Volume 7, Issue 4 (10-2019)                   JoMMID 2019, 7(4): 116-119 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Khodabakhshi B, Abbasi A, Torabi Rostami M, Joshaghani H R, Roshandel G. Comparison of Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) and Agglutination Assays in Diagnosis of Brucellosis in Golestan Province, North of Iran. JoMMID. 2019; 7 (4) :116-119
URL: http://jommid.pasteur.ac.ir/article-1-179-en.html
Department of Infectious Diseases, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Golestan, Iran
Abstract:   (615 Views)
Introduction: Brucellosis is one of the most common zoonotic infections worldwide. The clinical symptoms of brucellosis are similar to a wide range of diseases; hence, reliable diagnostic and laboratory methods are required to identify the causative agent. Iran is an endemic region of brucellosis, and many patients are misdiagnosed due to the nature of the infection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the use of the conventional Wright test and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for the diagnosis of brucellosis. Methods: Diagnosis of brucellosis was performed using serological tests and PCR amplification of a gene encoding 31-kDa immunogenic Brucella abortus protein (BCSP31). Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results: Brucellosis was diagnosed in 45 (69.23%) and 22 (38.8%) patients using the Wright test and qRT-PCR, respectively. The results of Wright and qRT-PCR assays were consistent in patients with negative results (90%). Moreover, qRT-PCR detected brucellosis in 25% of patients with Wright test titers <1/160, while 55.2% of the patients were positive with titers ≥1/160. No significant association was detected between positive PCR results and age, gender, and clinical symptoms. Conclusion: qRT-PCR showed a reliable diagnostic method capable of detecting the infection in suspected individuals with negative Wright results or with Wright test titers <1/160. Also, the positive qRT-PCR assays were in agreement with the Wright test titer. Regarding the financial and availability issues as well as technical problems, the agglutination test remains the preferred method in Iran.
Full-Text [PDF 397 kb]   (105 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Microbial pathogenesis
Received: 2018/11/12 | Accepted: 2020/01/20 | Published: 2020/03/12

References
1. Buzgan T, Karahocagil MK, Irmak H, Baran AI, Karsen H, Evirgen O, et al. Clinical manifestations and complications in 1028 cases of brucellosis: a retrospective evaluation and review of the literature. Int J Infect Dis. 2010; 14 (6): e469-78. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2009.06.031]
2. Fanni F, Shahbaznejad L, Pourakbari B, Mahmoudi S, Mamishi S. Clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and therapeutic regimen in hospitalized children with brucellosis in an Iranian Referral Children Medical Centre. J Health Popul Nutr. 2013; 31 (2): 218-22. [DOI:10.3329/jhpn.v31i2.16386]
3. Hasanjani Roushan MR, Marashi SM, Moulana Z. Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based Assays for the Diagnosis of Active and Relapsed Cases of Human Brucellosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016; 95 (6): 1272-6. [DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.16-0344]
4. Al Dahouk S, Nockler K. Implications of laboratory diagnosis on brucellosis therapy. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011; 9 (7): 833-45. [DOI:10.1586/eri.11.55]
5. Wang Y, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Bai L, Zhao Y, Liu C, et al. Polymerase chain reaction-based assays for the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2014; 13: 31. [DOI:10.1186/s12941-014-0031-7]
6. Fekete A, Bantle JA, Halling SM, Sanborn MR. Preliminary development of a diagnostic test for Brucella using polymerase chain reaction. J Appl Bacteriol. 1990; 69 (2): 216-27. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb01512.x]
7. Asaad AM, Alqahtani JM. Serological and molecular diagnosis of human brucellosis in Najran, Southwestern Saudi Arabia. J Infect Public Health. 2012; 5 (2): 189-94. [DOI:10.1016/j.jiph.2012.02.001]
8. Gemechu MY, Gill JP, Arora AK, Ghatak S, Singh DK. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for rapid diagnosis and its role in prevention of human brucellosis in Punjab, India. Int J Prev Med. 2011; 2 (3): 170-7.
9. Pathak AD, Dubal ZB, Doijad S, Raorane A, Rodrigues S, Naik R, et al. Human brucellosis among pyrexia of unknown origin cases and occupationally exposed individuals in Goa Region, India. Emerg Health Threats J. 2014; 7: 23846. [DOI:10.3402/ehtj.v7.23846]
10. Hinic V, Brodard I, Thomann A, Cvetnic Z, Makaya PV, Frey J, et al. Novel identification and differentiation of Brucella melitensis, B. abortus, B. suis, B. ovis, B. canis, and B. neotomae suitable for both conventional and real-time PCR systems. J Microbiol Methods. 2008; 75 (2): 375-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.mimet.2008.07.002]
11. Gopaul KK, Koylass MS, Smith CJ, Whatmore AM. Rapid identification of Brucella isolates to the species level by real time PCR based single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis. BMC Microbiol. 2008; 8: 86. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2180-8-86]
12. Pezzlo M. Aerobic bacteriology. In: Isenberg HD, editor. Clinical microbiology procedures handbook. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1992. p. 1.19.1-1.20.47.
13. Aliskan H. The value of culture and serological methods in the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2008; 42 (1): 185-95.
14. Nimri LF. Diagnosis of recent and relapsed cases of human brucellosis by PCR assay. BMC Infect Dis. 2003; 3: 5. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-3-5]
15. Baily GG, Krahn JB, Drasar BS, Stoker NG. Detection of Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus by DNA amplification. J Trop Med Hyg. 1992; 95 (4): 271-5.
16. Mantur BG, Biradar MS, Bidri RC, Mulimani MS, Veerappa, Kariholu P, et al. Protean clinical manifestations and diagnostic challenges of human brucellosis in adults: 16 years' experience in an endemic area. J Med Microbiol. 2006; 55 (Pt 7): 897-903. [DOI:10.1099/jmm.0.46097-0]
17. El Kholy AA, Gomaa HE, El Anany MG, Abd El Rasheed E. Diagnosis of human brucellosis in Egypt by polymerase chain reaction. EMHJ. 2009; 15 (5): 1068-74. [DOI:10.26719/2009.15.5.1068]
18. Garshasbi M, Ramazani A, Sorouri R, Javani S, Moradi S. Molecular detection of Brucella species in patients suspicious of Brucellosis from Zanjan, Iran. Braz J Microbiol. 2014; 45 (2): 533-8. [DOI:10.1590/S1517-83822014005000048]
19. Elfaki MG, Uz-Zaman T, Al-Hokail AA, Nakeeb SM. Detection of Brucella DNA in sera from patients with brucellosis by polymerase chain reaction. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005; 53 (1): 1-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2005.03.011]
20. Queipo-Ortuno MI, Morata P, Ocon P, Manchado P, Colmenero JD. Rapid diagnosis of human brucellosis by peripheral-blood PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol. 1997; 35 (11): 2927-30. [DOI:10.1128/JCM.35.11.2927-2930.1997]
21. Navarro E, Fernandez JA, Escribano J, Solera J. PCR assay for diagnosis of human brucellosis. J Clin Microbiol. 1999; 37 (5): 1654-5.
22. Al-Attas RA, Al-Khalifa M, Al-Qurashi AR, Badawy M, Al-Gualy N. Evaluation of PCR, culture and serology for the diagnosis of acute human brucellosis. Ann Saudi Med. 2000; 20 (3-4): 224-8. [DOI:10.5144/0256-4947.2000.224]
23. Al-Ajlan HH, Ibrahim AS, Al-Salamah AA. Comparison of different PCR methods for detection of Brucella spp. in human blood samples. Pol J Microbiol. 2011; 60 (1): 27-33. [DOI:10.33073/pjm-2011-004]
24. Kazemi B, Yousefi NS, Doulatshahi M, Bandehpour M, Kafilzadeh F, Gachkar L, Mahmoudinezhad H, Samarghandi A, Mardani M. Detection of Brucella by peripheral blood PCR and comparison with culture and serological methods in suspected cases. Iranian J Publ Health. 2008; 37 (4): 96-102.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.