AASCIT - Journal - All Issues

ISSN: 2375-3005

American Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Journal

Manuscript Information

Evaluation of Different PCR-based Techniques in Diagnosis of Bovine Tuberculosis in Infected Cattle Lymph Nodes

American Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
Vol.2 , No. 5, Publication Date: Sep. 28, 2015, Page: 75-81

1479 Views Since September 28, 2015, 1386 Downloads Since Sep. 28, 2015

Paper in PDF (2251K)

Follow on

Authors

[1]	Nashwa M. Helmy, Biotechnology Dept., Animal Health Research Institute, ARC, Giza, Egypt.
[2]	Abdel-Rasheed F. Abdel-Moghney, Microbiology Dept., Animal Health Research Institute, ARC, Giza, Egypt.
[3]	Mohamed A. M. Atia, Genome Mapping Dept., Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI), ARC, Giza, Egypt.

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic bacterial disease of animals and humans caused by Mycobacterium bovis. In a large number of countries bovine tuberculosis is a major infectious disease among cattle and other domesticated animals. M. bovis can infect humans, primarily by the ingestion of unpasteurized dairy products but also in aerosols and through breaks in the skin. Raw or undercooked meat can also be a source of the infection. In live cattle, tuberculosis is usually diagnosed in the field with the tuberculin skin test which should be performed in the course of the twelve months prior to presentation for slaughter. An additional problem with the skin test is the widespread cross-reactivity with environmental mycobacteria which can limit its use. The diagnosis is confirmed by the isolation and identification of M. bovis on selective culture media or by different polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays. In this study, initially, 70 cows with the TB symptoms were screened for tuberculosis infection using intradermal tuberculin test (IDTT). The test results revealed that 17 animals (24%) showed positive reaction. The lymph nodes of positive animals were examined for gross lesions and consequently conducted for bacteriological examination, which revealed that only 12 animals were infected with M. bovis and one animal was infected with pathogenic M. tuberculosis. Therefore, three PCR-based assays (monoplex, conventional multiplex and Real Time PCR) were applied to positive cases. The results revealed that real-time PCR assay was the most sensitive, powerful and efficient assay compared with monoplex and multiplex conventional PCR assays.

Keywords

Mycobacterium Bovis, M. tuberculosis, Monoplex PCR, Multiplex PCR, Real Time PCR

Reference

[01]	Kate R, Justin O, Siobhan D l, Stefan N, Dick V S, Thomas B (2011) A Novel Multiplex Real-Time PCR for the Identification of Mycobacteria Associated with Zoonotic Tuberculosis. PLoS one, 6(8), e23481.
[02]	FAO (1993) FAO/OIE/WHO Animal Health Yearbook. Rome.
[03]	OIE (1988-1992) World Animal Health; Part 1: Reports & Statistics; Part 2: Tables. Geneva.
[04]	Thoen C, LoBue P, DeKantor I (2006) The importance of Mycobacterium bovis as a zoonosis. Vet. Microbiol. 112: 339-345.
[05]	Leite C Q, Anno I S, Leite S R, Roxo E, Morlock G P, Cooksey R C (2003) Isolation and identification of mycobacterium from livestock specimens and milk obtained in Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, 98: 319-923.
[06]	El-Sabban M S, Lotfy O, Awad W M, Soufi H S (1992) Bovine tuberculosis and its extent of spread as a source of infection to man and animals in Arab Republic of Egypt. Proc. Int. Conf. on Animal Tuberculosis in Africa and the Middle East, 28-30 April, 1992, p. 198-211.
[07]	OIE (2009): Biotechnology in the diagnosis of infectious diseases and vaccine development. Chapter 1. 1.7.
[08]	El-Taweel A (1992) Status of bovine tuberculosis in Egypt. Proc. Int. Conf. on Animal Tuberculosis in Africa and the Middle East, 28-30 April 1992, p. 296-311.
[09]	Nawal A H, Mohey A H, Soliman Y A, Alaa A G, Yasser A G (2009) Bovine tuberculosis in a dairy cattle farm as a threat to public health. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 3(8) pp. 446-450.
[10]	Waddington K (2004) To stamp out ‘so terrible a malady’: bovine tuberculosis and tuberculin testing in Britain, 1890–1939. Med. Hist., 48, 29–48.
[11]	Beyrer C, Jitwatcharanan K, Natpratan C, Kaewvichit R, Nelson K E, Chen C Y, Weiss J B, Morse S A (1998) Molecular methods for the diagnosis of genital ulcer disease in a sexually transmitted disease clinic population in Northern Thailand: predominance of the herpes simplex virus infection. J. Infect. Dis., 178: 243–246.
[12]	Wagar E A (1996) Direct hybridization and amplification applications for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. J. Clin. Lab. Anal., 10:312–325.
[13]	Wolcott M J (1992) Advances in nucleic acid-based detection methods. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 5: 370–386.
[14]	Max M (2012) Real-time PCR as a diagnostic tool for bacterial diseases. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn., 12(7), 731–754.
[15]	Lilenbaum W, Ribeiro E R, Sousa G M (1999) Evaluation of an ELISA PPD for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis in field trials in Brazil. Res. Vet. Sci., 66: 191-195.
[16]	Corner L A, Melville L, Mc Cubbin K, Small K J, McCornick B S, Wood P R, Rothel J S (1990) Efficiency of inspection procedures for the detection of tuberculosis lesion in cattle. Aust. Vet. J., 67 (11): 389-392.
[17]	Bakshi C S, Shah A D H, Rishendra V, Singha R K, Meenakshi M (2005) Rapid differentiation of Mycobacterium bovis and Mycobacterium tuberculosis based on a 12.7-kb fragment by a single tube multiplex-PCR. Veterinary Microbiology, 109, p: 211–216.
[18]	Tanil K, Engin Y, Seref O, Sesin K, Murat H, Meena S, Henry F (1993) Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum samples by polymerase chain reaction using a simplified procedure. J. Clin. Microbiol., 31 (6): 1435-1438.
[19]	Debra V C, Stephen D W, Barry R F, Beth l G (1992) Use of Polymerase Chain Reaction for rapid diagnosis of Tuberculosis. Journal of clinical microbiology, 30(1) p. 255-258.
[20]	Francis J, Seiler R J, Wilkie I W, O’Boyle D, Lumsden M J, Frost A J (1978) The sensitivity and specificity of various tuberculin tests using bovine PPD and other tuberculins. Vet. Rec., 103:420–425.
[21]	Wood P R, Comer L A, Rothel J S, Baldock C, Jones S L, Cousins D B, McCormick B S, Francis B R, Creeper J, Tweddle N E (1991) Field comparison of the interferon-gamma assay and the intradermal tuberculin test for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Aust. vet. J., 68 (9), 286-290.
[22]	Nwanta J A, Onunkwo J I, Ezema W S, Umeononigwe C N (2010) Zoonotic tuberculosis: A review of epidemiology, clinical presentation, prevention and control. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 2(6), pp. 118-124.
[23]	Ciro E, Fernardo D O, Camilia A D, Nicolas V, Rafael P G, Dante G S (2004) Agreement between PCR and conventional methods for diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Vet. Mix., 35(3) p: 225-236.
[24]	Wilton S, Cousins D (1992) DNA amplification in a single tube. Detection. Genome Res., 1992 1: 269-273.
[25]	Elizabeth Y K, Payam N P, Hopewell C, Midori K (2010) Novel Hot Spot of IS6110 Insertion in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 48(4), p: 1422–1424.
[26]	Heim A, Ebnet C, Harste G, Pring-Akerblom P (2003) Rapid and quantitative detection of human adenovirus DNA by real-time PCR. J. Med. Virol., 70, 228–239.
[27]	Suheir E, Gila K B, Abedelmajeed K A, Sharif E Q, Charles L G, Mark S, Ziad A (2010) Rapid Differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and M. bovis by High-Resolution Melt Curve Analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48(11):4269.