| Literature DB >> 34595396 |
Thales Alves Campelo1, Paulo Rafael Cardoso de Sousa1, Lucas de Lima Nogueira1, Cristiane Cunha Frota1, Paulo Renato Zuquim Antas2.
Abstract
Tuberculosis (TB) affects around 10 million people worldwide in 2019. Approximately 3.4 % of new TB cases are multidrug-resistant. The gold standard method for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which is the aetiological agent of TB, is still based on microbiological culture procedures, followed by species identification and drug sensitivity testing. Sputum is the most commonly obtained clinical specimen from patients with pulmonary TB. Although smear microscopy is a low-cost and widely used method, its sensitivity is 50-60 %. Thus, owing to the need to improve the performance of current microbiological tests to provide prompt treatment, different methods with varied sensitivity and specificity for TB diagnosis have been developed. Here we discuss the existing methods developed over the past 20 years, including their strengths and weaknesses. In-house and commercial methods have been shown to be promising to achieve rapid diagnosis. Combining methods for mycobacterial detection systems demonstrates a correlation of 100 %. Other assays are useful for the simultaneous detection of M. tuberculosis species and drug-related mutations. Novel approaches have also been employed to rapidly identify and quantify total mycobacteria RNA, including assessments of global gene expression measured in whole blood to identify the risk of TB. Spoligotyping, mass spectrometry and next-generation sequencing are also promising technologies; however, their cost needs to be reduced so that low- and middle-income countries can access them. Because of the large impact of M. tuberculosis infection on public health, the development of new methods in the context of well-designed and -controlled clinical trials might contribute to the improvement of TB infection control.Entities:
Keywords: diagnosis; drug-resistant tuberculosis; nucleic acid amplification techniques; tuberculosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34595396 PMCID: PMC8479963 DOI: 10.1099/acmi.0.000245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Access Microbiol ISSN: 2516-8290
Commonly used methods for the detection of pathogenic mycobacteria
|
Assay |
Reference |
|---|---|
|
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)* |
[ |
|
Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR |
[ |
|
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) |
[ |
|
Potentiometric biosensors |
[ |
|
Surface plasmon resonance |
[ |
|
Bioluminescence |
[ |
|
Fluorescent labelling |
[ |
|
Flow cytometry (FCM) |
[ |
|
Transcriptomic |
[ |
*Including TB-LAMP [84].
Fig. 1.Genealogical tree assembling a few members of the complex causing disease to various animal species. The relevant references are shown alongside [157–164] .
Overview of the most used methods to detect and its variants including cost-effectiveness
|
Assay |
Accessibility/cost |
Sensitivity |
Quantification |
Turnaround time* |
Resistance identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bacilloscopy |
High |
Low |
Intermediate |
2–3 days |
No |
|
Solid culture |
Cheap |
Low |
Intermediate |
30–60 days |
No |
|
Liquid culture |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
15–30 days |
No |
|
Flow cytometry |
Low |
High |
High |
2–3 days |
Yes |
|
Nested PCR/RT-PCR |
Low |
Intermediate |
Low |
2–4 days |
Yes |
|
qRT-PCR |
Low |
Low |
Intermediate |
2–4 days |
No† |
|
GeneXpert MTB/RIF |
Low |
High |
High |
90 min |
Yes |
|
Fluorescence microscopy |
Intermediate |
High |
High |
1–2 days |
Yes |
*Time to detect the presence or absence of M. tuberculosis, according to the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND).
†Except for EP-TB [92].
Overview of the most recent methods (2014 onwards) for detecting drug resistance, highlighting the respective target and drug
|
Assay |
Target gene |
Referring drug |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
GenoType MTBDRplus* |
|
INH and RMP |
[ |
|
GenoType MTBDRsl* |
|
EMB, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides and cyclic peptide |
[ |
|
RT-PCR* |
|
RMP and INH |
[ |
|
Abbott Real-Time MTB RIF/INH† |
|
RMP and INH |
[ |
|
Multiplex allele-specific PCR*,‡ |
|
RMP, INH, pyrazinamide, fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides |
[ |
|
PCR-RFLP* |
|
INH, streptomycin and fluoroquinolones |
[ |
|
Genedrive* |
|
RMP |
[ |
|
Anyplex Plus MTB/NTM* |
|
RMP and INH |
[ |
|
AuNP-based lateral flow* |
|
INH |
[ |
|
Electrochemical DNA sensors†,§ |
|
RMP |
[ |
|
Binary deoxyribozyme sensors† |
|
RMP, INH and fluoroquinolones |
[ |
|
Luminex MicroPlex microsphere† |
|
RMP and fluoroquinolones |
[ |
|
Nipro Genoscholar† |
|
Pyrazinamide |
[ |
|
Sequencing* |
|
RMP, INH, fluoroquinolone and streptomycin |
[ |
*Sputum samples.
†M. tuberculosis strain samples.
‡Distinguishes M. tuberculosis and M. avium complexes from other mycobacteria directly from clinical specimens [215].
§Based on polypyrrole/Fe3O4 nanocomposite-bearing redox naphthoquinone tag on PAMAM (spaNQ/PAMAM/PPy/Fe3O4).