Detection of Mycobacterium leprae in Ocular Tissues by Histopathology and Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

Mycobacterium leprae specific genomic target in the promoter region of probable 4-alpha-glucanotransferase (ML1545) gene with potential sensitivity for polymerase chain reaction based diagnosis of leprosy

With the absence of an effective diagnostic tool for leprosy, cases with negative bacteriological index and limited clinical manifestations often pose diagnostic challenges. In this study, we investigated the utility of a novel Mycobacterium leprae specific 112-bp DNA sequence in the promoter region of probable 4-alpha-glucanotransferase (pseudogene, ML1545) for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based diagnosis of leprosy in comparison to that of the RLEP gene. DNA was extracted from slit skin scrapings of 180 newly diagnosed untreated leprosy cases that were classified as per Ridley Jopling classifications and bacteriological index (BI). Primers were designed using Primer Blast 3.0 and PCR was performed with annealing temperatures of 61°C for ML1545 and 58°C for the RLEP gene using conventional gradient PCR. The results indicated a significant increase in PCR positivity of ML1545 when compared to RLEP across the study groups (164/180 [91.11%] were positive for ML1545 whereas 114/180 (63.33%) were positive for RLEP [p<.0001, z=6.3]). Among 58 leprosy cases with negative BI, 28 (48.28%) were positive for RLEP and 48 (82.76%) were positive for ML1545 (p=.0001, z=3.8). Of the 42 borderline tuberculoid leprosy cases, 23 (54.76%) were positive for RLEP whereas 37 (88.09%) were positive for ML1545 (p<.0001, z=3.9). Increase in PCR positivity for ML1545 was also noted in lepromatous leprosy and BI-positive groups. ML1545 can be a potential gene target for PCR-based diagnosis of leprosy especially in cases where clinical manifestations were minimal.

Ocular leprosy

Ocular involvement in leprosy is estimated to be 70-75%, about 10-50% of leprosy patients suffer from severe ocular symptoms, and blindness occurs in about 5% of patients. The disease leads to many ophthalmologic symptoms and signs in the range of the eyeball itself, as well as of the bulb adnexa, ie, eyebrows, eyelids with eyelashes, and lacrimal drainage system. Especially dangerous are complications of lagophthalmos and corneal hypoanesthesia, neurotrophic or infectious keratitis, and iridocyclitis and cataract formation, which may lead to significant decrease of visual acuity or even blindness. Multidrug treatment rapidly interrupts transmission of Mycobacterium leprae by infectious patients, but even after being completed, it does not guarantee the withholding of ocular complications.

Comparative evaluation of PCR amplification of RLEP, 16S rRNA, rpoT and Sod A gene targets for detection of M. leprae DNA from clinical and environmental samples

PURPOSE

PCR assay is a highly sensitive, specific and reliable diagnostic tool for the identification of pathogens in many infectious diseases. Genome sequencing Mycobacterium leprae revealed several gene targets that could be used for the detection of DNA from clinical and environmental samples. The PCR sensitivity of particular gene targets for specific clinical and environmental isolates has not yet been established. The present study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of RLEP, rpoT, Sod A and 16S rRNA gene targets in the detection of M. leprae in slit skin smear (SSS), blood, soil samples of leprosy patients and their surroundings.

METHOD

Leprosy patients were classified into Paucibacillary (PB) and Multibacillary (MB) types. Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) staining method for all the SSS samples and Bacteriological Index (BI) was calculated for all patients. Standard laboratory protocol was used for DNA extraction from SSS, blood and soil samples. PCR technique was performed for the detection of M. leprae DNA from all the above-mentioned samples.

RESULTS

RLEP gene target was able to detect the presence of M. leprae in 83% of SSS, 100% of blood samples and in 36% of soil samples and was noted to be the best out of all other gene targets (rpoT, Sod A and 16S rRNA). It was noted that the RLEP gene target was able to detect the highest number (53%) of BI-negative leprosy patients amongst all the gene targets used in this study.

CONCLUSION

Amongst all the gene targets used in this study, PCR positivity using RLEP gene target was the highest in all the clinical and environmental samples. Further, the RLEP gene target was able to detect 53% of blood samples as positive in BI-negative leprosy cases indicating its future standardization and use for diagnostic purposes.

PCR-based techniques for leprosy diagnosis: from the laboratory to the clinic

In leprosy, classic diagnostic tools based on bacillary counts and histopathology have been facing hurdles, especially in distinguishing latent infection from active disease and diagnosing paucibacillary clinical forms. Serological tests and IFN-gamma releasing assays (IGRA) that employ humoral and cellular immune parameters, respectively, are also being used, but recent results indicate that quantitative PCR (qPCR) is a key technique due to its higher sensitivity and specificity. In fact, advances concerning the structure and function of the Mycobacterium leprae genome led to the development of specific PCR-based gene amplification assays for leprosy diagnosis and monitoring of household contacts. Also, based on the validation of point-of-care technologies for M. tuberculosis DNA detection, it is clear that the same advantages of rapid DNA detection could be observed in respect to leprosy. So far, PCR has proven useful in the determination of transmission routes, M. leprae viability, and drug resistance in leprosy. However, PCR has been ascertained to be especially valuable in diagnosing difficult cases like pure neural leprosy (PNL), paucibacillary (PB), and patients with atypical clinical presentation and histopathological features compatible with leprosy. Also, the detection of M. leprae DNA in different samples of the household contacts of leprosy patients is very promising. Although a positive PCR result is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship with disease outcome, quantitation provided by qPCR is clearly capable of indicating increased risk of developing the disease and could alert clinicians to follow these contacts more closely or even define rules for chemoprophylaxis.