4.5 Article

Seeking the environmental source of Leptospirosis reveals durable bacterial viability in river soils

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005414

关键词

-

资金

  1. Axa Research Fund
  2. Institut Pasteur in New Caledonia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Leptospirosis is an important re-emerging infectious disease that affects humans worldwide. Infection occurs from indirect environment-mediated exposure to pathogenic leptospires through contaminated watered environments. The ability of pathogenic leptospires to persist in the aqueous environment is a key factor in transmission to new hosts. Hence, an effort was made to detect pathogenic leptospires in complex environmental samples, to genotype positive samples and to assess leptospiral viability over time. Methodology/Principal findings We focused our study on human leptospirosis cases infected with the New Caledonian Leptospira interrogans serovar Pyrogenes. Epidemiologically related to freshwater contaminations, this strain is responsible for ca. 25% of human cases in New Caledonia. We screened soil and water samples retrieved from suspected environmental infection sites for the pathogen-specific leptospiral gene lipL-32. Soil samples from all suspected infection sites tested showed detectable levels of pathogenic leptospiral DNA. More importantly, we demonstrated by viability qPCR that those pathogenic leptospires were viable and persisted in infection sites for several weeks after the index contamination event. Further, molecular phylogenetic analyses of the leptospiral lfb-1 gene successfully linked the identity of environmental Leptospira to the corresponding human-infecting strain. Conclusions/Significance Altogether, this study illustrates the potential of quantitative viability-PCR assay for the rapid detection of viable leptospires in environmental samples, which might open avenues to strategies aimed at assessing environmental risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据