This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Emanuel, P. A. Articles by Hadfield, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Emanuel, P. A. Articles by Hadfield, T.

Detection of Francisella tularensis within Infected Mouse Tissues by Using a Hand-Held PCR Thermocycler

U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010,¹ Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20306-6000²

Received 16 August 2002/ Returned for modification 21 September 2002/ Accepted 17 November 2002

The diagnosis of human cases of tularemia often relies upon the demonstration of an antibody response to Francisella tularensis or the direct culturing of the bacteria from the patient. Antibody response is not detectable until 2 weeks or more after infection, and culturing requires special media and suspicion of tularemia. In addition, handling live Francisella poses a risk to laboratory personnel due to the highly infectious nature of this pathogen. In an effort to develop a rapid diagnostic assay for tularemia, we investigated the use of TaqMan 5' hydrolysis fluorogenic PCR to detect the organism in tissues of infected mice. Mice were infected to produce respiratory tularemia. The fopA and tul4 genes of F. tularensis were amplified from infected spleen, lung, liver, and kidney tissues sampled over a 5-day period. The samples were analyzed using the laboratory-based Applied Biosystems International 7900 and the Smiths Detection-Edgewood BioSeeq, a hand-held portable fluorescence thermocycler designed for use in the field. A comparison of culturing and PCR for detection of bacteria in infected tissues shows that culturing was more sensitive than PCR. However, the results for culture take 72 h, whereas PCR results were available within 4 h. PCR was able to detect infection in all the tissues tested. Lung tissue showed the earliest response at 2 days when tested with the ABI 7900 and in 3 days when tested with the BioSeeq. The results were in agreement between the ABI 7900 and the BioSeeq when presented with the same sample. Template preparation may account for the loss of sensitivity compared to culturing techniques. The hand-held BioSeeq thermocycler shows promise as an expedient means of forward diagnosis of infection in the field.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Lim, D. V., Simpson, J. M., Kearns, E. A., Kramer, M. F. (2005). Current and Developing Technologies for Monitoring Agents of Bioterrorism and Biowarfare. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 18: 583-607 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Barns, S. M., Grow, C. C., Okinaka, R. T., Keim, P., Kuske, C. R. (2005). Detection of Diverse New Francisella-Like Bacteria in Environmental Samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 5494-5500 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Versage, J. L., Severin, D. D. M., Chu, M. C., Petersen, J. M. (2003). Development of a Multitarget Real-Time TaqMan PCR Assay for Enhanced Detection of Francisella tularensis in Complex Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41: 5492-5499 [Abstract] [Full Text]