RESUMO
The dataset profiled in this research is built on sequencing of lactic acid bacteria 16S rDNA mined from Nono (N4 and N5), Kunu (K4 and K1) and Garri. The 16S rDNA sequences files are accessible under the data identification numbers: OK017047, OK017046, OK017044, OK017043, OK017045 at the GenBank database, NCBI. Taxonomic identification and phylogenetic tree analysis were done using the online BLAST (blastn) and MEGA11 software, respectively. The effect of the bacteriocin produced by these organisms on spoilage bacteria associated with salad was evaluated using an agar well diffusion assay. Limosilactobacillus pontis strain EOINONO, Limosilactobacillus pontis strain OGENONO, Limosilactobacillus pontis strain SEOGARI, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strain MJIKUNU and Limosilactobacillus pontis strain EEIKUNU were the identified bacteriocinogenic organisms while Bacillus tequilensis strain SEOABACHA, Bacillus tequilensis strain EEIABACHA, Achromobacter xylosoxidans strain IMABACHA and Achromobacter insolitus strain MJIABACHA were the identified spoilage organisms.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With reports of surges in COVID-19 case numbers across over 50 countries, country-level epidemiological analysis is required to inform context-appropriate response strategies for containment and mitigation of the outbreak. We aimed to compare the epidemiological features of the first and second waves of COVID-19 in Nigeria. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance Outbreak Response Management and Analysis System data of the first and second epidemiological waves, which were between 27 February and 24 October 2020, and 25 October 2020 to 3 April 2021, respectively. Descriptive statistical measures including frequencies and percentages, test positivity rate (TPR), cumulative incidence (CI) and case fatality rates (CFRs) were compared. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were carried out in STATA V.13. RESULTS: There were 802 143 tests recorded during the study period (362 550 and 439 593 in the first and second waves, respectively). Of these, 66 121 (18.2%) and 91 644 (20.8%) tested positive in the first and second waves, respectively. There was a 21.3% increase in the number of tests conducted in the second wave with TPR increasing by 14.3%. CI during the first and second waves were 30.3/100 000 and 42.0/100 000 respectively. During the second wave, confirmed COVID-19 cases increased among females and people 30 years old or younger and decreased among urban residents and individuals with travel history within 14 days of sample collection (p value <0.001). Most confirmed cases were asymptomatic at diagnosis during both waves: 74.9% in the first wave; 79.7% in the second wave. CFR decreased during the second wave (0.7%) compared with the first wave (1.8%). CONCLUSION: Nigeria experienced a larger but less severe second wave of COVID-19. Continued implementation of public health and social measures is needed to mitigate the resurgence of another wave.