4.6 Article

Detection of bacterial DNA in atherornatous plaques by quantitative PCR

Journal

MICROBES AND INFECTION
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 687-693

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2005.09.004

Keywords

atheroma; periodontitis; bacteria

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL75002] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE00432, DE11117, DE13545] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This is the first study to analyze atheromatous plaques for the presence of bacterial DNA from ten species, including periodontal species and Chlamydia pneumoniae. We examined 129 samples of DNA extracted from atheromas from 29 individuals for the presence of bacterial 16S rDNA sequences from ten different species: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Actinobacillus actinomycetenicomitans (A.a.), Tannerella forsythensis, Eikenella corrodens, Prevotella intermedia, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus mutans, Treponema denticola and C. pneumoniae. All determinations were made using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods employing SYBR((R))Green. Species from the Bacteroides family were found in about 17% of the young but similar to 80% in elderly patients. Almost half of the samples contained DNA from A. a. and C. pneumoniae, although the proportion of the latter was minimal. S. aureus and S. epidermidis were found with the lowest frequency, 5 and 10%, respectively. S. mutans was found in similar to 20% of the samples. The proportions of each bacterial species were calculated relative to the total amount of prokaryotic DNA. The data support our previous findings of an association between periodontal organisms and vascular inflammation. We conclude that DNA from oral infectious agents is commonly found in atheromas from young but especially from elderly subjects, and that the contribution of C. pneumoniae to the inflammation may be minimal. (c) 2005 Elsevier SAS. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available