019, 33, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Herrera, C.; Majeau, A.; Didier, P.; Falkenstein, K.P.; Dumonteil, E. Trypanosoma cruzi diversity in naturally infected nonhuman primates in Louisiana assessed by deep sequencing of the mini-exon gene. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2019, 113, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dumonteil, E.; Elmayan, A.; Majeau, A.; Tu, W.; Duhon, B.; Marx, P.; Wolfson, W.; Balsamo, G.; Herrera, C. Genetic diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi parasites infecting dogs in southern Louisiana sheds light on parasite transmission cycles and serological diagnostic performance. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hodo, C.L.; Bañuelos, R.M.; Edwards, E.E.; Wozniak, E.J.; Hamer, S.A. Pathology and discrete typing unit associations of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in coyotes (Canis latrans) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) of Texas, USA. J. Wildl. Dis. 2020, 56, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Meyers, A.C.; Purnell, J.C.; Ellis, M.M.; Auckland, L.D.; Meinders, M.; Hamer, S.A. Nationwide Exposure of U.S. Working Dogs to the Chagas Disease Parasite, Trypanosoma cruzi. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 102, 1078–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pronovost, H.; Peterson, A.C.; Chavez, B.G.; Blum, M.J.; Dumonteil, E.; Herrera, C.P. Deep sequencing reveals multiclonality and new discrete typing units of Trypanosoma cruzi in rodents from the southern United States. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2020, 53, 622–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zecca, I.B.; Hodo, C.L.; Slack, S.; Auckland, L.; Rodgers, S.; Killets, K.C.; Saunders, A.B.; Hamer, S.A. Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection and associated histologic findings in domestic cats (Felis catus). Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 278, 109014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zecca, I.B.; Hodo, C.L.; Slack, S.; Auckland, L.; Hamer, S.A. Trypanosoma cruzi infections and associated pathology in urban-dwelling Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana). Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2020, 11, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dumonteil, E.; Desale, H.; Tu, W.; Duhon, B.; Wolfson, W.; Balsamo, G.; Herrera, C. Shelter cats host infections with multiple Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in southern Louisiana. Vet. Res. 2021, 52, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rodriguez, F.; Luna, B.S.; Calderon, O.; Manriquez-Roman, C.; Amezcua-Winter, K.; Cedillo, J.; Garcia-Vazquez, R.; Tejeda, I.A.; Romero, A.; Waldrup, K.; et al. Surveillance of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in Triatomine vectors, feral dogs and cats, and wild animals in and around El Paso county, Texas, and New Mexico. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Padilla, A.M.; Yao, P.Y.; Landry, T.J.; Cooley, G.M.; Mahaney, S.M.; Ribeiro, I.; VandeBerg, J.L.; Tarleton, R.L. High variation in immune responses and parasite phenotypes in naturally acquired Trypanosoma cruzi infection in a captive non-human primate breeding colony in Texas, USA. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Torhorst, C.W.; White, Z.S.; Bhosale, C.R.; Beatty, N.L.; Wisely, S.M. Identification of the parasite, Trypanosoma cruzi, in multiple tissues of epidemiological significance in the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana): Implications for environmental and vertical transmission routes. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2022, 16, e0010974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Majeau, A.; Cloherty, E.; Anderson, A.N.; Straif-Bourgeois, S.C.; Dumonteil, E.; Herrera, C. Genetic diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi infecting raccoons (Procyon lotor) in 2 metropolitan areas of southern Louisiana: Implications for parasite transmission networks. Parasitology 2023, 150, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Landsgaard, K.A.; Milliron, S.M.; Faccin, M.; Broughton, C.A.; Auckland, L.D.; Edwards, J.F.; Hamer, S.A.; Hensel, M.E. Protozoal meningoencephalitis and myelitis in 4 dogs associated with Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Vet. Pathol. 2023, 60, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hwang, W.S.; Zhang, G.; Maslov, D.; Weirauch, C. Infection rates of Triatoma protracta (Uhler) with Trypanosoma cruzi in Southern California and molecular identification of trypanosomes. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2010, 83, 1020–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Buhaya, M.H.; Galvan, S.; Maldonado, R.A. Incidence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in triatomines collected at Indio Mountains Research Station. Acta Trop. 2015, 150, 97–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Shender, L.A.; Lewis, M.D.; Rejmanek, D.; Mazet, J.A. Molecular Diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi Detected in the Vector Triatoma protracta from California, USA. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Curtis-Robles, R.; Auckland, L.D.; Snowden, K.F.; Hamer, G.L.; Hamer, S.A. Analysis of over 1500 triatomine vectors from across the US, predominantly Texas, for Trypanosoma cruzi infection and discrete typing units. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2018, 58, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Curtis-Robles, R.; Meyers, A.C.; Auckland, L.D.; Zecca, I.B.; Skiles, R.; Hamer, S.A. Parasitic interactions among Trypanosoma cruzi, triatomine vectors, domestic animals, and wildlife in Big Bend National Park along the Texas-Mexico border. Acta Trop. 2018, 188, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Dumonteil, E.; Pronovost, H.; Bierman, E.F.; Sanford, A.; Majeau, A.; Moore, R.; Herrera, C. Interactions among Triatoma sanguisuga blood feeding sources, gut microbiota and Trypanosoma cruzi diversity in southern Louisiana. Mol Ecol. 2020, 29, 3747–3761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Flores-López, C.A.; Mitchell, E.A.; Reisenman, C.E.; Sarkar, S.; Williamson, P.C.; Machado, C.A. Phylogenetic diversity of two common Trypanosoma cruzi lineages in the Southwestern United States. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2022, 99, 105251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Barnabé, C.; De Meeûs, T.; Noireau, F.; Bosseno, M.F.; Monje, E.M.; Renaud, F.; Brenière, S.F. Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units (DTUs): Microsatellite loci and population genetics of DTUs TcV and TcI in Bolivia and Peru. Infect. Genet. Evol 2011, 11, 1752–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Majeau, A.; Pronovost, H.; Sanford, A.; Cloherty, E.; Anderson, A.N.; Balsamo, G.; Gee, L.; Straif-Bourgeois, S.C.; Herrera, C. Raccoons As an Important Reservoir for Trypanosoma cruzi: A Prevalence Study from Two Metropolitan Areas in Louisiana. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2020, 20, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Klotz, S.A.; Dorn, P.L.; Mosbacher, M.; Schmidt, J.O. Kissing bugs in the United States: Risk for vector-borne disease in humans. Environ. Health Insights 2014, 8 (Suppl. S2), 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Monje-Rumi, M.M.; Floridia-Yapur, N.; Zago, M.P.; Ragone, P.G.; Pérez Brandán, C.M.; Nuñez, S.; Barrientos, N.; Tomasini, N.; Diosque, P. Potential association of Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs TcV and TcVI with the digestive form of Chagas disease. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020, 84, 104329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Majeau, A.; Murphy, L.; Herrera, C.; Dumonteil, E. Assessing Trypanosoma cruzi Parasite Diversity through Comparative Genomics: Implications for Disease Epidemiology and Diagnostics. Pathogens 2021, 10, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Prates Nielebock, M.A.; Moreira, O.C.; das Chagas Xavier, S.C.; Miranda, L.F.C.; Bastos de Lima, A.C.; Oliveira de Jesus Sales Pereira, T.; Hasslocher-Moreno, A.M.; Britto, C.; Conde Sangenis, L.H.; Magalhães Saraiva, R. Association between Trypanosoma cruzi DTU TcII and chronic Chagas disease clinical presentation and outcome in an urban cohort in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243008. [Google Scholar]
  85. Magalhães, L.M.D.; Gollob, K.J.; Zingales, B.; Dutra, W.O. Pathogen diversity, immunity, and the fate of infections: Lessons learned from Trypanosoma cruzi human-host interactions. Lancet Microbe 2022, 3, e711–e722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Carlier, Y.; Sosa-Estani, S.; Luquetti, A.O.; Buekens, P. Congenital Chagas disease: An update. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2015, 110, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ayres, J.; Marcus, R.; Standley, C.J. The Importance of Screening for Chagas Disease against the Backdrop of Changing Epidemiology in the USA. Curr. Trop. Med. 2022, 9, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Hotez, P.J. The rise of neglected tropical diseases in the “new Texas”. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0005581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Silvestrini, M.M.A.; Alessio, G.D.; Frias, B.E.D.; Sales Júnior, P.A.; Araújo, M.S.S.; Silvestrini, C.M.A.; Brito Alvim de Melo, G.E.; Martins-Filho, O.A.; Teixeira-Carvalho, A.; Martins, H.R. New insights into Trypanosoma cruzi genetic diversity, and its influence on parasite biology and clinical outcomes. Front. Immunol. 2024, 15, 1342431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Meymandi, S.; Hernandez, S.; Park, S.; Sanchez, D.R.; Forsyth, C. Treatment of Chagas Disease in the United States. Curr. Treat. Options Infect. Dis. 2018, 10, 373–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jiménez, P.; Jaimes, J.; Poveda, C.; Ramírez, J.D. A systematic review of the Trypanosoma cruzi genetic heterogeneity, host immune response and genetic factors as plausible drivers of chronic chagasic cardiomyopathy. Parasitology 2019, 146, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Vela, A.; Coral-Almeida, M.; Sereno, D.; Costales, J.A.; Barnabé, C.; Brenière, S.F. In vitro susceptibility of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units (DTUs) to benznidazole: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Revollo, S.; Oury, B.; Vela, A.; Tibayrenc, M.; Sereno, D. In Vitro Benznidazole and Nifurtimox Susceptibility Profile of Trypanosoma cruzi Strains Belonging to Discrete Typing Units TcI, TcII, and TcV. Pathogens 2019, 8, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Agudelo Higuita, N.I.; Beatty, N.L.; Forsyth, C.; Henao-Martínez, A.F.; Manne-Goehler, J.; US Chagas Research Consortium. Chagas disease in the United States: A call for increased investment and collaborative research. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 2024, 34, 100768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Burgos, J.M.; Diez, M.; Vigliano, C.; Bisio, M.; Risso, M.; Duffy, T.; Cura, C.; Brusses, B.; Favaloro, L.; Leguizamon, M.S.; et al. Molecular identification of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in end-stage chronic Chagas heart disease and reactivation after heart transplantation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Cura, C.I.; Duffy, T.; Lucero, R.H.; Bisio, M.; Péneau, J.; Jimenez-Coello, M.; Calabuig, E.; Gimenez, M.J.; Valencia Ayala, E.; Kjos, S.A.; et al. Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay Using TaqMan Probes for the Identification of Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs in Biological and Clinical Samples. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Velásquez-Ortiz, N.; Herrera, G.; Hernández, C.; Muñoz, M.; Ramírez, J.D. Discrete typing units of Trypanosoma cruzi: Geographical and biological distribution in the Americas. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Ramírez, J.C.; Torres, C.; Curto, M.L.A.; Schijman, A.G. New insights into Trypanosoma cruzi evolution, genotyping and molecular diagnostics from satellite DNA sequence analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0006139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Rusman, F.; Tomasini, N.; Yapur, N.F.; Puebla, A.F.; Ragone, P.G.; Diosque, P. Elucidating diversity in the class composition of the minicircle hypervariable region of Trypanosoma cruzi: New perspectives on typing and kDNA inheritance. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Balouz, V.; Bracco, L.; Ricci, A.D.; Romer, G.; Agüero, F.; Buscaglia, C.A. Serological Approaches for Trypanosoma cruzi Strain Typing. Trends Parasitol. 2021, 37, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Martínez-Perez, A.; Poveda, C.; Ramírez, J.D.; Norman, F.; Gironés, N.; Guhl, F.; Monge-Maillo, B.; Fresno, M.; López-Vélez, R. Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi’s Discrete Typing Units in a cohort of Latin American migrants in Spain. Acta Trop. 2016, 157, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Elias, M.C.; Vargas, N.S.; Zingales, B.; Schenkman, S. Organization of satellite DNA in the genome of Trypanosoma cruzi. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 2003, 129, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Elias, M.C.; Vargas, N.; Tomazi, L.; Pedroso, A.; Zingales, B.; Schenkman, S.; Briones, M.R. Comparative analysis of genomic sequences suggests that Trypanosoma cruzi CL Brener contains two sets of non-intercalated repeats of satellite DNA that correspond to T. cruzi I and T. cruzi II types. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 2005, 140, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Vago, A.R.; Andrade, L.O.; Leite, A.A.; d’Avila Reis, D.; Macedo, A.M.; Adad, S.J.; Tostes, S., Jr.; Moreira, M.C.; Filho, G.B.; Pena, S.D. Genetic characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi directly from tissues of patients with chronic Chagas disease: Differential distribution of genetic types into diverse organs. Am. J. Pathol. 2000, 156, 1805–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Macedo, A.M.; Pena, S.D. Genetic Variability of Trypanosoma cruzi: Implications for the Pathogenesis of Chagas Disease. Parasitol. Today 1998, 14, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Rojo, G.; Pèlissier, F.; Sandoval-Rodriguez, A.; Bacigalupo, A.; García, V.; Pinto, R.; Ortiz, S.; Botto-Mahan, C.; Cattan, P.E.; Solari, A. Organs infected with Trypanosoma cruzi and DTU identification in the naturally infected rodent Octodon degus. Exp. Parasitol. 2020, 215, 107931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Flores-Villegas, A.L.; Jiménez-Cortés, J.G.; González, J.; Moreno-Rodríguez, A.; Pérez-Cabeza de Vaca, R.; Segal-Kischinevzky, C.; Bucio-Torres, M.I.; De Fuentes-Vicente, J.A.; Nava-Lazaro, E.; Salazar-Schettino, P.M.; et al. Parasitemia and Differential Tissue Tropism in Mice Infected with Trypanosoma cruzi Isolates Obtained from Meccus phyllosoma in the State of Oaxaca, Mexico. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. D’Avila, D.A.; Macedo, A.M.; Valadares, H.M.; Gontijo, E.D.; de Castro, A.M.; Machado, C.R.; Chiari, E.; Galvão, L.M. Probing population dynamics of Trypanosoma cruzi during progression of the chronic phase in chagasic patients. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 1718–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 14 00901 g001
Figure 1. States of US with T. cruzi DTUs genotyped in mammalian hosts (blue), triatomine vectors (yellow) or both (green). In the case of the state of Missouri (MO), Curtis-Robles et al. [75] reported a triatomine (Triatoma sanguisuga) resulted positive by PCR for T. cruzi DNA, but it was not possible to type the DTU. The outline map was taken from https://simplemaps.com/resources/svg-maps, accessed on 20 June 2024. AL, Alabama; AK, Alaska; AZ, Arizona; AR, Arkansas; CA, California; CO, Colorado; CT, Connecticut; DE, Delaware; FL, Florida; GA, Georgia; HI, Hawaii; ID, Idaho; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; IA, Iowa; KS, Kansas; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; ME, Maine; MD, Maryland; MA, Massachusetts; MI, Michigan; MN, Minnesota; MS, Mississippi; MO, Missouri; MT, Montana; NE, Nebraska; NV, Nevada; NH, New Hampshire; NJ, New Jersey; NM, New Mexico; NY, New York; NC, North Carolina; ND, North Dakota; OH, Ohio; OK, Oklahoma; OR, Oregon; PA, Pennsylvania; RI, Rhode Island; SC, South Carolina; SD, South Dakota; TN, Tennessee; TX, Texas; UT, Utah; VT, Vermont; VA, Virginia; WA, Washington; WI, Wisconsin; WY, Wyoming.
Figure 1. States of US with T. cruzi DTUs genotyped in mammalian hosts (blue), triatomine vectors (yellow) or both (green). In the case of the state of Missouri (MO), Curtis-Robles et al. [75] reported a triatomine (Triatoma sanguisuga) resulted positive by PCR for T. cruzi DNA, but it was not possible to type the DTU. The outline map was taken from https://simplemaps.com/resources/svg-maps, accessed on 20 June 2024. AL, Alabama; AK, Alaska; AZ, Arizona; AR, Arkansas; CA, California; CO, Colorado; CT, Connecticut; DE, Delaware; FL, Florida; GA, Georgia; HI, Hawaii; ID, Idaho; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; IA, Iowa; KS, Kansas; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; ME, Maine; MD, Maryland; MA, Massachusetts; MI, Michigan; MN, Minnesota; MS, Mississippi; MO, Missouri; MT, Montana; NE, Nebraska; NV, Nevada; NH, New Hampshire; NJ, New Jersey; NM, New Mexico; NY, New York; NC, North Carolina; ND, North Dakota; OH, Ohio; OK, Oklahoma; OR, Oregon; PA, Pennsylvania; RI, Rhode Island; SC, South Carolina; SD, South Dakota; TN, Tennessee; TX, Texas; UT, Utah; VT, Vermont; VA, Virginia; WA, Washington; WI, Wisconsin; WY, Wyoming.
Life 14 00901 g001
Life 14 00901 g002
Figure 2. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs identification according to the states of the US. (a) Number of cases positive for T. cruzi in mammalian hosts (including humans) and triatomine vectors (n hosts = 815; n vectors = 1349; global n = 2164). States with up to 10 T. cruzi positive cases are shown with an adapted scale in the box at the top of the figure. (b) Percentage of samples typed according to the states of the US. The number of types per state is bracketed. Other mixed infections include TcI + TcII, TcI + TcVI, TcI + TcII + TcVI, TcI + TcII/V, TcI + TcII/V/VI, TcI + TcIV + TcII/V, TcI + TcII + TcV + TcVI, TcI + TcII + TcIV + TcV + TcVI, TcII + TcIV and TcII + TcVI; Unclear DTU, it was not possible to genotype at the level of a single DTU. AL, Alabama; AZ, Arizona; CA, California; FL, Florida; GA, Georgia; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; KS, Kansas; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; MD, Maryland; MO, Missouri; NM, New Mexico; OK, Oklahoma; SC, South Carolina; TN, Tennessee; TX, Texas; VA, Virginia; n.d., state of origin not determined.
Figure 2. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs identification according to the states of the US. (a) Number of cases positive for T. cruzi in mammalian hosts (including humans) and triatomine vectors (n hosts = 815; n vectors = 1349; global n = 2164). States with up to 10 T. cruzi positive cases are shown with an adapted scale in the box at the top of the figure. (b) Percentage of samples typed according to the states of the US. The number of types per state is bracketed. Other mixed infections include TcI + TcII, TcI + TcVI, TcI + TcII + TcVI, TcI + TcII/V, TcI + TcII/V/VI, TcI + TcIV + TcII/V, TcI + TcII + TcV + TcVI, TcI + TcII + TcIV + TcV + TcVI, TcII + TcIV and TcII + TcVI; Unclear DTU, it was not possible to genotype at the level of a single DTU. AL, Alabama; AZ, Arizona; CA, California; FL, Florida; GA, Georgia; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; KS, Kansas; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; MD, Maryland; MO, Missouri; NM, New Mexico; OK, Oklahoma; SC, South Carolina; TN, Tennessee; TX, Texas; VA, Virginia; n.d., state of origin not determined.
Life 14 00901 g002
Life 14 00901 g003
Figure 3. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs identification in mammalian hosts. (a) Number of cases positive for T. cruzi according to the mammal host order (n = 815). (b) Percentage of samples typed according to the mammal host order. The number of types per order are bracketed. The distribution of species within each order is as follows: Chiroptera: evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) (1); Cingulata: nine-band armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) (3); Didelphimorphia: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) (92); Rodentia: southern plains woodrat (Neotoma micropus) (36), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) (3), rock squirrel (Otospermophilus variegatus) (1), house mouse/cotton mouse (Mus musculus and Peromyscus gossypinus) (34), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana) (12), northern pygmy mouse (Bayomis taylori) (1), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) (3), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus) (1), Mexican spiny pocket mouse (Liomys irroratus) (1), house mouse (Mus musculus) (2), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) (3), cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus) (1); spotted ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus spilosoma) (1), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) (1); Primate non-human: ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) (3), rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) (42), pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) (2), cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis) (59), and baboon (Papio spp.) (2); Carnivora: domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) (206), raccoon (Procyon lotor) (189), domestic cat (Felis catus) (80), coyote (Canis latrans) (11), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (7), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) (1).
Figure 3. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs identification in mammalian hosts. (a) Number of cases positive for T. cruzi according to the mammal host order (n = 815). (b) Percentage of samples typed according to the mammal host order. The number of types per order are bracketed. The distribution of species within each order is as follows: Chiroptera: evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) (1); Cingulata: nine-band armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) (3); Didelphimorphia: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) (92); Rodentia: southern plains woodrat (Neotoma micropus) (36), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) (3), rock squirrel (Otospermophilus variegatus) (1), house mouse/cotton mouse (Mus musculus and Peromyscus gossypinus) (34), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana) (12), northern pygmy mouse (Bayomis taylori) (1), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) (3), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus) (1), Mexican spiny pocket mouse (Liomys irroratus) (1), house mouse (Mus musculus) (2), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) (3), cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus) (1); spotted ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus spilosoma) (1), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) (1); Primate non-human: ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) (3), rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) (42), pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) (2), cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis) (59), and baboon (Papio spp.) (2); Carnivora: domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) (206), raccoon (Procyon lotor) (189), domestic cat (Felis catus) (80), coyote (Canis latrans) (11), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (7), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) (1).
Life 14 00901 g003
Life 14 00901 g004
Figure 4. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs identification in triatomine vectors. (a) Number of cases positive for T. cruzi according to the triatomine species (n = 1349). (b) Percentage of samples typed according to the triatomine species. The number of types per species are bracketed.
Figure 4. Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs identification in triatomine vectors. (a) Number of cases positive for T. cruzi according to the triatomine species (n = 1349). (b) Percentage of samples typed according to the triatomine species. The number of types per species are bracketed.
Life 14 00901 g004
Table 1. Nomenclature for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific genetic diversity.
Table 1. Nomenclature for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific genetic diversity.
Satellite Meeting [39]Brisse et al. [40,41]Zingales et al. [42]
TcITcITcI
TcIITcIIaTcIV
TcIIbTcII
TcIIcTcIII
TcIIdTcV
TcIIeTcVI
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Llovera, A.; Abras, A.; Fernández-Arévalo, A.; Ballart, C.; Heras, S.; Muñoz, C.; Gállego, M. Genetic Diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi in the United States of America: The Least Endemic Country for Chagas Disease. Life 2024, 14, 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14070901

AMA Style

Llovera A, Abras A, Fernández-Arévalo A, Ballart C, Heras S, Muñoz C, Gállego M. Genetic Diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi in the United States of America: The Least Endemic Country for Chagas Disease. Life. 2024; 14(7):901. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14070901

Chicago/Turabian Style

Llovera, Arnau, Alba Abras, Anna Fernández-Arévalo, Cristina Ballart, Sandra Heras, Carmen Muñoz, and Montserrat Gállego. 2024. "Genetic Diversity of Trypanosoma cruzi in the United States of America: The Least Endemic Country for Chagas Disease" Life 14, no. 7: 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14070901

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop