Sexually transmitted infections · 2007
Chlamydia trachomatis variant not detected by plasmid based nucleic acid amplification tests: molecular characterisation and failure of single dose azithromycin.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Magbanua Jose Paolo V, Goh Beng Tin, Michel Claude-Edouard, Aguirre-Andreasen Aura, Alexander Sarah, Ushiro-Lumb Ines, Ison Catherine, Lee Helen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To characterise a Chlamydia trachomatis variant strain from a patient with non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) whose first void urine (FVU) displayed discrepant Ctrachomatis test results and describe the clinical response to treatment.
METHODS: The FVU specimen was assayed with an immune based Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT) and various nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to establish C trachomatis infection. Sequencing of the major outer membrane protein gene (omp1 also known as ompA) was undertaken to identify the serovar of the variant strain. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis was also conducted to determine whether the strain harboured deletions in the cryptic plasmid or was plasmid free.
RESULTS: The FVU specimen was strongly reactive in CRT but negative with the plasmid based Amplicor PCR (Roche) and ProbeTec ET (Becton-Dickinson) assays. However, NAATs for 16S RNA (Aptima Combo 2, GenProbe), omp1 (RealArt CT PCR, Artus and in-house NAATs) or the outer membrane complex B protein gene (omcB) established C trachomatis infection. Sequencing of omp1 showed that the variant belonged to serovar I. PCR analysis indicated that the variant was plasmid free. The patient did not respond to single dose azithromycin treatment but subsequently responded to a course of doxycycline.
CONCLUSIONS: A pathogenic plasmid free C trachomatis variant was identified. Clinicians should be alerted to the possibility of undetected C trachomatis infection caused by such variants and the potential of azithromycin failure in patients with recurrent chlamydial NGU. The occurrence of this variant is rare and should not form the basis for judgment of the performance or usefulness of plasmid based NAATs for C trachomatis detection.
METHODS: The FVU specimen was assayed with an immune based Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT) and various nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to establish C trachomatis infection. Sequencing of the major outer membrane protein gene (omp1 also known as ompA) was undertaken to identify the serovar of the variant strain. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis was also conducted to determine whether the strain harboured deletions in the cryptic plasmid or was plasmid free.
RESULTS: The FVU specimen was strongly reactive in CRT but negative with the plasmid based Amplicor PCR (Roche) and ProbeTec ET (Becton-Dickinson) assays. However, NAATs for 16S RNA (Aptima Combo 2, GenProbe), omp1 (RealArt CT PCR, Artus and in-house NAATs) or the outer membrane complex B protein gene (omcB) established C trachomatis infection. Sequencing of omp1 showed that the variant belonged to serovar I. PCR analysis indicated that the variant was plasmid free. The patient did not respond to single dose azithromycin treatment but subsequently responded to a course of doxycycline.
CONCLUSIONS: A pathogenic plasmid free C trachomatis variant was identified. Clinicians should be alerted to the possibility of undetected C trachomatis infection caused by such variants and the potential of azithromycin failure in patients with recurrent chlamydial NGU. The occurrence of this variant is rare and should not form the basis for judgment of the performance or usefulness of plasmid based NAATs for C trachomatis detection.