4.5 Article

Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori vacA, cagA and iceA genotypes in South African patients with upper gastrointestinal diseases

Journal

ACTA TROPICA
Volume 116, Issue 1, Pages 68-73

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2010.05.011

Keywords

Helicobacter pylori; Prevalence; Gastric related morbidities; Genotypes; South Africa

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa [UID 69816]
  2. Govan Mbeki Research and Development Centre, University of Fort Hare, South Africa
  3. Department of Child Health, University of Glasgow, Scotland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical response to Helicobacter pylori infection may be determined by specific virulence-associated genotypes which varies geographically. The aim of this study was to investigate the diversity of putative virulence markers of H. pylori; cagA, vacA and iceA in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. One hundred H. pylori strains obtained from dyspeptic patients were used. Gastric biopsies were obtained from 254 dyspeptic patients. H. pylori was cultured and strains were studied. Bacterial genotypes cagA, vacA (s and m subtypes) and iceA were analysed by PCR using specific primers. CagA was identified in 90% of the strains investigated. Fifty-eight of the 100 strains had the vacA signal sequence genotype s1 and 26 had subtype s2. Combined vacA s1/s2 was detected in 16 of the strains. VacA middle region analysis showed that 8 (8%) strains were m1 while 50 were m2. Combined vacA m1/m2 was detected in 36 of the strains. s1m2 (20%) and s2m2 (20%) genotypes were the most common allelic combinations of the vacA gene among the strains. Multiple vacA genotypes were detected in this study. Twenty-six percent of the strains identified had both iceA1 and iceA2. All our strains tested positive for the ureC (glmM) gene. This study reveals a high prevalence of vacA, cagA and iceA2. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available