ABSTRACT
Abstract For the definitive diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis, isolation of the etiologic agent is required. However, there is no consensus on the best methodology for isolation of Mycobacterium bovis in Brazil. This study evaluated the most used decontaminants and culture media in the country, in order to identify the best combination for the Brazilian samples. Three decontaminants - 2% sodium hydroxide (w/v), 0.75% hexadecylpiridinium chloride (w/v) and 5% sulphuric acid (v/v) and four culture media - 7H11 Middlebrook with additives and OADC supplement “A” (7H11 A), the same media with another supplement trademark (7H11 B), tuberculosis blood agar (B83) and Stonebrink's medium were compared. Regarding the isolation, there were no significant differences between the decontaminants and media combinations, except 7H11A combined to any decontaminant. However, the mean colonies score was significantly greater when the samples were decontaminated with 5% sulphuric acid and inoculated in 7H11 B or SB, without significant difference between them, although colonies appeared earlier on 7H11B than on SB. The trademark of OADC supplement influenced the isolation rate and the number of isolated colonies in Middlebrook 7H11. An incubation time of four weeks was required to detect all positive samples in 7H11 B after decontamination with 5% sulphuric acid but there was an increase in the number of colonies until the sixth week of incubation. Overall, the best strategy for the primary isolation of M. bovis from Brazilian samples was the decontamination with 5% sulphuric acid (final concentration) and inoculation in Middlebrook 7H11 medium formulated with OADC supplement “B”.
Subject(s)
Animals , Cattle , Tuberculosis, Bovine/diagnosis , Tuberculosis, Bovine/microbiology , Mycobacterium bovis/isolation & purification , Bacteriological Techniques , Mycobacterium bovis/growth & developmentABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease with a high impact on the cattle industry, particularly in developing countries. PCR is a very sensitive method for detection of infectious agents, but the sensitivity of molecular diagnosis is largely dependent on the efficiency of the DNA extraction methods. The objective of this study was to evaluate DNA extraction methods for direct detection of Mycobacterium bovis in bovine tissue. Nine commercial kits for DNA extraction were evaluated when combined with two real time PCRs. The DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit from QIAGEN showed better performance and sensitivity followed by the DNA Mini Kit RBC and FTA Elute Micro Card. Results suggested that, even when the analytical sensitivity of the qPCR is very high, the extraction method can influence the diagnostic sensitivity.
RESUMO: A tuberculose bovina é uma doença infecciosa com um alto impacto na pecuária, particularmente em países em desenvolvimento. A PCR é um método muito sensível para a detecção de agentes infecciosos, mas a sensibilidade do diagnóstico molecular é em grande parte dependente da eficiência dos métodos de extração de DNA. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar métodos de extração de DNA para detecção direta de Mycobacterium bovisem tecido bovino. Nove kits comerciais para extração de DNA foram avaliados, quando combinados com duas PCRs em tempo real. O Kit Dneasy Blood & Tissue da Qiagen apresentou melhor desempenho e sensibilidade, seguido dos kits DNA Mini RBC e FTA Elute Micro Card (protocolo modificado com digestão enzimática prévia). Os resultados sugerem que, mesmo quando a sensibilidade analítica do qPCR é muito elevada, o método de extração pode influenciar na sensibilidade de diagnóstico.
ABSTRACT
In this cross-sectional study, mycobacteria specimens from 189 tuberculosis (TB) patients living in an urban area in Brazil were characterised from 2008-2010 using phenotypic and molecular speciation methods (pncA gene and oxyR pseudogene analysis). Of these samples, 174 isolates simultaneously grew on Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) and Stonebrink (SB)-containing media and presented phenotypic and molecular profiles of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, whereas 12 had molecular profiles of M. tuberculosis based on the DNA analysis of formalin-fixed paraffin wax-embedded tissue samples (paraffin blocks). One patient produced two sputum isolates, the first of which simultaneously grew on LJ and SB media and presented phenotypic and molecular profiles of M. tuberculosis, and the second of which only grew on SB media and presented phenotypic profiles of Mycobacterium bovis. One patient provided a bronchial lavage isolate, which simultaneously grew on LJ and SB media and presented phenotypic and molecular profiles of M. tuberculosis, but had molecular profiles of M. bovis from paraffin block DNA analysis, and one sample had molecular profiles of M. tuberculosis and M. bovis identified from two distinct paraffin blocks. Moreover, we found a low prevalence (1.6%) of M. bovis among these isolates, which suggests that local health service procedures likely underestimate its real frequency and that it deserves more attention from public health officials.