| Literature DB >> 31532767 |
Mariam Siala1,2, Cécile Cassan3, Salma Smaoui4,5, Sana Kammoun4,5, Chema Marouane4,5, Sylvain Godreuil3,6, Salma Hachicha4,5, Emna Mhiri5,7, Leila Slim5,7, Dhikrayet Gamara8, Férièle Messadi-Akrout4,5, Anne-Laure Bañuls3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Tunisia, almost 77% of clinically and bacteriologically diagnosed cases of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) are zoonotic TB, caused by M. bovis. Although several studies have analyzed bovine TB in cattle in Tunisia, no study has evaluated the risk of transmission to humans in such an endemic country. We aimed to study the genetic diversity of M. bovis human isolates, to ascertain the causes of human EPTB infection by M. bovis and to investigate the distribution and population structure of this species in Tunisia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31532767 PMCID: PMC6750577 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the 106 Tunisian extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients and the 4 isolates from Libyan patients.
| Variants | N°. (%) of patients |
|---|---|
| Male | 33 (30) |
| Female | 77 (70) |
| 0–4 years | 8 (7.3%) |
| 5–14 years | 13 (11.8%) |
| 15–59 years | 84 (76.4%) |
| ≥ 60 years | 5 (4.5%) |
| Lymphatic | 100 (90.9) |
| others | 10 (9.1) |
| Central East region (Sfax, Gabes) | 44 (40) |
| Central West region (Gafsa, Sidi Bouzid, Kasserine) | 24 (21.8) |
| South East region (Tataouine, Medenine) | 38 (34.5) |
| Libya | 4 (3.6%) |
| Yes | 73 (66.4) |
| No | 30 (27.3) |
| No data | 7 (6.4) |
| Yes | 34 (30.9) |
| No | 53 (48.2) |
| No data | 23 (20.9) |
| Yes | 6 (5.4) |
| No | 60 (54.5) |
| No data | 44 (40) |
| Yes | 62 (56.4) |
| No | 3 (2.7) |
| No data | 45 (40.9) |
Fig 1Map of Tunisia showing the localization of spoligotypes of M. bovis isolated from EPTB patients identified in 7 distinct governorates (n = 105/110 isolates, one strain from Gabes did not give any SB profile and the 4 isolates from Libyan patients were not presented).
The map of Tunisia was created specifically for the manuscript using the GPL licenced software Epi Info 7.2.
Number of alleles and Hunter-Gaston discriminatory Index (HGDI) for the 8 MIRU-VNTR loci used in the study.
| Loci | N° of alleles | HGDI |
|---|---|---|
| (N° of isolates = 107) | (N° of isolates = 107) | |
| ETR-A | 7 | 0.70 |
| ETR-B | 6 | 0.71 |
| ETR-C | 3 | 0.27 |
| Qub 11a | 6 | 0.62 |
| Qub 11b | 5 | 0.62 |
| Qub 3232 | 6 | 0.56 |
| Qub 26 | 5 | 0.64 |
| MIRU 4 | 3 | 0.15 |
| HGDI including all the MIRU-VNTR data | 0.977 |
*: excluding one strain without ETR-A allele
**: excluding one strain without Qub11a allele
Genetic differentiation (F index) between M. bovis populations of the different governorates.
| Gabes | Tataouine | Medenine | Gafsa | Sidi Bouzid | Kasserine | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sfax | 0.026 | 0.037 | 0.006 | 0.011 | ND | ND |
| Gabes | ND | 0.076 | 0.016 | 0.058 | 0.066 | 0.047 |
| Tataouine | ND | ND | 0.016 | 0.034 | 0.020 | |
| Medenine | ND | 0.026 | 0.044 | 0.015 | ||
| Gafsa | ND | ND | ND | |||
| Sidi Bouzid | ND | ND | ||||
| Kasserine | ND |
ND: No Differentiation, Fst was ≤ 0. No Fst value was significant
Genetic differentiation (F index) between M. bovis populations of the different regions.
| Central West region (Gafsa, Sidi bouzid, Kasserine) | South East region (Tataouine, Medenine) | |
|---|---|---|
| Central East region (Sfax, Gabes) | 0.041 | 0.035 |
| Central West region (Gafsa, Sidi bouzid, Kasserine) | 0.057 |
*: P was statistically significant
Fig 2Dendogram built using Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards distance matrix calculated from the combination of MIRU-VNTR and spoligotyping data.
The 20 clusters are identified on the tree as well as the species, the locality of isolates and the MIRU-VNTR and spoligotyping profiles. (Blue star) Sample n° 30 did not show any amplification for QUb11a, * 8-digit allelic profile corresponding to ETR-A, ETR-B, ETR-C, QUB 11a, QUB 11b, QUB 3232, QUB 26, and MIRU4.
Comparison of the distribution of common VNTR profiles between our study and previous studies in cattle in Tunisia [9, 10].
| Common VNTR Profile | Genotype | This study | Lamine-Khemiri | Djemal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVP1 | 5.4.11.4.6.3 | + | + | + |
| CVP2 | 5.6.11.2.6.3 | + | + | + |
| CVP3 | 3.5.11.2.6.3 | + | + | |
| CVP4 | 5.5.11.4.6.3 | + | + | |
| CVP5 | 6.4.10.2.7.3 | + | + | |
| CVP6 | 5.5.11.5.6.3 | + | + | |
| CVP7 | 4.3.11.2.7.2 | + | + | |
| CVP8 | 4.5.11.4.6.3 | + | + | |
| CVP9 | 5.4.11.4.3.3 | + | + | |
| CVP10 | 5.5.11.2.6.3 | + | + | + |
| CVP11 | 5.3.11.2.6.3 | + | + | + |
| CVP12 | 3.5.11.3.6.3 | + | + | + |
| CVP13 | 6.5.10.2.6.3 | + | + | |
| CVP14 | 6.4.11.2.7.3 | + | + |
CVP: Common VNTR profile based on the following VNTR loci (ETR-A, ETR-B, QUB 11a, QUB 11b, QUB 3232 and MIRU 4) of strains from our study and previously published Tunisian data by Lamine-Khemiri et al [10] and Djemal et al [9].