Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24722416›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2014

Mycobacterium ulcerans fails to infect through skin abrasions in a guinea pig infection model: implications for transmission.

Heather R Williamson, Lydia Mosi, Robert Donnell, Maha Aqqad, Richard W Merritt, Pamela L C Small

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Buruli ulcer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Systematic review: Global host range, case fatality and detection rates ofJournal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2024
    Review
  10. Emergence and spread ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Linking theOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pharmacologic management ofExpert review of clinical pharmacology · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Heather R WilliamsonUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Lydia MosiUniversity of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
Robert DonnellUniversity of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Maha AqqadUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Richard W MerrittMichigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Pamela L C SmallUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
University of Tennessee at Knoxville · USMichigan United · USUniversity of Ghana · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transmission of M. ulcerans, the etiological agent of Buruli ulcer, from the environment to humans remains an enigma despite decades of research. Major transmission hypotheses propose 1) that M. ulcerans is acquired through an insect bite or 2) that bacteria enter an existing wound through exposure to a contaminated environment. In studies reported here, a guinea pig infection model was developed to determine whether Buruli ulcer could be produced through passive inoculation of M. ulcerans onto a superficial abrasion. The choice of an abrasion model was based on the fact that most bacterial pathogens infecting the skin are able to infect an open lesion, and that abrasions are extremely common in children. Our studies show that after a 90d infection period, an ulcer was present at intra-dermal injection sites of all seven animals infected, whereas topical application of M. ulcerans failed to establish an infection. Mycobacterium ulcerans was cultured from all injection sites whereas infected abrasion sites healed and were culture negative. A 14d experiment was conducted to determine how long organisms persisted after inoculation. Mycobacterium ulcerans was isolated from abrasions at one hour and 24 hours post infection, but cultures from later time points were negative. Abrasion sites were qPCR positive up to seven days post infection, but negative at later timepoints. In contrast, M. ulcerans DNA was detected at intra-dermal injection sites throughout the study. M. ulcerans was cultured from injection sites at each time point. These results suggest that injection of M. ulcerans into the skin greatly facilitates infection and lends support for the role of an invertebrate vector or other route of entry such as a puncture wound or deep laceration where bacteria would be contained within the lesion. Infection through passive inoculation into an existing abrasion appears a less likely route of entry.

Indexed as

AnimalsBuruli UlcerDisease Models, AnimalFemaleGuinea PigsInjections, IntradermalInsect Bites and StingsMaleMycobacterium ulceransSkinWound Infection

Identifiers

PMID24722416
PMCPMC3983084
OpenAlexW1996849780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.