Detecting Malaria Parasites outside the Blood

Sutherland, Colin J.; Hallett, Rachel

doi:10.1086/598857

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The vast majority of these techniques rely, however, on the invasive sampling of blood from infected hosts. Drawing blood for epidemiological surveys can cause considerable discomfort [2, 3]. Accordingly, follow-up of patients using a less-invasive approach is desirable when conducting surveys of malaria prevalence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although these techniques are now available for diagnosing malaria, current approaches rely on the drawing of blood by finger pricking or venipuncture. The requirement for repeated drawing of blood samples for longitudinal follow-up studies or continuous monitoring in the case of vaccine efficacy tests may at times result in poor compliance, especially among infants, young children and pregnant women [2]. In addition, the procedure for drawing blood, if not carried out under stringent conditions, is associated with the risk of acquiring needle-borne infections, such as hepatitis B virus and human immunodeficiency virus [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detection of Plasmodium knowlesi DNA in the urine and faeces of a Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) over the course of an experimentally induced infection

Kawai

Sato

Kato-Hayashi

et al. 2014

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDiagnostic techniques based on PCR for the detection of Plasmodium DNA can be highly sensitive and specific. The vast majority of these techniques rely, however, on the invasive sampling of blood from infected hosts. There is, currently, considerable interest in the possibility of using body fluids other than blood as sources of parasite DNA for PCR diagnosis.MethodsUrine and faeces were obtained from a Plasmodium knowlesi infected-Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) over the course of an experimentally induced infection. P. knowlesi DNA (PkDNA) extracted from urine and faeces were monitored by nested PCR targeting the P. knowlesi specific cytochrome b (cytb) gene.ResultsUrinary PkDNA was detected on day 2, but was not amplified using DNA templates extracted from the samples on day 4, day 5 and day 6. Subsequently, urinary PkDNA was detected from day 7 until day 11, and from day 20 until day 30. PkDNA in faeces was detected from day 7 until day 11, and from day 20 until day 37. Moreover, real-time quantitative PCR showed a remarkable increase in the amount of urinary PkDNA following anti-malarial treatment. This might have been due to the release of a large amount of PkDNA from the degraded parasites as a result of the anti-malarial treatment, leading to excretion of PkDNA in the urine.ConclusionsThe cytb-PCR system using urine and faecal samples is of potential use in molecular epidemiological surveys of malaria. In particular, monkey faecal samples could be useful for the detection of zoonotic primate malaria in its natural hosts.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1475-2875-13-373) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of Plasmodium knowlesi DNA in the urine and faeces of a Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) over the course of an experimentally induced infection

Kawai

Sato

Kato-Hayashi

et al. 2014

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, the sensitivity of PCR-based detection of the P. falciparum SSU rRNA gene using saliva samples reportedly increased to 82% when considering only isolates with a parasite density higher than or equal to 1,000 parasites/ml, the parasite level that usually found in most malaria patients in The Gambia and probably elsewhere [7]. Despite a lower sensitivity of PCR detection for P. falciparum from saliva and urine samples than that obtained from blood-derived DNA template, repeated noninvasive sample collections during drug trials or monitoring vaccine efficacy may be warranted [8]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative detection of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum DNA in saliva and urine samples from symptomatic malaria patients in a low endemic area

Buppan

Putaporntip

Pattanawong

et al. 2010

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDefinite diagnosis of malaria relies on microscopy detection of blood stages of parasites in peripheral blood and requires blood sample collection. The nested PCR method has shown to be more sensitive and superior to microscopy in detecting co-infections of Plasmodium species in circulation while Plasmodium falciparum DNA can be identified in urine and saliva specimens of patients, albeit at a lower sensitivity.MethodsMatched blood, saliva and urine samples were collected from 100 microscopy-positive and 20 microscopy-negative febrile patients who attended a malaria clinic in Tak Province, northwestern Thailand for nested PCR analysis targeting the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene of human malaria. Both P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax have been known to circulate at a comparable rate in the study area.ResultsComparing with microscopy results, nested PCR of saliva samples had a sensitivity of 74.1% for P. falciparum detection and 84% for P. vivax detection while 44.4% and 34.0% of the corresponding values were observed for urine samples. Both nested PCR results of saliva and urine samples had a specificity of 100% for identification of P. falciparum and P. vivax when compared with nested PCR results from blood. Co-infections of both species were found in four, 26 and 8 patients by microscopy and nested PCR of blood and saliva samples, respectively. Although the positive rates of nested PCR of saliva samples for P. falciparum increased with parasite density, no tendency occurred in results from nested PCR of saliva samples for P. vivax as well as those of urine samples.ConclusionsSaliva and urine samples could be alternative noninvasive sources of DNA for molecular detection of both P. falciparum and P. vivax. Further improvement of the detection method will offer an opportunity to use these samples for diagnosis of malaria.

show abstract

“…17e19 DNA from lysed parasite may passively enter saliva via the serum or macrophages through intraoral bleeding and the gingival crevicular fluid. 20 In this study we determined the diagnostic performance of 18S rRNA based P. vivax LAMP assay for detection of parasite DNA in saliva and blood samples.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid detection of Plasmodium vivax in saliva and blood using loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay

Singh

Savargaonkar

Bhatt

et al. 2013

Journal of Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detecting Malaria Parasites outside the Blood

Cited by 27 publications

References 12 publications

Detection of Plasmodium knowlesi DNA in the urine and faeces of a Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) over the course of an experimentally induced infection

Detection of Plasmodium knowlesi DNA in the urine and faeces of a Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) over the course of an experimentally induced infection

Comparative detection of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum DNA in saliva and urine samples from symptomatic malaria patients in a low endemic area

Rapid detection of Plasmodium vivax in saliva and blood using loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About