ArticleMolecular biology reports2021
Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in clinical and environmental samples using serological analysis and PCR.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of the leprosy detection rate regarding its clinical spectrum through PCR using theFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Molecular Detection ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeprosy is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae and persists as a serious public health problem in Brazil. This microorganism is inculturable, making it difficult to diagnose and elucidate details of its transmission chain. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the dynamics of environmental transmission of M. leprae in a case-control study in the city of Mossoró, Brazil. METHODS AND
resultsData of clinical, epidemiological, bacilloscopic, and serological evaluation of 22 newly diagnosed patients were compared, with molecular results of detection of specific genome regions RLEP and 16S rRNA of M. leprae in samples of the nasal swab, saliva, and house dust of these individuals and their controls (44 household contacts and 44 peridomiciliar contacts). The rapid serological tests evaluated, ML flow (IgM ND-O-BSA) and OrangeLife® (IgM and IgG anti NDO-LID 1) showed similar results, with greater positivity among paucibacillaries by OrangeLife® (54.5%). Positivity for nasal swab and saliva in multibacillary patients with RLEP primer was 16.7% and 33.3%, respectively. There was no detection of bacterial DNA in house dust or among paucibacillaries. The OrangeLife® test indicated that the lower the amount of windows, the more transmission in the house (3.79 more chances). Having a history of leprosy cases in the family increased the risk by 2.89 times, and being over 60 years of age gave 3.6 times more chances of acquiring the disease. PCR positivity was higher among all clinical samples using the M. leprae RLEP region than 16S rRNA.
conclusionsIn this study, the serological and PCR analysis were capable of detecting M. leprae DNA in clinical samples but not in the environmental samples. Close monitoring of patients and household contacts appears an effective measure to reduce the transmission of leprosy in endemic areas.
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.