| Literature DB >> 22608161 |
Florence Fenollar1, Alpha K Keita, Sylvain Buffet, Didier Raoult.
Abstract
Tropheryma whipplei, which causes Whipple disease, has been detected in 4% of fecal samples from the general adult population of France. To identify T. whipplei within families, we conducted serologic and molecular studies, including genotyping, on saliva, feces, and serum from 74 relatives of 13 patients with classic Whipple disease, 5 with localized chronic T. whipplei infection, and 3 carriers. Seroprevalence was determined by Western blot and compared with 300 persons from the general population. We detected T. whipplei in 24 (38%) of 64 fecal samples and 7 (10%) of 70 saliva samples from relatives but found no difference between persons related by genetics and marriage. The same circulating genotype occurred significantly more often in families than in other persons. Seroprevalence was higher among relatives (23 [77%] of 30) than in the general population (143 [48%] of 300). The high prevalence of T. whipplei within families suggests intrafamilial circulation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22608161 PMCID: PMC3358147 DOI: 10.3201/eid1806.111038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Results of Tropheryma whipplei PCR on 74 relatives from 21 families of patients with classic Whipple disease, localized T. whipplei chronic infection, or asymptomatic carriers, France, 2003–2011
|
| No. relatives (no. families) | No. female relatives | Age, all patients (mean ± SD) | No. samples PCR positive/no. tested (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feces | Saliva | Feces or saliva | ||||
| Overall | 74 (21) | 40 | 2 mo–79 y (38 y ± 22 y) | 24/64 (38) | 7/70 (10) | 25/74 (34) |
| Classic Whipple disease | 50 (13) | 29 | 2 mo–79 y (38.8 y ± 22 y) | 14/45 (31) | 4/48 (8) | 14/50 (28) |
| Localized infection | 14 (5) | 5 | 7–75 y (40.7 y ± 24.9 y) | 2/9 (22) | 1/12 (8) | 3/14 (21) |
| Carrier | 10 (3) | 6 | 8–65 y (29.6 y ± 21.1 y) | 8/10 (80) | 2/10 (20) | 8/10 (80) |
Tropheryma whipplei genotyping for patients and their family members, France, 2003–2011*
| Study participant | PCR result | HVGS1 | HVGS2 | HVGS3 | HVGS4 | Genotype | Lived in household of index patient |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 family | |||||||
| Patient 1 | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | Index patient |
| Father | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | No |
| Mother | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | No |
| Patient 10 family | |||||||
| Patient 10 | + | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 19 | Index patient |
| Husband | + | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 19 | Yes |
| Son | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Yes |
| Daughter | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Yes |
| Patient 11 family | |||||||
| Patient 11 | + | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Index patient |
| Husband | + | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Yes |
| Patient 7 family | |||||||
| Patient 7 | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | Index patient |
| Son | + | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | No |
| Daughter | + | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | No |
| Wife | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Yes |
| Carrier 3 family | |||||||
| Carrier 3 | + | 1 | 1 | 25 | 3 | 82 | Index patient |
| Sister | + | 1 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 83 | No |
| Mother | + | 1 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 83 | No |
| Niece 1 | + | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | No |
| Niece 2 | + | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | No |
| Father | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | No |
| Nephew 3 | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | No |
*HVGS, highly variable genomic sequences; +, positive; –, negative; NA, not available.
FigureSeroprevalence of Tropheryma whipplei on the basis of Western blot serologic analysis of A) 200 serum samples from blood donor controls and B) 100 serum samples from patients hospitalized in University Hospitals, by age group, Marseille, France, 2003–2011.
Results of Tropheryma whipplei Western blot serologic analysis for 30 relatives of 2 T. whipplei carriers, 8 patients with classic Whipple disease, and 3 patients with localized infections and their T. whipplei PCR results, France, 2003–2011*
| Infection status | Age, y/sex | Immune response | Relative, | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative 1 |
| Relative 2 |
| Relative 3 |
| Relative 4 |
| Relative 5 | ||||||||
| Relationship/age, y | Feces/saliva/ immune response | Relationship/age, y | Feces/saliva/immune response | Relationship/age, y | Feces/saliva/immune response | Relationship/age, y | Feces/saliva/immune response | Relationship/age, y | Feces/saliva/immune response | |||||||
| Carrier | ||||||||||||||||
| Carrier 1 | 47/M | Strong | Wife/41 | +/–/strong | Son 1/12 | +/+/strong | Son 2/12 | +/–/strong | ||||||||
| Carrier 2 | 35/M | Strong | Wife/29 | +/–/strong | - | |||||||||||
| Classic Whipple disease | ||||||||||||||||
| Patient 1 | 40/F | Deficient | Father/71 | +/+/strong | Mother/70 | +/–/strong | ||||||||||
| Patient 2 | 58/M | Deficient | Wife/60 | –/–/strong | Daughter/32 | +/+/strong | ||||||||||
| Patient 3 | 48/M | Deficient | Wife/51 | +/–/strong | Son/22 | +/–/strong | ||||||||||
| Patient 4 | 35/M | Deficient | Father/NA | –/–/deficient | Mother/NA | –/–/deficient | ||||||||||
| Patient 5 | 26/F | Deficient | Father/57 | –/–/strong | Mother/55 | +/–/strong | ||||||||||
| Patient 6 | 62/M | Deficient | Wife/62 | –/–/strong | ||||||||||||
| Patient 7 | 43/M | Deficient | Wife/45 | –/–/deficient | Son/20 | +/+/deficient | Daughter/18 | +/–/deficient | ||||||||
| Patient 8 | 75/M | Deficient | Wife/71 | NA/–/strong | - | |||||||||||
| Patient 9 | 39/F | Deficient | Husband/42 | +/–/strong | Brother/50 | +/+/strong | Mother/76 | –/–/deficient | Father/77 | +/–/deficient | Sister/52 | +/–/strong | ||||
| Localized infection | ||||||||||||||||
| Patient 10 | 36/M | Deficient | Wife/43 | NA/–/strong | Son/12 | NA/+/strong | ||||||||||
| Patient 11 | 71/F | Deficient | Husband/73 | +/–/strong | ||||||||||||
| Patient 12 | 55/F | Strong | Husband/53 | –/–/strong | Mother/75 | –/–/strong | Half aunt/56 | –/NA/strong | ||||||||
*+, positive; –, negative; NA, not available. Blank cells indicate no additional relatives.
Arguments for and against the intrafamilial transmission of Tropheryma whipplei, France, 2003–2011
| Argument in favor | Argument against |
|---|---|
| Epidemiologic | |
|
| Presence of few different bacterial genotypes in some families |
| Significant detection of the same bacterial genotypes in most families | |
| Most persons did not live in the same household and had contact only during family gatherings in different places | |
| Microbiologic | |
| Positive serologic results in relatives (77%) significantly higher than in the general population of France (48%) |