Host and Toxoplasma gondii genetic and non-genetic factors influencing the development of ocular toxoplasmosis: A systematic review

Fernández, Carolina; Rojas‐Jaimes, Jesús; Ortiz, María Camila Montealegre; Ramírez, Juan David

doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2016.06.053

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 152 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the sensitivities of immunoblotting and CC were 33% and 53% in our previous study versus 60% (15/25) and 56% (14/25) in the current study, respectively. At that time, the PCR technique differed in that it used primers targeting a sequence in the B1 gene, with a lower sensitivity (21–23). Thus, these current results may likewise highlight the improvements made in the PCR technique, resulting in an increase in this assay’s sensitivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Diagnosis of Ocular Toxoplasmosis: a Nine-Year Retrospective Observational Study

Greigert

Pfaff

Sauer

et al. 2019

mSphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT), i.e., the ocular manifestation of Toxoplasma gondii infection, is one of the leading causes of posterior uveitis. While ocular lesions are often typical, atypical forms often require biological confirmation of the diagnosis. Our study sought to review the biological OT diagnoses made in our laboratory to further assess the role of each test in the diagnostic procedure. All ocular samples sent to our laboratory over the last 9 years for OT diagnosis were included. These samples were analyzed using T. gondii PCR and antibody detection by means of immunoblotting and Candolfi coefficient (CC) determinations, either alone or in combination. Since serum analysis is required to interpret both the CC and immunoblotting, blood serology for T. gondii was also performed in most cases. Of the 249 samples analyzed, 80 (32.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 26.3 to 37.9) were positive for OT. Of these 80 cases, 52/80 (65.0%; 54.6 to 74.5) displayed a positive PCR, 15/80 (18.8%; 10.2 to 27.3) a positive CC, and 33/80 (41.3%; 95%CI, 30.5 to 52.0) a positive immunoblot result. Overall, 63 of the 80 OT diagnoses (78.8%; 95%CI, 69.8 to 87.7) were made on the basis of a single positive test result. Our study results remind us that current biological diagnostic tools for OT must be employed in combination to obtain an optimal diagnosis based on the precious ocular fluids sampled by ophthalmologists. Clinicobiological studies that are focused on correlating the performances of the different tests with clinical features are critically needed to improve our understanding of the pathophysiology and diagnosis of OT. IMPORTANCE Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT), a parasitic infection of the eye, is considered to be the most important infectious cause of posterior uveitis worldwide. Its prevalence is particularly high in South America, where aggressive Toxoplasma gondii strains are responsible for more-severe presentations. The particular pathophysiology of this infection leads, from recurrence to recurrence, to potentially severe vision impairment. The diagnosis of this infection is usually exclusively based on the clinical examination. However, the symptoms may be misleading and are not always sufficient to confirm a diagnosis of OT. In such cases, biological tests performed by means of several techniques on blood and ocular samples may facilitate the diagnosis. In this study, we analyzed the tests that were performed in our laboratory over a 9-year period every time OT was suspected. Our report highlights that the quality of ocular sampling by ophthalmologists and combinations of several techniques are critical for a reliable biological OT diagnosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Diagnosis of Ocular Toxoplasmosis: a Nine-Year Retrospective Observational Study

Greigert

Pfaff

Sauer

et al. 2019

mSphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human genetic traits, especially variants in HLA, TLR and cytokine genes, have a fundamental involvement in the development of ocular toxoplasmosis (Fernández, Jaimes, Ortiz, & Ramírez, 2016). Polymorphisms of the CCR5 gene could impact ocular toxoplasmosis (De Faria Junior et al, 2018).…”

Section: Ccr5 and Ccr5δ32 In Parasitic Infectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

CCR5 and CCR5Δ32 in bacterial and parasitic infections: Thinking chemokine receptors outside the HIV box

Ellwanger

Kaminski

Rodrigues

et al. 2020

Int J Immunogenetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CCR5 molecule was reported in 1996 as the main HIV‐1 co‐receptor. In that same year, the CCR5Δ32 genetic variant was described as a strong protective factor against HIV‐1 infection. These findings led to extensive research regarding the CCR5, culminating in critical scientific advances, such as the development of CCR5 inhibitors for the treatment of HIV infection. Recently, the research landscape surrounding CCR5 has begun to change. Different research groups have realized that, since CCR5 has such important effects in the chemokine system, it could also affect other different physiological systems. Therefore, the effect of reduced CCR5 expression due to the presence of the CCR5Δ32 variant began to be further studied. Several studies have investigated the role of CCR5 and the impacts of CCR5Δ32 on autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, various types of cancer, and viral diseases. However, the role of CCR5 in diseases caused by bacteria and parasites is still poorly understood. Therefore, the aim of this article is to review the role of CCR5 and the effects of CCR5Δ32 on bacterial (brucellosis, osteomyelitis, pneumonia, tuberculosis and infection by Chlamydia trachomatis) and parasitic infections (toxoplasmosis, leishmaniasis, Chagas disease and schistosomiasis). Basic information about each of these infections was also addressed. The neglected role of CCR5 in fungal disease and emerging studies regarding the action of CCR5 on regulatory T cells are briefly covered in this review. Considering the “renaissance of CCR5 research,” this article is useful for updating researchers who develop studies involving CCR5 and CCR5Δ32 in different infectious diseases.

show abstract

“…Major characteristics of the included articles, according to the method types (SR only, summary statistics and MA), are shown in Table 1. Of these 36 articles, 5 (14%) were SR only [29][30][31][32][33], (42%) used summary statistics [14,16,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46], and 16 (44%) used MA methods [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62].…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequent inappropriate use of unweighted summary statistics in systematic reviews of pathogen genotypes or genogroups

Tran

Y²,

Nghia³

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Host and Toxoplasma gondii genetic and non-genetic factors influencing the development of ocular toxoplasmosis: A systematic review

Cited by 14 publications

References 152 publications

Biological Diagnosis of Ocular Toxoplasmosis: a Nine-Year Retrospective Observational Study

Biological Diagnosis of Ocular Toxoplasmosis: a Nine-Year Retrospective Observational Study

CCR5 and CCR5Δ32 in bacterial and parasitic infections: Thinking chemokine receptors outside the HIV box

Frequent inappropriate use of unweighted summary statistics in systematic reviews of pathogen genotypes or genogroups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About