Literature DB >> 27280071

Snapshot fecal survey of domestic animals in rural Ghana for Mycobacterium ulcerans.

Nicholas J Tobias1, Nana Ama Ammisah2, Evans K Ahortor3, John R Wallace4, Anthony Ablordey2, Timothy P Stinear1.   

Abstract

Identifying the source reservoirs of Mycobacterium ulcerans is key to understanding the mode of transmission of this pathogen and controlling the spread of Buruli ulcer (BU). In Australia, the native possum can harbor M. ulcerans in its gastrointestinal tract and shed high concentrations of the bacteria in its feces. To date, an analogous animal reservoir in Africa has not been identified. Here we tested the hypothesis that common domestic animals in BU endemic villages of Ghana are reservoir species analogous to the Australian possum. Using linear-transects at 10-meter intervals, we performed systematic fecal surveys across four BU endemic villages and one non-endemic village in the Asante Akim North District of Ghana. One hundred and eighty fecal specimens from a single survey event were collected and analyzed by qPCR for the M. ulcerans diagnostic DNA targets IS2404 and KR-B. Positive and negative controls performed as expected but all 180 test samples were negative. This structured snapshot survey suggests that common domestic animals living in and around humans do not shed M. ulcerans in their feces. We conclude that, unlike the Australian native possum, domestic animals in rural Ghana are unlikely to be major reservoirs of M. ulcerans.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Buruli ulcer; Environmental sampling; Mycobacterium ulcerans; qPCR

Year:  2016        PMID: 27280071      PMCID: PMC4893338          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


Introduction

Buruli ulcer (BU) is a neglected tropical disease caused by infection of subcutaneous tissue with Mycobacterium ulcerans. Association with swamps and slow-flowing fresh water is a recognized risk factor for contracting BU (Aiga et al., 2004; Pouillot et al., 2007; Raghunathan et al., 2005). Ecological assessments of aquatic environments in Cameroon over 12 months detected the presence of M. ulcerans DNA across diverse aquatic invertebrate taxa (Garchitorena et al., 2014). However, field surveys for the pathogen conducted by many groups in different countries do not equally support lentic environments as major reservoirs of M. ulcerans (Amissah et al., 2014; Eddyani et al., 2008; Eddyani et al., 2004; Gryseels et al., 2012; Lavender et al., 2008; Vandelannoote et al., 2010). In BU endemic areas of south-eastern Australia, M. ulcerans infects native possums, causing ulcerative disease but also asymptomatic infection with colonization of the gastrointestinal tract (Fyfe et al., 2010). In Australian BU endemic areas, >30% of possums can be infected with M. ulcerans and they can shed up to 106 bacteria per gram of fecal material, implicating them as major reservoir species (Carson et al., 2014; Fyfe et al., 2010). Furthermore, the presence of M. ulcerans in possum fecal material can predict the occurrence of human BU cases (Carson et al., 2014). We wondered, given there are no possums in Africa, if other animals are acting as M. ulcerans source, sink or spill-over reservoirs and shedding contaminated faecal material into their surrounding environments, including local waterways. However, surveys of potential wild, small mammal hosts for M. ulcerans have thus far been negative (Durnez et al., 2010; Narh et al., 2015). Here, we addressed the hypothesis that in African BU endemic villages, common domestic animals such as chickens, goats, sheep, pigs and dogs are potential reservoirs of M. ulcerans. We conducted field research in the Asante Akim North (AAN) district, within the Ashanti region of Ghana. Agogo (population 30,000) is the principal town in the AAN district. Five of the communities in the district (Ananekrom, Serebouso, Nshyieso, Bebuso and Dukusen) report the highest burden of BU in Ghana, with 60–75 out of the 120 new laboratory-confirmed cases from Agogo and surrounding districts cases reported annually in these villages (Ablordey et al., 2015).

Materials and Methods

Environmental sampling

One hundred and eighty samples were collected during a single field trip between September 11th and 13th 2013 from four endemic villages (Ananekrom, Afrisere, Dukusen and Nhyieso) and one non-endemic village (Pataban) (Fig. 1). Villages were selected based upon epidemiological data from the Agogo Presbyterian Hospital records. Sampling of sites was performed in a systematic manner, using 10-meter intervals along straight line transects, attempting to traverse the geographic center of any given village (Fig. 1). Chickens (avian), goats and sheep (ovine) are the dominant domestic animal species throughout these villages, so the majority of fecal samples originated from these animals but fecal material was also collected from other sources where available, including dogs and lizards (Table 1). No assumptions were made as to which type of fecal specimen might be M. ulcerans positive, with samples collected based on their presence at each 10-meter sample point along the linear transect. GPS coordinates for all sample sites were logged (Table S1) and mapped using Google Earth (v7.1.2.2041). Presumptive source attribution of fecal material was based on physical stool characteristics and appearance.
Figure 1

Map of the region under investigation across the AAN district within the Ashanti region of Ghana.

Indicated are the Buruli ulcer endemic villages (yellow flags) and non-endemic (green flags) in the AAN district. Shown is an example of the region samples (village of Nhyieso) and three sampling transects in Ananekrom, with sample sites represented by colored flags (red, blue and pink position markers).

Table 1

Summary of IS2404 and KR-B qPCR results separated by fecal sample type.

Sample sourceIS2404 positiveKR positive
Ovine2/860/86
Porcine0/10/1
Avian1/690/69
Reptile1/160/16
Canine0/60/6
Human0/10/1
Unknown0/10/1
Positive control1/11/1
Negative controls0/200/20
Total5/2011/201

Map of the region under investigation across the AAN district within the Ashanti region of Ghana.

Indicated are the Buruli ulcer endemic villages (yellow flags) and non-endemic (green flags) in the AAN district. Shown is an example of the region samples (village of Nhyieso) and three sampling transects in Ananekrom, with sample sites represented by colored flags (red, blue and pink position markers).

DNA extraction from fecal material

DNA was extracted from a maximum of 200 mg of fecal material using the MoBio PowerSoil DNA extraction kit following the manufacturer’s recommendations. To guard against false positive and negative results, several types of controls were employed. Extraction contamination was monitored by including pre-tested negative Pseudocheirus peregrinus (common ringtail possum) fecal material, at a frequency of one control for every 10 samples. A positive extraction control from pre-tested positive P. peregrinus feces was also included. Laboratory analysts were blinded to the identity of all control and test samples.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR)

A 2 µl volume of template DNA was used for Taqman qPCR as previously described, targeting IS2404 and KR-B (Fyfe et al., 2007). A positive sample was defined as positive for both targets with cycle thresholds (Ct) of less than 34 and 36 for IS2404 and KR-B, respectively, corresponding to a detection limit of approximately 500 M. ulcerans genome equivalents, based on reference to a standard curve (data not shown) (Fyfe et al., 2007). Samples with an IS2404 Ct under 34 were tested a second time for confirmation. In agreement with other research groups using strict acceptance criteria, only those samples positive both times and for both targets were considered M. ulcerans positive (Garchitorena et al., 2014). The assay includes an internal positive control to monitor potential assay inhibition (Fyfe et al., 2007).

Results and Discussion

The 180 fecal specimens were collected from a single sampling event across five villages. The sampling was conducted in early September; a time of year associated in the nearby endemic country of Cameroon with increased BU activity or increased likelihood of M. ulcerans environmental detection (Carolan et al., 2014a; Garchitorena et al., 2014; Landier et al., 2015). None of the 180 test samples were M. ulcerans positive according to our criteria (Table 1, Table S1). Four samples were positive for IS2404 only. Two of these samples originated from Pataban (a non-endemic village), while the other two were from Nhyieso (endemic village), with all four samples returning Ct values near the 34-cycle threshold cutoff (Table S1). Only the extraction positive control samples tested positive for both IS2404 and KR-B, below the maximum Ct thresholds (Table 1, Table S1). The strict criteria we employed for a sample to be considered positive ensured that any qPCR positive result was due to the presence of M. ulcerans in a given fecal specimen (see ‘Materials and Methods’). Faecal samples tested were predominantly of ovine and avian origin because they were the most abundant (47% and 38% of all samples respectively), with samples from other species collected where they occurred within a sampling zone. With the exception of the domestic porcine sample, fecal specimens were obtained from animals free to roam during the day in the immediate environs of villages, including access to local water sources. The sample transects were aligned through the center of villages in an effort to standardize our sampling approach between villages. We conclude from this survey that M. ulcerans was not present in the fecal material shed by domestic animals and other peridomestic small animals living in and around the BU endemic villages surveyed in this study. It seems that domestic animals in these villages are unlikely to be reservoirs of M. ulcerans and thus involved in transmission in an analogous manner to that seen in Australian native possums, recalling that the same sampling effort conducted in south east Australia would return 30–40% possum faecal sample positivity rate for M. ulcerans DNA (Carson et al., 2014; Fyfe et al., 2010). A survey for M. ulcerans in human fecal specimens from Ghana also provided negative results (Sarfo et al., 2011). These observations lead us to summarize that the presence of M. ulcerans in the gastrointestinal tract of the native possum of south-east Australia is probably a specific local phenomenon, perhaps representing a particular susceptibility of this animal to mycobacterial infection. In African BU endemic regions, it has not been possible to predict when and where disease outbreaks will occur and this combined with the long incubation time of the pathogen make the search for possible environmental reservoirs challenging. Nevertheless, independent ecological modeling in Benin and Cameroon, shows that specific land cover and topographical features of a watershed can be used to predict the distribution of M. ulcerans (Carolan et al., 2014b; Wagner et al., 2008), and these data could guide source-tracking efforts. In addition, seasonal variations in the occurrence of the pathogen and the disease have been reported (Garchitorena et al., 2014; Landier et al., 2015; Landier et al., 2014). Our study was only performed at a single time point, so longitudinal fecal sampling of domestic and perhaps feral animals such as the greater cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus) and other large rodents in these regions could be performed to examine the possibility of seasonal pathogen occurrence. With respect to rodents, a survey from Ivory Coast reported M. ulcerans DNA in two different stool specimens from T. swinderianus, although the predicted concentration of M. ulcerans in these samples was very low (Tian et al., 2016). Careful environmental sampling surveys shows M. ulcerans DNA present in aquatic environments, but the frequency of positive sample occurrence and the concentration of bacteria in a positive sample are always low. For example, a recently reported environmental survey from Benin conducted over 6 months showed only (28/322 pooled samples from 3,377 aquatic insects were M. ulcerans positive) (Zogo et al., 2015). Similar low-frequency positivity was observed for aquatic plants and PCR-screening of 942 pools of DNA from flying insects (including 4,322 mosquitoes) tested negative for M. ulcerans DNA by PCR (Zogo et al., 2015). A survey of 460 water, soil, plant and faecal specimens in Ivory Coast, also using IS2404 qPCR, arrived at similar conclusions with only 2% of samples positive and with only low concentrations of M. ulcerans (Tian et al., 2016). The few exceptions to this observation serve to reinforce how difficult it is to detect evidence of M. ulcerans in aquatic environments (Bratschi et al., 2014). Therefore the low burden of the pathogen in such samples raises the question that perhaps lentic environments do not harbour the predicted niche reservoir of this pathogen (Stinear et al., 2007). It is the case that—at least in African BU endemic countries—humans infected with M. ulcerans are major reservoirs because of the large bacterial burden present in lesions. Humans may not be primary source reservoirs but BU transmission could nonetheless occur indirectly via bacterial contamination of community water sources during bathing of an infected person. Transmission to a naïve individual might then occur via a penetrating injury across a contaminated skin surface (Meyers et al., 1974) or via a biting aquatic insect transiently contaminated with M. ulcerans. This hypothesis is entirely consistent with low-level M. ulcerans presence in certain aquatic environments and it predicts that interventions designed to reduce the burden of human BU will break transmission chains within a region. Active case finding and prompt antibiotic treatment will decrease M. ulcerans shed from human lesions and thus decrease the bacterial burden shed into surrounding environments, whether those environments be aquatic or terrestrial, animal or plant, and thus reduce disease transmission. Transmission pathways of BU in Africa appear complex and unfortunately remain obscure. The collective efforts of a handful of research teams around the world will need to continue if we are to edge closer to a useful understanding of the means by which this disease is spreading.

Details of all samples collected including cycle threshold scores for qPCR

ND, Not detected Click here for additional data file.
  27 in total

1.  Risk factors for Buruli ulcer disease (Mycobacterium ulcerans Infection): results from a case-control study in Ghana.

Authors:  Pratima L Raghunathan; Ellen A S Whitney; Kwame Asamoa; Ymkje Stienstra; Thomas H Taylor; George K Amofah; David Ofori-Adjei; Karen Dobos; Jeannette Guarner; Stacey Martin; Sonal Pathak; Erasmus Klutse; Samuel Etuaful; Winette T A van der Graaf; Tjip S van der Werf; C H King; Jordan W Tappero; David A Ashford
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2005-04-12       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Human Mycobacterium ulcerans infections developing at sites of trauma to skin.

Authors:  W M Meyers; W M Shelly; D H Connor; E K Meyers
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  1974-09       Impact factor: 2.345

3.  A Landscape-based model for predicting Mycobacterium ulcerans infection (Buruli Ulcer disease) presence in Benin, West Africa.

Authors:  Tyler Wagner; M Eric Benbow; Meghan Burns; R Christian Johnson; Richard W Merritt; Jiaguo Qi; Pamela L C Small
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 3.184

4.  Development and application of two multiplex real-time PCR assays for the detection of Mycobacterium ulcerans in clinical and environmental samples.

Authors:  Janet A M Fyfe; Caroline J Lavender; Paul D R Johnson; Maria Globan; Aina Sievers; Joseph Azuolas; Timothy P Stinear
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Mycobacterium ulcerans DNA not detected in faecal samples from Buruli ulcer patients: results of a pilot study.

Authors:  Fred S Sarfo; Caroline J Lavender; Janet A M Fyfe; Paul D R Johnson; Timothy P Stinear; Richard O Phillips
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Source tracking Mycobacterium ulcerans infections in the Ashanti region, Ghana.

Authors:  Charles A Narh; Lydia Mosi; Charles Quaye; Christelle Dassi; Daniele O Konan; Samuel C K Tay; Dziedzom K de Souza; Daniel A Boakye; Bassirou Bonfoh
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2015-01-22

7.  Whole genome comparisons suggest random distribution of Mycobacterium ulcerans genotypes in a Buruli ulcer endemic region of Ghana.

Authors:  Anthony S Ablordey; Koen Vandelannoote; Isaac A Frimpong; Evans K Ahortor; Nana Ama Amissah; Miriam Eddyani; Lies Durnez; Françoise Portaels; Bouke C de Jong; Herwig Leirs; Jessica L Porter; Kirstie M Mangas; Margaret M C Lam; Andrew Buultjens; Torsten Seemann; Nicholas J Tobias; Timothy P Stinear
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2015-03-31

8.  Ecological niche modelling of Hemipteran insects in Cameroon; the paradox of a vector-borne transmission for Mycobacterium ulcerans, the causative agent of Buruli ulcer.

Authors:  Kevin Carolan; Solange Meyin A Ebong; Andres Garchitorena; Jordi Landier; Daniel Sanhueza; Gaëtan Texier; Laurent Marsollier; Philipe Le Gall; Jean-François Guégan; Danny Lo Seen
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 3.918

9.  Amoebae as potential environmental hosts for Mycobacterium ulcerans and other mycobacteria, but doubtful actors in Buruli ulcer epidemiology.

Authors:  Sophie Gryseels; Diana Amissah; Lies Durnez; Koen Vandelannoote; Herwig Leirs; Johan De Jonckheere; Manuel T Silva; Françoise Portaels; Anthony Ablordey; Miriam Eddyani
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2012-08-07

10.  Potential wildlife sentinels for monitoring the endemic spread of human buruli ulcer in South-East australia.

Authors:  Connor Carson; Caroline J Lavender; Kathrine A Handasyde; Carolyn R O'Brien; Nick Hewitt; Paul D R Johnson; Janet A M Fyfe
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2014-01-30
View more
  7 in total

1.  Community-based geographical distribution of Mycobacterium ulcerans VNTR-genotypes from the environment and humans in the Nyong valley, Cameroon.

Authors:  Francis Zeukeng; Anthony Ablordey; Solange E Kakou-Ngazoa; Stephen Mbigha Ghogomu; David N'golo Coulibaly; Marie Thérèse Ngo Nsoga; Wilfred Fon Mbacham; Jude Daiga Bigoga; Rousseau Djouaka
Journal:  Trop Med Health       Date:  2021-05-21

Review 2.  Buruli Ulcer, a Prototype for Ecosystem-Related Infection, Caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans.

Authors:  Dezemon Zingue; Amar Bouam; Roger B D Tian; Michel Drancourt
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  A need for null models in understanding disease transmission: the example of Mycobacterium ulcerans (Buruli ulcer disease).

Authors:  Joseph P Receveur; Alexandra Bauer; Jennifer L Pechal; Sophie Picq; Magdalene Dogbe; Heather R Jordan; Alex W Rakestraw; Kayla Fast; Michael Sandel; Christine Chevillon; Jean-François Guégan; John R Wallace; M Eric Benbow
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Rev       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 15.177

Review 4.  Linking the Mycobacterium ulcerans environment to Buruli ulcer disease: Progress and challenges.

Authors:  Laxmi Dhungel; Mark Eric Benbow; Heather Rose Jordan
Journal:  One Health       Date:  2021-08-18

5.  Variable Number Tandem Repeat Profiling of Mycobacterium ulcerans Reveals New Genotypes in Buruli Ulcer Endemic Communities in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire.

Authors:  Elizabeth Gyamfi; Magdalene Amerl Dogbe; Charles Quaye; Abel Adjet Affouda; Edwin Kyei-Baffour; Daisy Awuku-Asante; Mabel Sarpong-Duah; Lydia Mosi
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 6.064

Review 6.  Potential Animal Reservoir of Mycobacterium ulcerans: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Avishek Singh; William John Hannan McBride; Brenda Govan; Mark Pearson
Journal:  Trop Med Infect Dis       Date:  2018-05-30

7.  Domestic animals infected with Mycobacterium ulcerans-Implications for transmission to humans.

Authors:  Rousseau Djouaka; Francis Zeukeng; Jude Daiga Bigoga; Solange E Kakou-Ngazoa; Romaric Akoton; Genevieve Tchigossou; David N'golo Coulibaly; Sodjinin Jean-Eudes Tchebe; Sylla Aboubacar; Clavella Nantcho Nguepdjo; Eric Tossou; Razack Adeoti; Thèrèse Marie Ngo Nsonga; Yao Akpo; Innocent Djegbe; Manuele Tamo; Wilfred Fon Mbacham; Anthony Ablordey
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2018-07-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.