MedElevator
Войти в исследования American journal of clinical pathology · 2014
Analysis of the leprosy agents Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis in four countries.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка 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.
Han Xiang Y, Aung Fleur M, Choon Siew Eng, Werner Betina
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To differentiate the leprosy agents Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis and correlate them with geographic distribution and clinicopathologic features.
METHODS: Species-specific polymerase chain reactions were used to detect each bacillus in archived skin biopsy specimens from patients with leprosy from Brazil (n = 52), Malaysia (n = 31), Myanmar (n = 9), and Uganda (n = 4). Findings were correlated with clinical and pathologic data.
RESULTS: Etiologic species was detected in 46 of the 52 Brazilian patients, including 36 patients with M leprae, seven with M lepromatosis, and three with both bacilli. The seven patients with sole M lepromatosis all had tuberculoid leprosy, whereas only nine of the 36 patients infected with M leprae exhibited this type, and the rest were lepromatous (P < .001). All patients with dual infections had lepromatous leprosy. Of the nine patients from Myanmar, six were test positive: four with M leprae and two with M lepromatosis. Of the Malaysian and Ugandan patients, only M leprae was detected in 27 of the 31 Malaysians and two of the four Ugandans.
CONCLUSIONS: The leprosy agents vary in geographic distribution. Finding M lepromatosis in Brazil and Myanmar suggests wide existence of this newly discovered species. The leprosy manifestations likely vary with the etiologic agents.
METHODS: Species-specific polymerase chain reactions were used to detect each bacillus in archived skin biopsy specimens from patients with leprosy from Brazil (n = 52), Malaysia (n = 31), Myanmar (n = 9), and Uganda (n = 4). Findings were correlated with clinical and pathologic data.
RESULTS: Etiologic species was detected in 46 of the 52 Brazilian patients, including 36 patients with M leprae, seven with M lepromatosis, and three with both bacilli. The seven patients with sole M lepromatosis all had tuberculoid leprosy, whereas only nine of the 36 patients infected with M leprae exhibited this type, and the rest were lepromatous (P < .001). All patients with dual infections had lepromatous leprosy. Of the nine patients from Myanmar, six were test positive: four with M leprae and two with M lepromatosis. Of the Malaysian and Ugandan patients, only M leprae was detected in 27 of the 31 Malaysians and two of the four Ugandans.
CONCLUSIONS: The leprosy agents vary in geographic distribution. Finding M lepromatosis in Brazil and Myanmar suggests wide existence of this newly discovered species. The leprosy manifestations likely vary with the etiologic agents.