Eighteenth century Yersinia pestis genomes reveal the long-term persistence of an historical plague focus

  1. Kirsten I Bos
  2. Alexander Herbig
  3. Jason Sahl
  4. Nicholas Waglechner
  5. Mathieu Fourment
  6. Stephen A Forrest
  7. Jennifer Klunk
  8. Verena J Schuenemann
  9. Debi Poinar
  10. Melanie Kuch
  11. G Brian Golding
  12. Olivier Dutour
  13. Paul Keim
  14. David M Wagner
  15. Edward C Holmes
  16. Johannes Krause  Is a corresponding author
  17. Hendrik N Poinar
  1. University of Tübingen, Germany
  2. Northern Arizona University, United States
  3. McMaster University, Canada
  4. The University of Sydney, Australia
  5. Université Bordeaux, France

Abstract

The 14th-18th century pandemic of Yersinia pestis caused devastating disease outbreaks in Europe for almost 400 years. The reasons for plague's persistence and abrupt disappearance in Europe are poorly understood, but could have been due to either the presence of now-extinct plague foci in Europe itself, or successive disease introductions from other locations. Here we present five Y. pestis genomes from one of the last European outbreaks of plague, from 1722 in Marseille, France. The lineage identified has not been found in any extant Y. pestis foci sampled to date, and has its ancestry in strains obtained from victims of the 14th century Black Death. These data suggest the existence of a previously uncharacterized historical plague focus that persisted for at least three centuries. We propose that this disease source may have been responsible for the many resurgences of plague in Europe following the Black Death.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kirsten I Bos

    Department of Archeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexander Herbig

    Department of Archeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jason Sahl

    Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nicholas Waglechner

    Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mathieu Fourment

    Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Stephen A Forrest

    Department of Archeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jennifer Klunk

    McMaster Ancient DNA Centre, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Verena J Schuenemann

    Department of Archeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Debi Poinar

    McMaster Ancient DNA Centre, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Melanie Kuch

    McMaster Ancient DNA Centre, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. G Brian Golding

    Department of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Olivier Dutour

    Laboratoire d'anthropologie biologique Paul Broca, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PACEA, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Paul Keim

    Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David M Wagner

    Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Edward C Holmes

    Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Johannes Krause

    Department of Archeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    For correspondence
    johannes.krause@uni-tuebingen.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Hendrik N Poinar

    Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard A Neher, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: November 12, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 19, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 21, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 11, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Bos et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 8,128
    views
  • 1,574
    downloads
  • 131
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Kirsten I Bos
  2. Alexander Herbig
  3. Jason Sahl
  4. Nicholas Waglechner
  5. Mathieu Fourment
  6. Stephen A Forrest
  7. Jennifer Klunk
  8. Verena J Schuenemann
  9. Debi Poinar
  10. Melanie Kuch
  11. G Brian Golding
  12. Olivier Dutour
  13. Paul Keim
  14. David M Wagner
  15. Edward C Holmes
  16. Johannes Krause
  17. Hendrik N Poinar
(2016)
Eighteenth century Yersinia pestis genomes reveal the long-term persistence of an historical plague focus
eLife 5:e12994.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12994

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12994

Further reading

  1. DNA from 18th century teeth reveals plague secrets.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Javier I Ottaviani, Virag Sagi-Kiss ... Gunter GC Kuhnle
    Research Article

    The chemical composition of foods is complex, variable, and dependent on many factors. This has a major impact on nutrition research as it foundationally affects our ability to adequately assess the actual intake of nutrients and other compounds. In spite of this, accurate data on nutrient intake are key for investigating the associations and causal relationships between intake, health, and disease risk at the service of developing evidence-based dietary guidance that enables improvements in population health. Here, we exemplify the importance of this challenge by investigating the impact of food content variability on nutrition research using three bioactives as model: flavan-3-ols, (–)-epicatechin, and nitrate. Our results show that common approaches aimed at addressing the high compositional variability of even the same foods impede the accurate assessment of nutrient intake generally. This suggests that the results of many nutrition studies using food composition data are potentially unreliable and carry greater limitations than commonly appreciated, consequently resulting in dietary recommendations with significant limitations and unreliable impact on public health. Thus, current challenges related to nutrient intake assessments need to be addressed and mitigated by the development of improved dietary assessment methods involving the use of nutritional biomarkers.