Barbara Robinson-Dunn1. 1. Section of Microbiology, Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, USA. Brobinson-Dunn@smtpgw.beaumont.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Bioterrorism has existed since before the 14th century; however, the specter of such an attack is much greater today than ever before. Technical expertise in microbiology and molecular testing, combined with the rapidity of worldwide air travel, has ensured that no geographic area would be untouched in a widespread attack. Clinical microbiology laboratories will play a pivotal role in the detection of attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. OBJECTIVE: To identify and discuss the microorganisms most likely to be used as agents of bioterrorism. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from literature searches from 1997 through June 2001 using the subject headings of bioterrorism, biological weapons, biological warfare, anthrax, brucellosis, tularemia, smallpox, plague, and botulism. In addition, information was obtained from publications of the Center for Civilian Studies, Johns Hopkins University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Microbiology, and the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Findings obtained from these studies and publications were analyzed for the most likely microorganisms that would be involved in a bioterrorist attack and the most efficient means by which they could be identified. In all instances, the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for Level A laboratories were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The most likely microorganisms to be utilized as biological weapons include Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Brucella species (brucellosis), Clostridium botulinum (botulism), Francisella tularensis (tularemia), Yersinia pestis (plague), and variola major (smallpox). While knowledge of the potential of these microorganisms is critical, clinical microbiologists and medical technologists possess the basic tools to rule out the suspected pathogens or to refer these isolates to public health laboratories for identification and susceptibility testing.
CONTEXT: Bioterrorism has existed since before the 14th century; however, the specter of such an attack is much greater today than ever before. Technical expertise in microbiology and molecular testing, combined with the rapidity of worldwide air travel, has ensured that no geographic area would be untouched in a widespread attack. Clinical microbiology laboratories will play a pivotal role in the detection of attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. OBJECTIVE: To identify and discuss the microorganisms most likely to be used as agents of bioterrorism. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from literature searches from 1997 through June 2001 using the subject headings of bioterrorism, biological weapons, biological warfare, anthrax, brucellosis, tularemia, smallpox, plague, and botulism. In addition, information was obtained from publications of the Center for Civilian Studies, Johns Hopkins University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Microbiology, and the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Findings obtained from these studies and publications were analyzed for the most likely microorganisms that would be involved in a bioterrorist attack and the most efficient means by which they could be identified. In all instances, the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for Level A laboratories were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The most likely microorganisms to be utilized as biological weapons include Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Brucella species (brucellosis), Clostridium botulinum (botulism), Francisella tularensis (tularemia), Yersinia pestis (plague), and variola major (smallpox). While knowledge of the potential of these microorganisms is critical, clinical microbiologists and medical technologists possess the basic tools to rule out the suspected pathogens or to refer these isolates to public health laboratories for identification and susceptibility testing.
Authors: David A Margolis; Joseph Burns; Sharon L Reed; Michele M Ginsberg; Terrence C O'Grady; Joseph M Vinetz Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: David R Lonsway; Sandra K Urich; Henry S Heine; Sigrid K McAllister; Shailen N Banerjee; Martin E Schriefer; Jean B Patel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: David R Lonsway; Laura A Jevitt; James R Uhl; Franklin R Cockerill; Mary E Anderson; Maureen M Sullivan; Barun K De; Jonathan R Edwards; Jean B Patel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Qing-Ming Qin; Jianwu Pei; Veronica Ancona; Brian D Shaw; Thomas A Ficht; Paul de Figueiredo Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2008-07-25 Impact factor: 6.823