ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Improved protocols for isolation of Mycobacterium ulcerans from clinical samples.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- In Silico Identification of Potential Biomarker-Binding Proteins for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Buruli Ulcer Disease.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial resistance profiles and detection of mecA, blaCTX-M-1, and blaSHV genes in bacteria among diabetic foot ulcer patients from selected referral hospitals in Uganda.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe isolation and culture of Mycobacterium ulcerans (Mu) as a primary diagnostic modality for Buruli ulcer (BU) disease are limiting due to their low sensitivity and slow-growing nature. M. ulcerans cultures can also be overgrown with other bacteria and fungi. Culture, however, remains an important tool for the study of persisting viable M. ulcerans, drug susceptibility tests, and other molecular assays to improve management of the disease. The challenge of contamination with other fast-growing bacteria necessitates decontamination of clinical samples prior to culturing, but current methods may be too harsh, resulting in low yields of M. ulcerans. We aimed to evaluate a Tika-Kic decontamination process for M. ulcerans that uses supplements to stimulate M. ulcerans growth to improve recovery.
methodsSwab and Fine Needle Aspirate (FNA) samples were collected from 21 individuals with confirmed BU at baseline (week 0) and weeks 2 and 4 after initiating antibiotic treatment. Samples were decontaminated with Tika-Kic decontamination medium and the modified Petroff (NaOH) methods then inoculated each into Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) or Löwenstein Jensen (LJ) medium. Time to growth detection and confirmation by qPCR as well as the proportion of positive cultures for all three methods and the proportion of positive cultures for all three time points were documented. Common contaminating bacteria were also isolated and identified.
resultsThe proportion of M. ulcerans positive cultures obtained was higher for Tika-MGIT samples [14/43 (32%)] compared to Petroff-MGIT samples [10/43 (23%)] and Petroff-LJ samples [8/43 (19%)]. Baseline samples had a higher isolate proportion [17 (53%)] compared to samples collected after treatment initiation [9 (28%) for week 2 and 6 (19%) for week 4]. Contaminating bacteria isolated include Burkholderia cepacia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pasteurella pneumotropica, Proteus mirabilis, Morganella morganii, Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus.
conclusionOur study shows an advantage for culturing Mycobacterium ulcerans from clinical samples using the Tika-Kic decontamination and growth medium. Further research is needed to refine sample processing to improve M. ulcerans recovery.
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.