4.7 Article

Nine Cases of Methanogenic Archaea in Refractory Sinusitis, an Emerging Clinical Entity

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00038

Keywords

Methanobrevibacter oralis; Methanobrevibacter smithii; Methanobrevibacter massiliense; sinusitis; genotyping; archaea; methanogen

Funding

  1. French Government [10-IAHU-03]
  2. Region Provence Alpes Cote d'Azur
  3. European funding FEDER [PA 0000 319 IHUBIOTK]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors report the cases of 9 patients eventually diagnosed with methanogenic archaea refractory or recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis, a condition known to involve various anaerobic bacteria but in which the role of methanogenic archaea is unknown. The authors retrospectively searched these microorganisms by PCR in surgically-collected sinusal pus specimens from patients diagnosed with refractory sinusitis, defined by the persistance of sinus inflammation and related-symptoms for more than 12 weeks despite appropriate treatment. Of the 116 tested sinus surgical specimens, 12 (10.3%) from 9 patients (six females, three males; aged 20-71 years) were PCR-positive. These specimens were further investigated by fluorescence in-situ hybridization, PCR amplicon-sequencing and culture. Methanobrevibacter smithii was documented in four patients and Methanobrevibacter oralis in another four, one of whom was also culture-positive. They were associated with a mixed flora including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In the latter patient, Methanobrevibacter massiliense was the sole microorganism detected. These results highlight methanogenic archaea as being part of a mixed anaerobic flora involved in refractory sinusitis, and suggest that the treatment of this condition should include an antibiotic active against methanogens, notably a nitroimidazole derivative.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available