|
1
|
Aghazadeh M, Jones M, Perera S, Nair J, Tan L, Clark B, Curtis A, Jones J, Ellem J, Olma T, Stark D, Melki J, Coulston N, Baker R, Millar D. The Application of 3base™ Technology to Diagnose Eight of the Most Clinically Important Gastrointestinal Protozoan Infections. Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24:13387. [PMID: 37686192 PMCID: PMC10487386 DOI: 10.3390/ijms241713387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Revised: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Globally, over 3.5 billion people are infected with intestinal parasites each year, resulting in over 200,000 deaths. Three of the most common protozoan pathogens that affect the gastrointestinal tract of humans are Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia intestinalis, and Entamoeba histolytica. Other protozoan agents that have been implicated in gastroenteritis in humans include Cyclospora cayetanensis, Dientamoeba fragilis, Blastocystis hominis, and the microsporidia Enterocytozoon bieneusi and Encephalitozoon intestinalis. Genetic Signatures previously developed a 3base™ multiplexed Real-Time PCR (mRT-PCR) enteric protozoan kit (EP001) for the detection of Giardia intestinalis/lamblia/duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., E. histolytica, D. fragilis, and B. hominis. We now describe improvements to this kit to produce a more comprehensive assay, including C. cayetanensis, E. bieneusi, and E. intestinalis, termed EP005. The clinical performance of EP005 was assessed using a set of 380 clinical samples against a commercially available PCR test and other in-house nucleic acid amplification tests where commercial tests were not available. All methods provided at least 90% agreement. EP005 had no cross-reactivity against 82 organisms commonly found in the gut. The EP005 method streamlines the detection of gastrointestinal parasites and addresses the many challenges of traditional microscopic detection, resulting in cost savings and significant improvements in patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahdis Aghazadeh
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Meghan Jones
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Suneth Perera
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Jiny Nair
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Litty Tan
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Brett Clark
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Angela Curtis
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Jackson Jones
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Justin Ellem
- Microbiology Department, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia; (J.E.); (T.O.)
| | - Tom Olma
- Microbiology Department, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia; (J.E.); (T.O.)
| | - Damien Stark
- St. Vincent’s Pathology, Level 6, Xavier Building, 390 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia;
| | - John Melki
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Neralie Coulston
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Rohan Baker
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Douglas Millar
- Genetic Signatures, 7 Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia; (M.A.); (M.J.); (S.P.); (J.N.); (B.C.); (A.C.); (J.J.); (J.M.); (N.C.); (R.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Evaluation of Commercial Concentration Methods for Microscopic Diagnosis of Protozoa and Helminths in Human Stool Samples in a Non-Endemic Area. Microorganisms 2022; 10:microorganisms10061237. [PMID: 35744756 PMCID: PMC9230666 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10061237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections still widely relies on microscopic examination of stools and requires reliable reagents and staff expertise. The ParaFlo® assays (Eurobio Ingen) are ready-to-use concentration methods for parasite egg detection, and they could improve reagent traceability and ease of manipulation. Ninety-three stool samples were analyzed with the ParaFlo® concentration methods and then compared with routine microscopic methods for protozoa and helminth detection: seventy-eight were analyzed with ParaFlo® Bailenger and in-house Thebault or Bailenger concentrations, and fifty-five were analyzed with ParaFlo®DC and the in-house merthiolate-formalin diphasic concentration (DC) method. Fully concordant results were obtained for 75%, 70%, and 69% of samples when comparing ParaFlo® DC and in-house DC, ParaFlo® Bailenger and in-house Bailenger, and ParaFlo® Bailenger and Thebault, respectively. The performances of the ParaFlo® assays did not differ statistically from that obtained with their in-house counterparts (Bailenger and DC) for the detection of protozoa, but ParaFlo® Bailenger performed significantly poorer than the Thebault method (p < 0.001). No statistical differences were observed between the commercial and in-house methods for helminth detection. These marketed concentration methods could be used in routine if combined with other techniques for protozoa detection.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
An Overview of the Molecular Methods in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infectious Diseases. Int J Microbiol 2020; 2020:8135724. [PMID: 32280346 PMCID: PMC7128059 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8135724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2019] [Revised: 01/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Gastrointestinal infectious diseases are very common worldwide and an important cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in infants in developing countries. Diarrhea and other intestinal infections are caused by a wide range of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasites. Conventional diagnosis of these infections is performed by culture, microscopy, and antigen detection immunoassays. The traditional culture and microscopy procedures are time-consuming, lack sensitivity, and require special laboratory setup and well-trained staff. However, based on the advancement in the molecular diagnostics and with the introduction of commercially available tests, traditional diagnostic techniques have been continuously replaced by these newer rapid antigen detection and molecular-based methods. This review summarizes and discusses the availability, advantages, and disadvantages of molecular methods in the detection and identification of human gastrointestinal pathogens.
Collapse
|