Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32453754›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Ultra-sensitive detection of Mycobacterium leprae: DNA extraction and PCR assays.

Fernanda Saloum de Neves Manta, Thyago Leal-Calvo, Suelen Justo M Moreira, Brunna L C Marques, Marcelo Ribeiro-Alves, Patrícia S Rosa, José Augusto C Nery, Rita de Cássia Pontello Rampazzo, Alexandre Dias Tavares Costa, Marco Aurelio Krieger and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Challenges and advances in serological and molecular tests to aid leprosy diagnosis.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

11 authors.

Fernanda Saloum de Neves MantaLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Thyago Leal-CalvoLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Suelen Justo M MoreiraLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Brunna L C MarquesLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Marcelo Ribeiro-AlvesLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica em DST-AIDS, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8663-3364
Patrícia S RosaInstituto Lauro de Souza Lima, Bauru, SP, Brazil.
José Augusto C NeryLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Rita de Cássia Pontello RampazzoInstituto de Biologia Molecular do Paraná-Fiocruz, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Alexandre Dias Tavares CostaInstituto de Biologia Molecular do Paraná-Fiocruz, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Marco Aurelio KriegerInstituto de Biologia Molecular do Paraná-Fiocruz, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Milton Ozório MoraesLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2653-0037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsDNA, BacterialHumansMiceMycobacterium lepraePolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, BacterialRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID32453754
PMCPMC7274454

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.