DOCSLIB.ORG

Susceptibility and Resistance Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Susceptibility and Resistance Data toku-e logo For a complete list of references, please visit antibiotics.toku-e.com Azithromycin dihydrate Microorganism Genus, Species, and Strain (if shown) Concentration Range (μg/ml)Susceptibility and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans <2 Minimum Inhibitory Bacillus circulans ≤0.03 － >32 Bacteroides capillosus Concentration≤0.03 － 0.25 (MIC) Data Bacteroides tectum 0.5 － 2 Issue date 01/06/2020 Bacteroides ureolyticus ≤0.03 － 0.25 Bifidobacterium breve ≤0.03 － >32 Bifidobacterium longum ≤0.03 － >32 Bilophila wadsworthia 1 － 16 Borrelia afzelii 0.0004 － 0.0156 Borrelia bissettii 0.0039 － ? Borrelia burgdorferi ≤0.0002 － 3 Borrelia garinii 0.0004 － 0.0156 Borrelia valaisiana 0.0009 － ≤0.015 Brevibacterium spp. ≤0.03 － >128 Brucella melitensis <0.125 － >256 Campylobacter concisus ≤0.03 － 0.5 Campylobacter gracilis ≤0.03 － 0.5 Campylobacter mucosalis ≤0.03 － 0.5 Campylobacter rectus ≤0.03 － 0.5 Campylobacter showae ≤0.03 － 0.5 Campylobacter spp. 0.25 Campylobacter sputorum ≤0.03 － 0.5 Candida >32 Capnocytophaga ochracea ≤0.03 － 0.25 Chlamydia pneumonia 0.015 － 0.5 Chlamydia trachomatis 0.016 － 0.125 Chlamydophila pneumonia 0.012 － 0.5 Citrobacter koseri 2 － >8 Clostridium clostridioforme 0.125 － >32 Clostridium difficile 1 － >32 Clostridium innocuum 0.125 － >32 Clostridium ramosum 0.125 － >32 Collinsella aerofaciens ≤0.03 － 0.25 Corynebacterium afermentans 0.03 － >128 Corynebacterium amycolatum 0.125 － >128 Corynebacterium jeikeium 0.06 － >128 Corynebacterium minutissimum ≤0.03 － >128 Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum ≤0.015 － >128 Corynebacterium spp. 0.03 － >128 Corynebacterium striatum 0.03 － >128 Corynebacterium urealyticum ≤0.015 － >128 Coryneform (CDC group 0.03 － >128 Dialister pneumosintes ≤0.03 － 0.25 Edwardsiella hoshinae 2 － 16 Edwardsiella ictaluri 0.5 － 32 Edwardsiella tarda 4 － 16 Eikenella corrodens 0.25 - 8 Enterobacteriaceae 0.25 － 128 Enterococcus 0.06 － ≥512 Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae 0.03 Escherichia coli ≤0.0156 － 512 Eubacterium lentum ≤0.03 － 0.25 Eubacterium saburreum ≤0.03 － 0.125 Eubacterium spp. ≤0.03 － 0.25 Eubacterium timidum ≤0.03 － 0.25 Eubacterium yurii ≤0.03 － 0.25 Finegoldia magna ≤0.03 － >32 Fusobacterium gonidiaformans 0.06 － 32 Fusobacterium mortiferum 1 － >32 Fusobacterium naviforme ≤0.03 － 32 Fusobacterium necrogenes 1 － >32 Fusobacterium necrophorum ≤0.03 － 32 Fusobacterium nucleatum ≤0.03 － >64 Fusobacterium russii 0.03 － 32 Fusobacterium ulcerans 1 － >32 Fusobacterium varium 2 － >32 Haemophilus influenzae 0.001 － >256 Microorganism Genus, Species, and Strain (if shown) Concentration Range (μg/ml)Susceptibility and Helicobacter pylori 0.06 － >128Minimum Inhibitory Klebsiella oxytoca 8 － >8 Lactobacillus catenaforme ≤0.03 － >32 Lactobacillus delbrueckii ≤0.03 － >32 Lactobacillus oris ≤0.03 － >32 Lactobacillus plantarum ≤0.03 － >32 Lactobacillus spp. ≤0.03 － >32 Legionella pneumophila 0.008 － 2 Legionella spp. 0.12 － 2 Leptotrichia buccalis ≤0.03 － 1 Listeria monocytogenes 0.125 － 2 Micromonas micros ≤0.03 － 0.5 Moraxella catarrhalis ≤0.008 － ≥64 Morganella morganii 8 － >8 Mycobacterium abscessus 0.5 － >64 Mycobacterium avium 4 - >256 Mycobacterium chelonae 0.25 － 4 Mycobacterium fortuitum 1 － >64 Mycobacterium malmoense 16 Mycobacterium mucogenicum 0.12 － 1 Mycobacterium peregrinum 0.5 － 4 Mycobacterium simiae 4 Mycobacterium xenopi 1 Mycoplasma fermentans 2 － 8 Mycoplasma genitalium ≤0.015 － 0.03 Mycoplasma hominis 32 － >64 Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae 0.0625 － >64 Mycoplasma penetrans 0.12 － 0.5 Mycoplasma pneumonia 0.00024 － 3.2 Neisseria cinerea 0.5 － 4 Neisseria lactamica 1 － 2 Neisseria meningitidis ≤0.03 － 2 Neisseria mucosa 0.06 － 8 Neisseria perflava/sicca 0.25 － 4 Neisseria polysaccharea 0.03 － 0.25 Oerskovia spp. 0.03 － >128 Olsenella uli ≤0.03 － >32 Pasteurella multocida 0.05 Peptostreptococcus anaerobius ≤0.03 － >32 Peptostreptococcus asaccharolyticus 0.5 － >32 Peptostreptococcus magnus 2 － >32 Peptostreptococcus micros 0.5 － 1 Peptostreptococcus prevotii 0.06 － >32 Peptostreptococcus spp. 2 － 4 Porphyromonas asaccharolytica 0.125 － >32 Porphyromonas cangingivalis 0.125 － 1 Porphyromonas canoris 0.125 － 0.5 Porphyromonas cansulci 0.125 － 1 Porphyromonas circumdentaria 0.125 － 1 Porphyromonas endodontalis ≤0.03 － 0.25 Porphyromonas gingivalis ≤0.03 － 8 Porphyromonas levii 0.125 － 1 Porphyromonas macacae 0.125 － 1 Prevotella bivia 0.25 － >32 Prevotella buccae 0.06 － >32 Prevotella buccalis 0.03 － >32 Prevotella corporis ≤0.03 － 8 Prevotella dentalis ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella denticola 0.06 － >32 Prevotella disiens ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella heparinolytica 0.5 － 1 Prevotella intermedia ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella loescheii ≤0.03 － 32 Prevotella melaninogenica ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella nigrescens ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella oralis ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella oris ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella pallens ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella spp. ≤0.03 － >32 Prevotella tannerae ≤0.03 － 8 Prevotella zooglioformans ≤0.03 － >32 Propionibacterium avidum ≤0.03 － >32 Microorganism Genus, Species, and Strain (if shown) Concentration Range (μg/ml)Susceptibility and Pseudomonas aeruginosa 125 － 2000Minimum Inhibitory Rhodococcus equi 0.03 － >4 Salmonella spp. 1 Selenomonas flueggei ≤0.03 － 0.25 Selenomonas infelix ≤0.03 － 0.25 Selenomonas spp. ≤0.03 － 0.25 Shigella spp. 0.5 Staphylococci 0.06 － ≥64 Staphylococcus aureus 0.12 - >128 Staphylococcus epidermidis <0.12 － >128 Staphylococcus haemolyticus 0.25 － >8 Staphylococcus hominis 0.12 － >8 Staphylococcus lugdunensis 0.25 － >8 Staphylococcus pneumonia >16 Staphylococcus saprophyticus 0.12 － >64 Staphylococcus spp. 0.5 － >32 Staphylococcus warneri 0.12 － >8 Streptococci ≤0.008 － >256 Streptococcus agalactiae 0.008 － >64 Streptococcus anginosus 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus bovis 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus constellatus 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus intermedius 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus mitis 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus oralis 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus pneumonia 0.004 - >512 Streptococcus pyogenes 0.001 - >256 Streptococcus salivarius 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus sanguinis 0.008 － >8 Streptococcus spp. ≤0.06 － >8 Turicella otitidis 0.03 － >128 Ureaplasma spp. 0.063 － 4 Ureaplasma urealyticum 0.06 － 0.5 Veillonella spp. ≤0.03 － >32 The data above is sourced from The Antimicrobial Index. For further assistance, please contact us at [email protected] or visit www.toku-e.com..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Differences in Genotype, Clinical Features, and Inflammatory
    RESEARCH Differences in Genotype, Clinical Features, and Inflammatory Potential of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto Strains from Europe and the United States Tjasa Cerar,1 Franc Strle,1 Dasa Stupica, Eva Ruzic-Sabljic, Gail McHugh, Allen C. Steere, Klemen Strle Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto isolates from patients with B. afzelii, which usually remains localized to the skin, with erythema migrans in Europe and the United States and B. garinii, which is usually associated with nervous were compared by genotype, clinical features of infection, system involvement (1). B. burgdorferi infection is rare in and inflammatory potential. Analysis of outer surface pro- Europe; little is known about its clinical course there. In tein C and multilocus sequence typing showed that strains the United States, B. burgdorferi is the sole agent of Lyme from these 2 regions represent distinct genotypes. Clinical borreliosis; in the northeastern United States, it is particu- features of infection with B. burgdorferi in Slovenia were similar to infection with B. afzelii or B. garinii, the other 2 larly arthritogenic (1,2). For all 3 species, the first sign of Borrelia spp. that cause disease in Europe, whereas B. infection is often an erythema migrans lesion. However, B. burgdorferi strains from the United States were associ- burgdorferi infection in the United States is associated with ated with more severe disease. Moreover, B. burgdorferi a greater number of disease-associated symptoms and more strains from the United States induced peripheral blood frequent hematogenous dissemination than B. afzelii or B. mononuclear cells to secrete higher levels of cytokines garinii infection in Europe (4–7).
    [Show full text]
  • Values of Diagnostic Tests for the Various Species of Spirochetes
    +Model MEDMAL-4093; No. of Pages 10 ARTICLE IN PRESS Disponible en ligne sur ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com Médecine et maladies infectieuses xxx (2019) xxx–xxx Review Values of diagnostic tests for the various species of spirochetes Performances des tests diagnostiques pour les différentes espèces de spirochètes a,∗ b a c,d e Carole Eldin , Benoit Jaulhac , Oleg Mediannikov , Jean-Pierre Arzouni , Didier Raoult a IRD, AP–HM, SSA, VITROME, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille Université, 13005 Marseille, France b Laboratoire de bactériologie, Centre national de référence des Borrelia, faculté de médecine de Strasbourg, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67091 Strasbourg, France c Plate-forme de sérologie bactérienne, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, 13005 Marseille, France d Labosud provence biologie, 13117 Martigues, France e IRD, AP–HM, MEPHI, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille Université, 13005 Marseille, France Received 26 October 2018; accepted 21 January 2019 Abstract Bacteria of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, responsible for Lyme disease, are members of the spirochetes phylum. Diagnostic difficulties of Lyme disease are partly due to the characteristics of spirochetes as their culture is tedious or even impossible for some of them. We performed a literature review to assess the value of the various diagnostic tests of spirochetes infections of medical interest such as Lyme borreliosis, relapsing fever borreliae, syphilis, and leptospirosis. We were able to draw similarities between these four infections. Real-time PCR now plays an important role in the direct diagnosis of these infections. However, direct diagnosis remains difficult because of a persistent lack of sensitivity. Serological testing is therefore crucial in the diagnostic process.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Spectrum of Lyme Disease
    European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (2019) 38:201–208 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-018-3417-1 REVIEW Clinical spectrum of Lyme disease Jesus Alberto Cardenas-de la Garza1 & Estephania De la Cruz-Valadez1 & Jorge Ocampo-Candiani 1 & Oliverio Welsh1 Received: 4 September 2018 /Accepted: 30 October 2018 /Published online: 19 November 2018 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract Lyme disease (borreliosis) is one of the most common vector-borne diseases worldwide. Its incidence and geographic expansion has been steadily increasing in the last decades. Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, a heterogeneous group of which three genospecies have been systematically associated to Lyme disease: B. burgdorferi sensu stricto Borrelia afzelii and Borrelia garinii. Geographical distribution and clinical manifestations vary according to the species involved. Lyme disease clinical manifestations may be divided into three stages. Early localized stage is characterized by erythema migrans in the tick bite site. Early disseminated stage may present multiple erythema migrans lesions, borrelial lymphocytoma, lyme neuroborreliosis, carditis, or arthritis. The late disseminated stage manifests with acordermatitis chronica atrophicans, lyme arthritis, and neurological symptoms. Diagnosis is challenging due to the varied clinical manifestations it may present and usually involves a two-step serological approach. In the current review, we present a thorough revision of the clinical manifestations Lyme disease may present. Additionally, history, microbiology, diagnosis, post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, treatment, and prognosis are discussed. Keywords Lyme disease . Borrelia burgdorferi . Tick-borne diseases . Ixodes . Erythema migrans . Lyme neuroborreliosis History posteriorly meningitis, establishing a link between both mani- festations.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuropsychiatric Lyme Borreliosis: an Overview with a Focus on a Specialty Psychiatrist's Clinical Practice
    healthcare Review Neuropsychiatric Lyme Borreliosis: An Overview with a Focus on a Specialty Psychiatrist’s Clinical Practice Robert C. Bransfield ID Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA; bransfi[email protected]; Tel.: +1-732-741-3263; Fax.: +1-732-741-5308 Received: 10 July 2018; Accepted: 23 August 2018; Published: 25 August 2018 Abstract: There is increasing evidence and recognition that Lyme borreliosis (LB) causes mental symptoms. This article draws from databases, search engines and clinical experience to review current information on LB. LB causes immune and metabolic effects that result in a gradually developing spectrum of neuropsychiatric symptoms, usually presenting with significant comorbidity which may include developmental disorders, autism spectrum disorders, schizoaffective disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders (panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, intrusive symptoms), eating disorders, decreased libido, sleep disorders, addiction, opioid addiction, cognitive impairments, dementia, seizure disorders, suicide, violence, anhedonia, depersonalization, dissociative episodes, derealization and other impairments. Screening assessment followed by a thorough history, comprehensive psychiatric clinical exam, review of systems, mental status exam, neurological exam and physical exam relevant to the patient’s complaints and findings with clinical judgment, pattern recognition and knowledgeable
    [Show full text]
  • The Brilliance of Borrelia: Mechanisms of Host Immune Evasion by Lyme Disease-Causing Spirochetes
    pathogens Review The Brilliance of Borrelia: Mechanisms of Host Immune Evasion by Lyme Disease-Causing Spirochetes Cassidy Anderson and Catherine A. Brissette * Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-701-777-6412 Abstract: Lyme disease (LD) has become the most common vector-borne illness in the northern hemisphere. The causative agent, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, is capable of establishing a persistent infection within the host. This is despite the activation of both the innate and adaptive immune responses. B. burgdorferi utilizes several immune evasion tactics ranging from the regulation of surface proteins, tick saliva, antimicrobial peptide resistance, and the disabling of the germinal center. This review aims to cover the various methods by which B. burgdorferi evades detection and destruction by the host immune response, examining both the innate and adaptive responses. By understanding the methods employed by B. burgdorferi to evade the host immune response, we gain a deeper knowledge of B. burgdorferi pathogenesis and Lyme disease, and gain insight into how to create novel, effective treatments. Keywords: Lyme disease; Borrelia; immune response; innate; adaptive; complement Citation: Anderson, C.; Brissette, C.A. The Brilliance of Borrelia: 1. Introduction Mechanisms of Host Immune Since the first investigations conducted by Steere and Malawista in 1975 [1,2], Lyme Evasion by Lyme Disease-Causing borreliosis, otherwise known as Lyme disease (LD), has become the most common vector- Spirochetes. Pathogens 2021, 10, 281. borne illness in the northern hemisphere [3]. LD is caused by infection with a member of https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Diagnostic Testing for Borrelia Burgdorferi Infection1
    4 Laboratory Diagnostic Testing for 1 Borrelia burgdorferi Infection Barbara J.B. Johnson 4.1 Introduction tests include culture of Borrelia from skin or blood and occasionally cerebrospinal fluid Serology is the only standardized type of (CSF), and detection of genetic material by laboratory testing available to support the PCR in skin, blood, synovial fl uid and CSF. clinical diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (Lyme These tests have specialized roles in research disease) in the USA. It is also the only type of and in academic and reference laboratories diagnostic testing approved by the US Food but are not available for routine use. Culture and Drug Administration (FDA). Of the 77 and PCR each have distinct limitations that devices cleared by the FDA for in vitro will be noted in this chapter. diagnostic use for Lyme disease, all are Diagnostic tests are of clinical value designed to detect immune responses to only if they are used appropriately. This has antigens of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto, become particularly important in the fi eld of particularly IgM and IgG (FDA, 2010). diagnostic testing for Lyme disease, as both Serological tests do not become positive until patients and doctors hear conflicting an infected individual has had time to information about the risk of Lyme disease develop antibodies. In Lyme disease, this in various environments. Furthermore, means that early acute disease characterized patients are sometimes given laboratory by an expanding rash (erythema migrans or diagnostic tests when they lack objective EM) at the site of a tick bite cannot be reliably signs of Lyme disease and a history of diagnosed by serology.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTILITY and CHEMOTAXIS in the LYME DISEASE SPIROCHETE BORRELIA BURGDORFERI: ROLE in PATHOGENESIS by Ki Hwan Moon July, 2016
    MOTILITY AND CHEMOTAXIS IN THE LYME DISEASE SPIROCHETE BORRELIA BURGDORFERI: ROLE IN PATHOGENESIS By Ki Hwan Moon July, 2016 Director of Dissertation: MD A. MOTALEB, Ph.D. Major Department: Department of Microbiology and Immunology Abstract Lyme disease is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in United States and is caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. The disease is transmitted from an infected Ixodes scapularis tick to a mammalian host. B. burgdorferi is a highly motile organism and motility is provided by flagella that are enclosed by the outer membrane and thus are called periplasmic flagella. Chemotaxis, the cellular movement in response to a chemical gradient in external environments, empowers bacteria to approach and remain in beneficial environments or escape from noxious ones by modulating their swimming behaviors. Both motility and chemotaxis are reported to be crucial for migration of B. burgdorferi from the tick to the mammalian host, and persistent infection of mice. However, the knowledge of how the spirochete achieves complex swimming is limited. Moreover, the roles of most of the B. burgdorferi putative chemotaxis proteins are still elusive. B. burgdorferi contains multiple copies of chemotaxis genes (two cheA, three cheW, three cheY, two cheB, two cheR, cheX, and cheD), which make its chemotaxis system more complex than other chemotactic bacteria. In the first project of this dissertation, we determined the role of a putative chemotaxis gene cheD. Our experimental evidence indicates that CheD enhances chemotaxis CheX phosphatase activity, and modulated its infectivity in the mammalian hosts. Although CheD is important for infection in mice, it is not required for acquisition or transmission of spirochetes during mouse-tick-mouse infection cycle experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Infection of Ticks: the Rule Rather Than the Exception
    Co-infection of Ticks: The Rule Rather Than the Exception Sara Moutailler, Claire Valiente Moro, Elise Vaumourin, Lorraine Michelet, Florence Hélène Tran, Elodie Devillers, Jean-François Cosson, Patrick Gasqui, van Tran Van, Patrick Mavingui, et al. To cite this version: Sara Moutailler, Claire Valiente Moro, Elise Vaumourin, Lorraine Michelet, Florence Hélène Tran, et al.. Co-infection of Ticks: The Rule Rather Than the Exception. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, 2016, 10 (3), pp.e0004539. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004539. hal-01452884 HAL Id: hal-01452884 https://hal.univ-reunion.fr/hal-01452884 Submitted on 26 Sep 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. RESEARCH ARTICLE Co-infection of Ticks: The Rule Rather Than the Exception Sara Moutailler1, Claire Valiente Moro2, Elise Vaumourin3, Lorraine Michelet1, Florence Hélène Tran2, Elodie Devillers1, Jean-François Cosson1,4, Patrick Gasqui3, Van Tran Van2, Patrick Mavingui2,5, Gwenaël Vourc’h3, Muriel Vayssier-Taussat1* 1 UMR Bipar, Anses, INRA, ENVA 14 Rue Pierre
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment Resistant Lyme Arthritis Caused by Borrelia Garinii
    284 Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:284–286 Treatment resistant Lyme arthritis caused by Ann Rheum Dis: first published as 10.1136/ard.60.3.284 on 1 March 2001. Downloaded from Borrelia garinii F-X Limbach, B Jaulhac, X Puechal, H Monteil, J-L Kuntz, Y Piemont, J Sibilia Abstract Recently, four European groups4–7 and our Lyme arthritis is caused in Europe by own8 identified the Borrelia species involved in three main pathogenic species of Borrelia some forms of Lyme arthritis. A variety of burgdorferi sensu lato: Borrelia burgdor- identification techniques were used, including feri sensu stricto, Borrelia garinii, and DNA sequencing of OspA,4 OspA species- Borrelia afzelii. Because few synovial specific primers,5 and reverse line blotting67of samples have yet been analysed by synovial fluid. Discordant results were ob- species-specific DNA amplification meth- tained, particularly concerning the role of B ods, further studies are needed to define garinii, while the clinical presentation and out- the spectra of clinical manifestations come of patients were not described in detail. associated with these diVerent species. Furthermore, because only a few synovial fluid Two cases of treatment resistant Lyme samples were analysed by species-specific arthritis are reported here, in which DNA DNA amplification methods, studies are still amplification of the flagellin gene followed needed to determine which spectrum of by dot-blot hybridisation in the synovial clinical manifestations is associated with B fluid identified B garinii as the causative garinii. In the present work we describe two agent. Clinical and biological data did not patients with treatment resistant Lyme arthri- diVer from the usual descriptions of Lyme tis, in whom DNA amplification and dot-blot arthritis, but as the recently reported hybridisation identified B garinii as the causa- molecular mimicry between OspA and tive species.
    [Show full text]
  • Borrelia Burgdorferi Manipulates Innate and Adaptive Immunity to Establish Persistence in Rodent Reservoir Hosts
    REVIEW published: 20 February 2017 doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00116 Borrelia burgdorferi Manipulates Innate and Adaptive Immunity to Establish Persistence in Rodent Reservoir Hosts Karen E. Tracy1,2 and Nicole Baumgarth1,2,3* 1 Graduate Group in Immunology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 2 Center for Comparative Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 3 Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex is capable of establishing persistent infections in a wide variety of species, particularly rodents. Infection is asymptomatic or mild in most reservoir host species, indicating successful co-evolution of the pathogen with its natural hosts. However, infected humans and other incidental hosts can develop Lyme disease, a serious inflammatory syndrome characterized by tissue inflammation of joints, heart, muscles, skin, and CNS. Although B. burgdorferi infection induces both innate and adaptive immune responses, they are ultimately ineffective in clearing Edited by: the infection from reservoir hosts, leading to bacterial persistence. Here, we review Monica E. Embers, some mechanisms by which B. burgdorferi evades the immune system of the rodent Tulane University, USA host, focusing in particular on the effects of innate immune mechanisms and recent Reviewed by: Peter Kraiczy, findings suggesting that T-dependent B cell responses are subverted during infection. Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany A better understanding of the mechanisms causing persistence in rodents may help to Robin Stephens, increase our understanding of the pathogenesis of Lyme disease and ultimately aid in University of Texas Medical Branch, USA the development of therapies that support effective clearance of the bacterial infection *Correspondence: by the host’s immune system.
    [Show full text]
  • Seroprevalence of Leptospira Spp. and Borrelia Burgdorferisensu Lato in Italian Horses
    Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine 2012, Vol 19, No 2, 237-240 ORIGINAL ARTICLE www.aaem.pl Seroprevalence of Leptospira spp. and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Italian horses Valentina V. Ebani, Fabrizio Bertelloni, Paolo Pinzauti, Domenico Cerri Department of Animal Pathology, Prophylaxis and Food Hygiene. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy Ebani VV, Bertelloni F, Pinzauti P, Cerri D. Seroprevalence of Leptospira spp. and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Italian horses. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2012; 19(2): 237-240. Abstract The aim of the study was to determine the seroprevalence of Leptospira spp. and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in healthy horses living in 7 provinces of central Italy. In the period 2007-2009, sera from 386 horses were tested by microagglutination test (MAT) to detect antibodies to Leptospira spp., employing the following serovars as antigens: Bratislava, Ballum, Canicola, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Grippotyphosa, Hardjo, Pomona, Tarassovi. 3 animals were positive for the serovars Icterohaemorrhagiae, 2 to Bratislava, and 1 to Pomona, for a total 1.5% seroprevalence. All sera were examined by immunofluorence antibody test (IFAT) to reveal anti-B. burgdorferi s.l. antibodies. 94 (24.3%) horses were positive with antibody titres ranging from 1:64 to 1:1,024. The seroprevalence was significantly higher in >10 year-old horses compared to younger subjects. No significant differences in the mean seroprevalence were observed in the respective years. The total mean seroprevalence were strictly related to the environmental conditions of the areas in which the horses lived. No cross- reactions between Leptospira and Borrelia were observed. This is the first serological survey on antibodies to B.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Need for Multiplex and Multifunctional Tick-Borne Disease Test in Routine Clinical Laboratory Samples from Lyme Di
    Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Article Assessing the Need for Multiplex and Multifunctional Tick-Borne Disease Test in Routine Clinical Laboratory Samples from Lyme Disease and Febrile Patients with a History of a Tick Bite Kunal Garg 1,* , T. Sakari Jokiranta 2, Sanna Filén 2 and Leona Gilbert 1,* 1 Tezted Ltd., Mattilaniemi 6-8, 40100 Jyväskylä, Finland 2 United Medix Laboratories, Kivihaantie 7, 00310 Helsinki, Finland; sakari.jokiranta@tammerbiolab.fi (T.S.J.); sanna.fi[email protected] (S.F.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (K.G.); [email protected] (L.G.) Abstract: Human polymicrobial infections in tick-borne disease (TBD) patients is an emerging public health theme. However, the requirement for holistic TBD tests in routine clinical laboratories is ambiguous. TICKPLEX® PLUS is a holistic TBD test utilized herein to assess the need for multiplex and multifunctional diagnostic tools in a routine clinical laboratory. The study involved 150 specimens categorized into Lyme disease (LD)-positive (n = 48), LD-negative (n = 30), and febrile patients from whom borrelia serology was requested (n = 72, later “febrile patients”) based on reference test results from United Medix, Finland. Reference tests from DiaSorin, Immunetics, and Mikrogen Diagnostik followed the two-tier LD testing system. A comparison between the reference tests Citation: Garg, K.; Jokiranta, T.S.; and TICKPLEX® PLUS produced 86%, 88%, and 87% positive, negative, and overall agreement, Filén, S.; Gilbert, L. Assessing the respectively. Additionally, up to 15% of LD and 11% of febrile patients responded to TBD related Need for Multiplex and ® Multifunctional Tick-Borne Disease coinfections and opportunistic microbes.
    [Show full text]