Survival of Mycobacterium leprae and association with Acanthamoeba from environmental samples in the inhabitant areas of active leprosy cases: A cross sectional study from endemic pockets of Purulia, West Bengal.

BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium leprae being an obligate intracellular parasite cannot be cultured in any artificial culture media but it has been shown to reside in wild armadillos in North America. Many studies suggested that M. leprae could be found in the environment and may have a role in continuing transmission of the disease. The exact role of the environment in the transmission dynamics is still speculative. The present study was undertaken to find out the presence of viable M. leprae around patients' environment like soil and water and association of free living pathogenic protozoa, Acanthamoeba which might play an important role in transmission of the disease. METHODS: Seven hundred soil and 400 water samples were collected from the surroundings of the houses of leprosy patients from endemic villages. Two hundred soil and 80 water samples were also collected from the surroundings of normal inhabitants from non-endemic villages as controls. These samples were screened for the presence of M. leprae and Acanthamoeba using DNA PCR. RNA was extracted from the PCR positive samples and Reverse Transcriptase - PCR targeting 16S rRNA gene region was performed for detection of viable M. leprae. RESULTS: We observed high PCR positivity in soil samples (218 out of 700; 31%) and water samples (73 out of 400; 18%). These samples when further screened for viability, it was observed that 106 soil samples (15% of total) and 34 water samples (8% of total) showed presence of 16S rRNA. We observed 18.3% of soil and 20.5% of water samples were PCR positive for Acanthamoeba. Soil samples from the control area, where no active leprosy case resided in the last 5 years, showed PCR positivity in 4 samples (2%) for M. leprae DNA in only soil samples with all water samples being negative. RT-PCR for all PCR positive soil samples was negative. Of the 106 soil samples positive for M. leprae RT-PCR, 30 samples were also positive for Acanthamoeba whereas out of 112 M. leprae RT-PCR negative but PCR positive samples only 10 samples were Acanthamoeba positive showing association of viability with presence of Acanthamoeba (p = .0021). Similarly, for water samples also, association of M. leprae viability with presence of Acanthamoeba was seen (p = .0009). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the surrounding environment (soil and water) of leprosy patients contain viable M. leprae and the viability has association with Acanthamoeba which may provide a protective niche for M. leprae. This could play an important role in the focal transmission of the disease.

Single nucleotide polymorphism-based molecular typing of M. leprae from multicase families of leprosy patients and their surroundings to understand the transmission of leprosy.

The exact mode of transmission of leprosy is not clearly understood; however, many studies have demonstrated active transmission of leprosy around a source case. Families of five active leprosy cases and their household contacts were chosen from a high endemic area in Purulia. Fifty-two soil samples were also collected from different areas of their houses. DNA was extracted from slit-skin smears (SSS) and soil samples and the Mycobacterium leprae-specific RLEP (129 bp) region was amplified using PCR. Molecular typing of M. leprae was performed for all RLEP PCR-positive samples by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) typing and confirmation by DNA sequencing. SSS of these five patients and six out of the total 28 contacts were PCR positive for RLEP whereas 17 soil samples out of 52 showed the presence of M. leprae DNA. SNP typing of M. leprae from all RLEP PCR-positive subjects (patients and smear-positive contacts) and 10 soil samples showed the SNP type 1 genotype. M. leprae DNA from the five leprosy patients and the six contacts was further subtyped and the D subtype was noted in all patients and contacts, except for one contact where the C subtype was identified. Typing followed by subtyping of M. leprae clearly revealed that either the contacts were infected by the patients or both patients and contacts had the same source of infection. It also revealed that the type of M. leprae in the soil in the inhabited areas where patients resided was also of the same type as that found in patients.

Genetic association of G896A polymorphism of TLR4 gene in leprosy through family-based and case-control study designs.

BACKGROUND: Polymorphisms in TLR4 may change the function of the protein and alter the efficiency of immune response of host to infection. The high relevance of host gene polymorphisms with outcome of Mycobacterium leprae infection led us to study the genetic association of TLR4 G896A polymorphism in order to identify its risk among contacts of affected leprosy patients. METHODS: For case-control study design a total of 628 individuals were recruited; 17 multicase leprosy families which included 32 case-parent trios were considered for family-based study. Genotyping was done using PCR-RFLP method. RESULTS: In case-control study AA genotype was positively associated while GA genotype was negatively associated with leprosy. In family based transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) analysis allele G was found to be over transmitted to the affected individuals. CONCLUSION: Case-control study suggests that homozygous AA genotype may confer susceptibility and heterozygous GA genotype may confer resistance to leprosy, while allele A was observed to increase risk and that of allele G may confer resistance to leprosy. No strong transmission disequilibrium was detected in family-based TDT analysis, possibly due to lower number of trios. In contrast to case-control data allele G was over transmitted to the affected ones in TDT analysis. To conclude, the frequencies of genotypes in household contacts were almost the same as in leprosy patients, suggesting that contacts with AA genotype may be at higher risk of leprosy and may therefore require prophylactic inputs.