4.5 Article

Diversity of Mycobacterium avium subsp hominissuis mycobacteria causing lymphadenitis, France

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-011-1452-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Unite de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales Emergentes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The knowledge of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) genotypes responsible for lymphadenitis is limited. We retrospectively characterized all of the MAC isolates made in our laboratory in the last 18 years by sequence-based identification and genotyping, and compared the clinical and laboratory data for lymphadenitis-associated and non-lymphadenitis-associated MAC isolates. Of 67 MAC-infected patients, 25 lymphadenitis patients were significantly younger than 42 non-lymphadenitis patients, while the male/female ratio did not significantly differ between the two groups. Cervical topography found in 76.5% of lymphadenitis patients was significantly more frequent in non-immunocompromised patients (p = 0.04). M. avium subsp. hominissuis was identified in 53 patients (24 lymphadenitis, 29 non-lymphadenitis), M. colombiense in six patients (five non-lymphadenitis, one lymphadenitis), M. intracellulare in four non-lymphadenitis patients, and M. chimaera in three non-lymphadenitis patients, while negative controls remained negative. M. hominissuis was significantly associated with lymphadenitis (p = 0.03). M. hominissuis isolates yielded 15 genotypes in 29 non-lymphadenitis isolates (molecular diversity, 0.622) versus 11 genotypes in 24 lymphadenitis isolates (molecular diversity, 0.578), demonstrating a non-significant lower diversity of M. hominissuis isolates cultured from lymphadenitis. The genotypes did not correlate with the clinical features. These data suggest the presence of several environmental reservoirs for M. hominissuis causing lymphadenitis in France.

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