RESUMO
Background: Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar are morphologically identical. However, the former is highly pathogenic and the latter is not. Aim: To differentiate Entamoeba histolytica from Entamoeba dispar through ELISA and PCR techniques in Colombian isolates from feces. Material and Methods: Descriptive study of Colombian fecal samples from 53 males and 47 women, that were positive for the complex E. histolytica/E. dispar on light microscopy. Positive samples were cultured on Robinson medium to isolate trophozoites. The presence of specific Gal/ GalNAc-lectin was determined by ELISA and polymerase chain reaction in genomic DNA, using the combination of three nucleotides that recognize a variable region of 16S small subunit ribosomal RNA, generating a 166 base pair (bp) product for E. histolytica and 752 pb product for E. dispar. Results: After verification, only eight of the 100 samples were positive for the complex E. histolytica/E. dispar and were cultivated. Isolates were obtained in six cultures, one corresponded to E. histolytica and six to E. dispar. Conclusions: The presence of E. histolytica/E. dispar complex was largely overestimated with light microscopy. In the few samples where isolates were obtained, the technique described differentiated between both strains.
Assuntos
Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Entamoeba/metabolismo , Entamebíase/parasitologia , Colômbia , DNA de Protozoário/genética , Entamoeba histolytica/genética , Entamoeba histolytica/isolamento & purificação , Entamoeba/genética , Entamoeba/isolamento & purificação , Entamebíase/diagnóstico , Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática , Fezes/parasitologia , Lectinas , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase/métodos , Proteínas de Protozoários , /genética , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
This article presents a history of Entamoeba histolytica spanning since the remote times when it was not even recognized as a cause of human disease to the recent molecular advances. Feder Losch (1875) in Saint Petersburg, found amoebae in fecal samples but only regarded them as responsible for maintaining the inflammatory process, not as a cause of dysentery. Fritz Schaudinn (1903) established the differentiation between Entamoeba histolytica and Endamoeba coli, Schaudinn decided to call it E. histolytica because of its ability to cause tissue lysis. Emile Brumpt (1925) based on experimental studies, pointed out the existence ofE. Histolytica as a species complex, comprising two morphologically indistinguishable species, E. dysenteríae which is the cause of symptomatic infection, and Entamoeba dispar found only in asymptomatic carriers. Louis Diamond et al (1961) during the 1960s developed an axenic culture medium for E. histolytica which allowed in vivo and in vitro studies. Sargeaunt and Williams (1978) distinguished for the first time E. histolytica strains by isoenzyme electrophoresis, thus confirming thatE. hystolytica was indeed a species complex comprising both pathogenic and non-pathogenic species. William Petri et al (1987 demonstrated that the 170 kDa protein with greater antigenicity was the Gal/GalNac-specific lectin. Diamond and Clark (1993) described again Brumpt's original 1925hypothesis, concluding that there was enough evidence to support the existence of two morphologically indistinguishable species, a pathogenic and a nonpathogenic one, corresponding to E. histolytica and Entamoeba dispar respectively. The World Health Organization accepted this hypothesis in 1997.