Larissa R Bosqui1, Priscilla D Marques2, Gessica B de Melo2, Maria do Rosário F Gonçalves-Pires3, Fernanda M Malta2, Wander R Pavanelli4, Ivete Conchon-Costa4, Julia M Costa-Cruz3, Fabiana M Paula2, Idessania N Costa4. 1. Departamento de Ciências Patológicas, CCB, Laboratório de Parasitologia Experimental, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid Campus Universitário, Londrina, PR, CEP 86051-990, Brazil. larissabosqui@hotmail.com. 2. Departamento de Moléstias Infecciosas e Parasitárias - Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455 - Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01246903, Brazil. 3. Departamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Av. Pará 1720, Uberlândia, MG, CEP 38400-902, Brazil. 4. Departamento de Ciências Patológicas, CCB, Laboratório de Parasitologia Experimental, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid Campus Universitário, Londrina, PR, CEP 86051-990, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Detection of Strongyloides stercoralis larvae is particularly challenging because only a small number of larvae are released into the feces, regardless of infection stage. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to apply conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to the detection of S. stercoralis DNA in feces samples to evaluate its performance in samples of patients with strongyloidiasis and compare results with those of immunodiagnosis. METHODS: Stool, serum, and saliva samples were collected from each individual (n = 48) at the clinic hospital of the State University of Londrina, Brazil, for parasitological, immunological, and molecular tests. Stool samples were processed via parasitological methods. Serum samples were used for immunoglobulin G (IgG) detection and saliva samples for IgA detection by ELISA. RESULTS: For amplification by conventional PCR, two different primers were used: species specific (101 bp) and genus specific (392 bp). The results showed that 34 (97.1%) of the 35 copro-positive individuals for S. stercoralis were positive for serum IgG and 19 (54.3%) were positive for salivary IgA. Regarding molecular analysis, both primers (species and genus specific) demonstrated positivity in 100% of the samples, which was confirmed by sequencing the positive samples. CONCLUSION: Complementary examinations of the parasitological method demonstrated excellent results in the context of the diagnosis of strongyloidiasis, especially in asymptomatic patients with irregular larval release in the feces.
INTRODUCTION: Detection of Strongyloides stercoralis larvae is particularly challenging because only a small number of larvae are released into the feces, regardless of infection stage. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to apply conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to the detection of S. stercoralis DNA in feces samples to evaluate its performance in samples of patients with strongyloidiasis and compare results with those of immunodiagnosis. METHODS: Stool, serum, and saliva samples were collected from each individual (n = 48) at the clinic hospital of the State University of Londrina, Brazil, for parasitological, immunological, and molecular tests. Stool samples were processed via parasitological methods. Serum samples were used for immunoglobulin G (IgG) detection and saliva samples for IgA detection by ELISA. RESULTS: For amplification by conventional PCR, two different primers were used: species specific (101 bp) and genus specific (392 bp). The results showed that 34 (97.1%) of the 35 copro-positive individuals for S. stercoralis were positive for serum IgG and 19 (54.3%) were positive for salivary IgA. Regarding molecular analysis, both primers (species and genus specific) demonstrated positivity in 100% of the samples, which was confirmed by sequencing the positive samples. CONCLUSION: Complementary examinations of the parasitological method demonstrated excellent results in the context of the diagnosis of strongyloidiasis, especially in asymptomatic patients with irregular larval release in the feces.
Authors: Fay H Johnston; Peter S Morris; Richard Speare; James McCarthy; Bart Currie; Dan Ewald; Wendy Page; Karen Dempsey Journal: Aust J Rural Health Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.662
Authors: Vanessa S Ribeiro; Nagilla D Feliciano; Henrique T Gonzaga; Idessânia N Costa; Maria R F Gonçalves-Pires; Marlene T Ueta; Julia M Costa-Cruz Journal: Immunol Lett Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Silvia A Repetto; Paula Ruybal; María Elisa Solana; Carlota López; Carolina A Berini; Catalina D Alba Soto; Stella M González Cappa Journal: Acta Trop Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 3.112
Authors: Larissa R Bosqui; Ana Lúcia R Gonçalves; Maria do Rosário F Gonçalves-Pires; Luiz Antonio Custodio; Maria Cláudia N D de Menezes; Valter A Murad; Fabiana M de Paula; Wander R Pavanelli; Ivete Conchon-Costa; Julia Maria Costa-Cruz; Idessania N Costa Journal: Acta Trop Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.112
Authors: Zeno Bisoffi; Dora Buonfrate; Antonio Montresor; Ana Requena-Méndez; Jose Muñoz; Alejandro J Krolewiecki; Eduardo Gotuzzo; Maria Alejandra Mena; Peter L Chiodini; Mariella Anselmi; Juan Moreira; Marco Albonico Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2013-05-09
Authors: Fabiana Martins de Paula; Fernanda Mello Malta; Marcelo Andreetta Corral; Priscilla Duarte Marques; Maiara Gottardi; Dirce Mary Correia Lima Meisel; Juliana Yamashiro; João Renato Rebello Pinho; Vera Lucia Pagliusi Castilho; Elenice Messias do Nascimento Gonçalves; Ronaldo César Borges Gryschek; Pedro Paulo Chieffi Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 1.846