| Literature DB >> 31211668 |
Fernanda S Nascimento, John R Barta, Julia Whale, Jessica N Hofstetter, Shannon Casillas, Joel Barratt, Eldin Talundzic, Michael J Arrowood, Yvonne Qvarnstrom.
Abstract
Cyclosporiasis is an infection caused by Cyclospora cayetanensis, which is acquired by consumption of contaminated fresh food or water. In the United States, cases of cyclosporiasis are often associated with foodborne outbreaks linked to imported fresh produce or travel to disease-endemic countries. Epidemiologic investigation has been the primary method for linking outbreak cases. A molecular typing marker that can identify genetically related samples would be helpful in tracking outbreaks. We evaluated the mitochondrial junction region as a potential genotyping marker. We tested stool samples from 134 laboratory-confirmed cases in the United States by using PCR and Sanger sequencing. All but 2 samples were successfully typed and divided into 14 sequence types. Typing results were identical among samples within each epidemiologically defined case cluster for 7 of 10 clusters. These findings suggest that this marker can distinguish between distinct case clusters and might be helpful during cyclosporiasis outbreak investigations.Entities:
Keywords: Cyclospora cayetanensis; United States; cyclosporiasis; enteric infections; epidemiology; food safety; food-borne infections; genotyping; genotyping marker; mitochondrial DNA; mitochondrial junction region; parasites; water-borne infections
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31211668 PMCID: PMC6590752 DOI: 10.3201/eid2507.181447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Cyclospora cayetanensis mitochondrial junction types identified among 132 samples collected in different states, United States, 2013–2016*
| Mitochondrial junction type | No. samples | Collection year (state) |
|---|---|---|
| Cmt154.A | 50 | 2013 (TX); 2014 (MI, SC, TX); 2015 (GA, IL, TX, WI); 2016 (FL, GA, NE, TX) |
| Cmt154.B | 34 | 2014–2016 (TX); 2016 (NE) |
| Cmt154.C | 2 | 2013 (TX); 2015 (TX) |
| Cmt154.D | 1 | 2015 (TX) |
| Cmt169.A | 12 | 2013 (FL, TX); 2014 (MA, OH, PA) |
| Cmt169.B | 7 | 2014–2016 (TX); 2015 (WI) |
| Cmt184.A | 6 | 2013 (IA) |
| Cmt184.B | 7 | 2014 (MA, MI, PA, TX); 2016 (FL) |
| Cmt184.C | 5 | 2014 (ME); 2015 (TX) |
| Cmt184.D | 3 | 2014 (MI, TX); 2016 (NE) |
| Cmt184.E | 1 | 2013 (TX) |
| Cmt199.A | 2 | 2014 (TX), 2016 (NE) |
| Cmt199.B | 1 | 2014 (MA) |
| Cmt199.C | 1 | 2016 (FL) |
*Cmt, Cyclospora mitochondrial junction.
FigureRelationships between detected Cyclospora mitochondrial junction (Cmt) types, United States. Fourteen unique Cmt types were detected. Cmt214.A (top left) was not detected in this study but was reported previously (GenBank accession no. MH430089.1); it represents the type with the largest number of 15-mer repeats (total 6) and is therefore included as reference for comparison. Three different 15-mer repeat sequences are known, and each Cmt type possesses 2–6 of these 15-mer repeats in various combinations. The sequence of each mt junction type can be elucidated from this figure starting with the first repeat, indicated by the red central asterisk, and then following the arrows to the end motif. A dashed line links the sequence to a pie chart that provides epidemiologic information. The size of the pie chart represents the number of times this particular Cmt type was detected. For instance, type 154.A was detected in 50 samples (as reflected by the scale) and represents the most common type. Red underlined letters indicate variable sites that exist in the end motif and 15-mer repeats.
Distribution of Cyclospora cayetanensis mitochondrial junction types detected in epidemiologically linked samples, United States*
| Collection state and year | Epidemiologic known link to case cluster/outbreak | Sample no. | International travel within 2 weeks before symptom onset | Cmt type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maine 2014 | Maine temporospatial cluster† | HCME548_14 | No | Cmt184.C |
| HCME550_14 | No | Cmt184.C | ||
| HCME552_14 | No | Cmt184.C | ||
| HCME298_14 | No | Cmt184.C | ||
| Michigan 2014 | Michigan event-associated cluster | HCMI030_14 | Unknown | Cmt154.B |
| HCMI040_14 | No | Cmt184.D | ||
| HCMI029_14 | No | Cmt184.B | ||
| HCMI039_14 | Unknown | Cmt184.B | ||
| Pennsylvania 2014 | HCPA556_14 | No | Cmt184.B | |
| HCPA962_14 | Unknown | Cmt169.A | ||
| South Carolina 2014 | South Carolina temporospatial cluster† | HCSC052_14 | No | Cmt154.A |
| HCSC053_14 | No | Cmt154.A | ||
| HCSC054_14 | No | Cmt154.A | ||
| Texas 2015 | Mexican event-associated cluster | HCTX208_15 | Mexico/Tulum | Cmt154.A |
| HCTX219_15 | Mexico/Tulum | Cmt154.A | ||
| HCTX220_15 | Mexico/Tulum | Cmt154.A | ||
| HCTX547_15 | Mexico/Tulum | Cmt154.A | ||
| Texas household cluster‡ | HCTX354_15 | Mexico/Riviera Maya | Cmt154.A | |
| HCTX355_15 | Mexico/Riviera Maya | Cmt154.A | ||
| Texas restaurant-associated cluster 2015-A | HCTX353_15 | No | Cmt154.A | |
| HCTX540_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| HCTX551_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| HCTX555_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| Texas restaurant-associated cluster 2015-B | HCTX356_15 | No | Cmt154.B | |
| HCTX357_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| Texas local business-associated cluster | HCTX204_15 | Mexico/Cozumel | Cmt154.B | |
| HCTX205_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| HCTX206_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| HCTX538_15 | No | Cmt154.B | ||
| Wisconsin 2015 | Wisconsin restaurant-associated cluster 2015 | HCWI001_15 | No | Cmt154.A |
| HCWI003_15 | No | Cmt154.A | ||
| HCWI002_15 | No | Cmt169.B | ||
| HCWI004_15 | No | Cmt169.B | ||
| HCWI005_15 | No | Cmt169.B | ||
| HCWI006_15 | No | Cmt169.B | ||
| Texas 2016 | Texas restaurant-associated cluster 2016 | HCTX471_16 | No | Cmt154.A |
| HCTX474_16 | No | Cmt154.A |
*Cmt, Cyclospora mitochondrial junction.
†The terminology temporospatial cluster is used here for cases that were not linked to a particular establishment or event but were temporally and geographically clustered.
‡Case-patients were a married couple who traveled together to Riviera Maya, Mexico, during their incubation period. Because they did not spend the entire 14-d incubation period in Mexico, it is unclear whether they became infected in Texas or Mexico.