A comparative study on the detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in urine samples of leprosy patients using Rlep-PCR with other conventional samples.

BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium leprae causes leprosy that is highly stigmatized and chronic infectious skin disease. Only some diagnostic tools are being used for the identification M. leprae in clinical samples, such as bacillary detection, and histopathological tests. These methods are invasive and often have low sensitivity. Currently, the PCR technique has been used as an effective tool fordetecting M. leprae DNA across different clinical samples. The current study aims to detect M. leprae DNA in urine samples of untreated and treated leprosy patients using the Rlep gene (129 bp) and compared the detection among Ridley-Jopling Classification. METHODS: Clinical samples (Blood, Urine, and Slit Skin Smears (SSS)) were collected from leprosy and Non-leprosy patients. DNA extraction was performed using standard laboratory protocol and Conventional PCR was carried out for all samples using Rlep gene target and the amplicons of urine samples were sequenced by Sanger sequencing to confirm the Rlep gene target. RESULTS: The M. leprae DNA was successfully detected in all clinical samples across all types of leprosy among all the study groups using RLEP-PCR. Rlep gene target was able to detect the presence of M. leprae DNA in 79.17% of urine, 58.33% of blood, and 50% of SSS samples of untreated Smear-Negative leprosy patients. The statistical significant difference (p = 0.004) was observed between BI Negative (Slit Skin Smear test) and RLEP PCR positivity in urine samples of untreated leprosy group. CONCLUSION: The PCR positivity using Rlep gene target (129 bp) was highest in all clinical samples among the study groups, across all types of leprosy. Untreated tuberculoid and PNL leprosy patients showed the highest PCR positivity in urine samples, indicating its potential as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for leprosy and even for contact screening.

Exploratory urinary metabolomics of type 1 leprosy reactions.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae that affects the skin and nerves. Although curable with multidrug therapy, leprosy is complicated by acute inflammatory episodes called reactions, which are the major causes of irreversible neuropathy in leprosy that occur before, during, and even after treatment. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment of reactions reduces the risk of permanent disability. METHODS: This exploratory study investigated whether urinary metabolic profiles could be identified that correlate with early signs of reversal reactions (RR). A prospective cohort of leprosy patients with and without reactions and endemic controls was recruited in Nepal. Urine-derived metabolic profiles were measured longitudinally. Thus, a conventional area of biomarker identification for leprosy was extended to non-invasive urine testing. RESULTS: It was found that the urinary metabolome could be used to discriminate endemic controls from untreated patients with mycobacterial disease. Moreover, metabolic signatures in the urine of patients developing RR were clearly different before RR onset compared to those at RR diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that urinary metabolic profiles are promising host biomarkers for the detection of intra-individual changes during acute inflammation in leprosy and could contribute to early treatment and prevention of tissue damage.

Use of the polymerase chain reaction to detect Mycobacterium leprae in urine

Leprosy is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been applied to detect M. leprae in different clinical samples and urine seems to be attractive for this purpose. PCR was used to improve the sensitivity for diagnosing leprosy by amplifying a 151-bp PCR fragment of the M. leprae pra gene (PCR-Pra) in urine samples. Seventy-three leprosy patients (39 males and 34 females, 14 to 78 years old) were selected for leprosy diagnosis at a reference laboratory in Maringá, PR, Brazil. Of these, 36 were under anti-leprosy multidrug therapy with dapsone and rifampicin for tuberculoid (TT) and dapsone, rifampicin and clofazimine for borderline (BB) and lepromatous (LL) forms. The control group contained 50 healthy individuals without any clinical history of leprosy. DNA isolated from leprosy patients’ urine samples was successfully amplified by PCR-Pra in 46.6 percent (34/73) of the cases. The positivity of PCR-Pra for patients with the TT form was 75 percent for both patients under treatment and non-treated patients (P = 0.1306). In patients with the LL form, PCR-Pra positivity was 52 and 30 percent for patients under treatment and non-treated patients, respectively (P = 0.2386). PCR-Pra showed a statistically significant difference in detecting M. leprae between the TT and LL forms of leprosy in patients under treatment (P = 0.0033). Although the current study showed that the proposed PCR-Pra has some limitations in the detection of M. leprae, this method has the potential to be a useful tool for leprosy diagnosis mainly in TT leprosy where the AFB slit-skin smear is always negative.