ArticleMolecular biology reports2024
A comparative study on the detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in urine samples of leprosy patients using Rlep-PCR with other conventional samples.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- qPCR detection ofFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMycobacterium leprae causes leprosy that is highly stigmatized and chronic infectious skin disease. Only some diagnostic tools are being used for the identification M. leprae in clinical samples, such as bacillary detection, and histopathological tests. These methods are invasive and often have low sensitivity. Currently, the PCR technique has been used as an effective tool fordetecting M. leprae DNA across different clinical samples. The current study aims to detect M. leprae DNA in urine samples of untreated and treated leprosy patients using the Rlep gene (129 bp) and compared the detection among Ridley-Jopling Classification.
methodsClinical samples (Blood, Urine, and Slit Skin Smears (SSS)) were collected from leprosy and Non-leprosy patients. DNA extraction was performed using standard laboratory protocol and Conventional PCR was carried out for all samples using Rlep gene target and the amplicons of urine samples were sequenced by Sanger sequencing to confirm the Rlep gene target.
resultsThe M. leprae DNA was successfully detected in all clinical samples across all types of leprosy among all the study groups using RLEP-PCR. Rlep gene target was able to detect the presence of M. leprae DNA in 79.17% of urine, 58.33% of blood, and 50% of SSS samples of untreated Smear-Negative leprosy patients. The statistical significant difference (p = 0.004) was observed between BI Negative (Slit Skin Smear test) and RLEP PCR positivity in urine samples of untreated leprosy group.
conclusionThe PCR positivity using Rlep gene target (129 bp) was highest in all clinical samples among the study groups, across all types of leprosy. Untreated tuberculoid and PNL leprosy patients showed the highest PCR positivity in urine samples, indicating its potential as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for leprosy and even for contact screening.
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.