ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020
Ultra-sensitive detection of Mycobacterium leprae: DNA extraction and PCR assays.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative analysis of the leprosy detection rate regarding its clinical spectrum through PCR using theFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Exploration of tongue dorsum sampling to support clinical diagnosis of leprosy patients in the Comoros: A cross-sectional study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Validation of the performance of a point of care molecular test for leprosy: From a simplified DNA extraction protocol to a portable qPCR.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence on Diagnostic Aid of Leprosy: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Challenges and advances in serological and molecular tests to aid leprosy diagnosis.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Review
- Leprosy in an Adopted Woman Diagnosed by Molecular Tools: A Case Report from a Non-Endemic Area.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a multiplex real-time qPCR assay using GMP-grade reagents for leprosy diagnosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Bacilloscopy and polymerase chain reaction of slit-skin smears and anti-phenolic glycolipid-I serology for Hansen's disease diagnosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- A new paradigm for leprosy diagnosis based on host gene expression.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- Standardization of SYBR Green-Based Real-Time PCR Through the Evaluation of Different Thresholds for Different Skin Layers: An Accuracy Study and Track of the Transmission Potential of Multibacillary and Paucibacillary Leprosy Patients.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Outbreak Investigation and Molecular Detection of Pox Virus Circulating in Sheep and Goats in Selected Districts of West Gojjam and Awi Zones Northwest, Ethiopia.Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Detection of six soil-transmitted helminths in human stool by qPCR- a systematic workflow.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Identification and characterization of nontuberculous mycobacteria isolated from suspected pulmonary tuberculosis patients in eastern china from 2009 to 2019 using an identification array system.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Leprosy urgently needs a precise and early diagnostic tool. The sensitivity of the direct (bacilli staining, Mycobacterium leprae DNA) and indirect (antibody levels, T cell assays) diagnostics methods vary based on the clinical form. Recently, PCR-based M. leprae DNA detection has been shown to differentially diagnose leprosy from other dermatological conditions. However, accuracy can still be improved, especially for use with less invasive clinical samples. We tested different commercial DNA extraction kits: DNeasy Blood & Tissue, QIAamp DNA Microbiome, Maxwell 16 DNA Purification, PowerSoil DNA Isolation; as well as in-house phenol-chloroform and Trizol/FastPrep methods. Extraction was performed on M. leprae-infected mouse footpads and different clinical samples of leprosy patients (skin biopsies and scrapings, lesion, oral and nasal swabs, body hair, blood on FTA cards, peripheral whole blood). We observed that the Microbiome kit was able to enrich for mycobacterial DNA, most likely due the enzymatic digestion cocktail along with mechanical disruption involved in this method. Consequently, we had a significant increase in sensitivity in skin biopsies from paucibacillary leprosy patients using a duplex qPCR targeting 16S rRNA (M. leprae) and 18S rRNA (mammal) in the StepOnePlus system. Our data showed that the presence of M. leprae DNA was best detected in skin biopsies and skin scrapings, independent of the extraction method or the clinical form. For multibacillary patients, detection of M. leprae DNA in nasal swabs indicates the possibility of having a much less invasive sample that can be used for the purposes of DNA sequencing for relapse analysis and drug resistance monitoring. Overall, DNA extracted with the Microbiome kit presented the best bacilli detection rate for paucibacillary cases, indicating that investments in extraction methods with mechanical and DNA digestion should be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.