| Literature DB >> 11897062 |
Pierre Houpikian1, Didier Raoult.
Abstract
Identification of emerging bacterial pathogens generally results from a chain of events involving microscopy, serology, molecular tools, and culture. Because of the spectacular molecular techniques developed in the last decades, some authors think that these techniques will shortly supplant culture. The key steps that led to the discovery of emerging bacteria have been reviewed to determine the real contribution of each technique. Historically, microscopy has played a major role. Serology provided indirect evidence for causality. Isolation and culture were crucial, as all emerging bacteria have been grown on artificial media or cell lines or at least propagated in animals. With the use of broad-range polymerase chain reaction, some bacteria have been identified or detected in new clinical syndromes. Culture has irreplaceable advantages for studying emerging bacterial diseases, as it allows antigenic studies, antibiotic susceptibility testing, experimental models, and genetic studies to be carried out, and remains the ultimate goal of pathogen identification.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2002 PMID: 11897062 PMCID: PMC3369584 DOI: 10.3201/eid0802.010141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Diagram describing the respective places of culture-, polymerase chain reaction-, serology- and histology-based approaches for the diagnosis of acute bacterial infections, according to the natural course of the disease. Isolation and culture are possible as long as live bacteria are present in tissues, i.e., from the colonization to the treatment or to the end of the clinical manifestations (or shortly earlier). Bacterial DNA can be detected during the same period and also as far as dead microorganisms remain in tissues. Specific antibodies appear during the clinical course of the disease and persist generally for months or years. Pathologic changes can be observed soon after the contamination and, in an acute infection, will decline rapidly after elimination of the bacteria.
Key steps that led to identification and demonstration of disease causation for emerging bacteriaa
| Group | Species | Clinical picture | Histologic detection | Serology | Molecular
Detection
(gene | Culture system | Year of culture | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpha1 Proteobacteria | ||||||||
|
| Fever, cytopenia | Smear | Antibodies to | 16S rRNA | Cell line (DH82) | 1991 |
| |
|
| Fever, cytopenia | Smear | Western blot | 16S rRNA | Cell line | 1971 |
| |
| Human granulocytic | Fever, cytopenia | Smear | Antibodies to | 16S rRNA | Cell line (HeLa) | 1996 |
| |
| Rickettsia felis | Fever |
| Cell line (XTC-2) | 2000 |
| |||
|
| Spotted fever | Antibodies to Spotted fever group rickettsiae | Cell line (Vero) | 1989 |
| |||
|
| Febrile rash | Antibodies to Spotted fever group rickettsiae |
| Embryonated egg, guinea pig | 1991 |
| ||
|
| Fever, eschar, lymphadenitis | Specific antibodies |
| Cell line | 1968 |
| ||
| Alpha2 Proteobacteriae | ||||||||
|
| Wrist abscess | Axenic (specific) | 1981 |
| ||||
|
| Osteitis | Axenic (specific) | 1988 |
| ||||
|
| Endocarditis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1993 |
| ||||
|
| Neuro-retinitis | Antibodies to
| 16S rRNA | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1995 |
| ||
|
| Fever, cat scratch disease, bacillary angiomatosis | Tissue section | Specific antibodies | 16S rRNA | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1990 |
| |
| Beta Proteobacteriae | ||||||||
|
| Chronic otitis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1996 |
| ||||
|
| Infected wound | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1993 |
| ||||
| Spirochetae | ||||||||
| Erythema chronicum migrans, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans, Lyme arthritis, neuro-borreliosis | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific) | 1981 |
| ||||
|
| Relapsing fever | Smear | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific), animal model | 1999 |
| ||
|
| Relapsing fever | Smear | Axenic (specific) | 1994 |
| |||
| Delta-Xi Proteobacteriae | ||||||||
|
| Febrile diarrhea | Specific antibodies | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1977 |
| |||
|
| Rectitis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1984 |
| ||||
|
| Chronic gastritis | Tissue section | Mouse | 1989 |
| |||
|
| Gastritis, gastroduodenal ulcer | Tissue section | Specific antibodies | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1982 |
| ||
| Gamma Proteobacteriae | ||||||||
| Bloody diarrhea, HUS |
| Axenic (nonspecific) | 1982-1996 |
| ||||
| Brazilian purpuric fever | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1986 |
| |||||
|
| Pneumonia, Pontiac fever | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific) | 1989 |
| |||
|
| Pneumonia | Smear | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific) | 1983 |
| ||
|
| Pneumonia | Smear | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific) | 1978 |
| ||
|
| Pneumonia, Pontiac fever | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific) | 1986 |
| |||
|
| Pneumonia | Specific antibodies | Embryonated egg, guinea pig | 1979 |
| |||
|
| Pneumonia | Smear | Specific antibodies | Axenic (specific) | 1987 |
| ||
|
| Pneumonia | Tissue section | Specific antibodies | Embryonated egg, Guinea pig | 1947 |
| ||
| Pneumonia | Specific antibodies | Amoeba | 1991 |
| ||||
|
| Conjunctivitis, wound infection | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1977 |
| ||||
| Diarrhea | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1992 |
| |||||
|
| Diarrhea | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1980 |
| ||||
|
| Diarrhea | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1983 |
| ||||
|
| Cholecystitis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1981 |
| ||||
|
| Diarrhea, otitis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1981 |
| ||||
| Mycobacteria | ||||||||
|
| Pneumopathy | Axenic (specific) | 1983 |
| ||||
|
| Pneumopathy | Axenic (specific) | 1992 |
| ||||
|
| Disseminated infection, lymphadenitis | Tissue section | Axenic (specific) | 1992 |
| |||
|
| Pneumopathy, lymphadenitis | Axenic (specific) | 1977 |
| ||||
|
| Pneumopathy, osteitis, kidney infection | Axenic (specific) | 1984 |
| ||||
| Mycoplasmas | ||||||||
|
| Pneumopathy, nephritis | Tissue section | Insertion sequence-like | Axenic (specific) | 1993 |
| ||
|
| Urethritis | Smear | Adhesion protein | Axenic (specific), Animal model | 1981 |
| ||
| Gram-positive bacteria | ||||||||
|
| Whipple disease | Tissue section | Specific antibodies | 16S rRNA | Cell line (HEL) | 2000 |
| |
|
| Acute otitis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1995 |
| ||||
|
| Skin abscess, osteoarthritis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1988 |
| ||||
|
| Meningitis, endocarditis, cellulitis | Axenic (nonspecific) | 1995 |
| ||||
aHistologic detection can be performed with morphologic techniques, in blood or tissue smears, or in tissue sections. Serologic assays can detect specific antibodies to the suspected agent or to a related organism in tissues or in biological fluids. The year of the first isolation and the culture system used are indicated. HUS = hemolytic uremic syndrome. HLE=human embryonic lung fibroblasts; ref = reference.
Figure 2Demonstration of Bartonella henselae in cardiac valve of a patient with blood culture-negative endocarditis. The bacilli appear as black granulations (Warthin Starry, original magnification X250).
Figure 3Demonstration of Tropheryma whipplei by immuno-histochemistry in the lamina propria of the villous tips. Bacilli are revealed in foamy macrophage cytoplasm as red-brown deposits (polyclonal rabbit.
Figure 4Canine monocytes (DH82) cultivated in vitro and heavily infected with Ehrlichia chaffeensis, as viewed by light microscopy after Giemsa staining. Typical ehrlichial inclusions (morulae) are observed within the cytoplasm of the infected cells (Giemsa, original magnification X600).
Key issues for isolating main emerging bacteria
| Medium | Conditions for incubation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Axenic specific medium | Living system (embryonated egg, cell line) | Low temperature (<37°C) | O2 and CO2 conditions | Extended incubation | ||
| Alpha1 Proteo- bacteriae | ELB agent
(“ | ||||||
| Alpha2 Proteo- bacteriae | |||||||
| Spirochetae |
| ||||||
| Delta-Xi Proteo- bacteriae |
| ||||||
| Gamma Proteo- bacteriae |
| ||||||
| Mycobacteria |
| ||||||
| Mycoplasmas |
| ||||||
| Gram-positive bacteria |
|
| |||||