4.3 Article

Detection and identification of Leishmania spp.: application of two hsp70-based PCR-RFLP protocols to clinical samples from the New World

Journal

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 116, Issue 7, Pages 1843-1848

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-017-5454-6

Keywords

Leishmania; Leishmaniasis; Species; PCR; RFLP; hsp70

Categories

Funding

  1. Belgian Directorate General for Development
  2. ITM Antwerp

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Leishmaniasis is highly prevalent in New World countries, where several methods are available for detection and identification of Leishmania spp. Two hsp70-based PCR protocols (PCR-N and PCR-F) and their corresponding restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) were applied for detection and identification of Leishmania spp. in clinical samples recruited in Colombia, Guatemala, and Honduras. A total of 93 cases were studied. The samples were classified into positive or suspected of leishmaniasis according to parasitological criteria. Molecular amplification of two different hsp70 gene fragments and further RFLP analysis for identification of Leishmania species was done. The detection in parasitologically positive samples was higher using PCR-N than PCR-F. In the total of samples studied, the main species identified were Leishmania panamensis, Leishmania braziliensis, and Leishmania infantum (chagasi). Although RFLP-N was more efficient for the identification, RFLP-F is necessary for discrimination between L. panamensis and Leishmania guyanesis, of great importance in Colombia. Unexpectedly, one sample from this country revealed an RFLP pattern corresponding to Leishmania naiffi. Both molecular variants are applicable for the study of clinical samples originated in Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala. Choosing the better tool for each setting depends on the species circulating. More studies are needed to confirm the presence of L. naiffi in Colombian territory.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available