Skip to main content
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica logoLink to Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
. 2015 Mar 7;57(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13028-015-0104-4

Clear distinction between Burkholderia mallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei using fluorescent motB primers

Gernot Schmoock 1, Mandy Elschner 1,2, Lisa D Sprague 1,
PMCID: PMC4364355  PMID: 25887130

Abstract

Background

A frame-shift mutation in the flagellum motor gene motB coding for the chemotaxis MotB protein of Burkholderia mallei has been utilized to design a conventional duplex PCR assay with fluorescent labelled primers.

Findings

Species specificity was tested with a panel of 13 Burkholderia type strains. A total of 41 B. mallei field strains, 36 B. pseudomallei field strains, and 1 B. thailandensis field strain from different geographic regions were tested and correctly identified. Testing of 55 non-Burkholderia bacterial species revealed 100% specificity of the assay. The minimum detection limit was 1 pg DNA or 160 GE for B. mallei and 130 GE for B. pseudomallei, respectively.

Conclusions

This assay enables the clear distinction between B. mallei and B. pseudomallei/B. thailandensis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13028-015-0104-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keywords: Duplex PCR, Fluorescent primers, Burkholderia

Findings

Despite Burkholderia mallei, B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis being genetically closely related Gram negative bacteria, they display significant differences in pathogenicity and habitat. B. mallei, a facultative intracellular, non-motile, equine pathogen, is the causative agent of glanders, a highly contagious and frequently fatal zoonotic disease of the upper respiratory tract and lungs [1]. The disease has a 95% case fatality rate in untreated humans with septicaemia and a 50% case fatality rate in antibiotic treated individuals [1].

B. pseudomallei, a facultative intracellular, motile bacterium found in contaminated water and soil, is the etiological agent of melioidosis, an infectious disease in man and animal in the tropics [2]. The clinical picture in animals and humans resembles that of glanders in horses. Human infection usually develops after inhalation, ingestion, or cutaneous uptake of the pathogen [2,3]. Melioidosis has a case fatality rate of 39.5%, and untreated septicaemia is fatal in up to 80% of cases [4]. Both B. mallei and B. pseudomallei are considered potential bioweapons and are listed as category B biothreat agents by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [5]. B. thailandensis is generally considered a weakly pathogenic, motile soil bacterium, rarely causing disease in man or animal [6]. Glanders and melioidosis may cause diagnostic problems in endemic regions because of their clinical, morphologic and genetic similarity, and even more so in non-endemic countries, due to the lack of awareness of these diseases. In order to initiate appropriate patient treatment, rapid species identification is necessary, especially in view of the intrinsic resistance of both agents to many commonly used antibiotics and their differing susceptibilities [7,8].

Based on the results from a previous study [9], a frame-shift mutation in the flagellum motor gene motB coding for the chemotaxis MotB protein [GenBank:BMA2861] of B. mallei (ATCC 23344) was utilized to design a simple conventional duplex PCR assay with fluorescent labelled primers enabling the distinction between B. mallei and B. pseudomallei/B. thailandensis. Bacterial strains were obtained from the strain collection of the National and OIE Reference Laboratory for Glanders at the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute in Jena, Germany (Tables 1 and 2). All Burkholderia strains were cultured at 37°C on calf blood agar containing 3% (v/v) glycerol. All other bacteria were grown on standard media and appropriate atmospheric conditions.

Table 1.

Panel of Burkholderia mallei and B. pseudomallei field strains used for validation

Origin B. mallei B. pseudomallei
Africa - 2
Arabian Peninsula 3 -
Asia - 1
East Asia 1 4
South Asia 17 5
Southeast Asia - 13
Europe 3 4
Indonesia 1 -
South America 5 2
Transcontinental Europe/Asia 2 -
Unknown 9 5
Total 41 36

Table 2.

Panel of non-Burkholderia strains used for specificity testing

Species Strain Species Strain
Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae ATCC 27088 Legionella pneumophila sub. pneumophila DSM 7513
Bacillus atrophaeus ATCC 9372 Mannheimia haemolytica ATCC 33396
Bacillus brevis ATCC 8246 Ochrobactrum anthropi CCUG 1047
Bacillus cereus ATCC 10876 Oligella urethralis DSM 7531
Bacillus megaterium DSM 90 Pasteurella multo ssp.multo ATCC 43137
Bacillus mycoides ATCC 6462 Pasteurella multocida DSM 5281
Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633 Proteus mirabilis DSM 4479
Bacillus thuringiensis ATCC 10792 Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027
Bartonella henselae DSM 28221 Pseudomonas alcaligenes ATCC 14909
Bartonella quintana DSM 21441 Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 13525
Bordetella bronchiseptica ATCC 19395 Pseudomonas polymyxa ATCC 842
Brucella abortus ATCC 23448 Pseudomonas putida ATCC 12633
Brucella melitensis ATCC 23456 Rhodococcus equi DSM 20307
Brucella suis ATCC 23444 Salmonella enteritidis 147 (95)
Campylobacter coli DSM 4689 Salmonella typhumirium 9098 (221)
Campylobacter jejuni subsp. jejuni DSM 4688 Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus DSM 6732
Chlamydia abortus 07 DC0059 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia ATCC 13637
Chlamydia pecorum 06 DC0055 Streptococcus agalactiae DSM 6784
Chlamydia psittaci C1/97 Streptococcus equi subsp. equi ATCC 9528
Clostridium baratii ATCC 25782 Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus ATCC 700400
Clostridium botulinum A NCTC 7272 Streptococcus equinus DSM 20558
Clostridium botulinum B NCTC 7273 Streptococcus parauberis DSM 6631
Escherichia coli DSM 30083 Taylorella equigenitalis DSM 10668
Francisella tularensis sub. holarctica LVS Yersinia enterocolitica subsp. enterocolitica ATCC 9610
Francisella tularensis sub. tularensis FSC 237 (SchuS4) Yersinia enterocolitica subsp. enterocolitica DSM 9499
Haemophilus influenzae ATCC 9006 Yersinia enterocolitica subsp. palearctica DSM 13030
Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae DSM 30104 Yersinia pseudotuberculosis IP32953
Lactobacillus ruminis DSM 20403

Genomic DNA was prepared from culture material using the High Pure PCR Template Preparation Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Roche, Mannheim, Germany). All DNA samples were quantified using a NanoDrop 1000 spectrophotometer (Fisher Scientific, Schwerte, Germany). The duplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was designed using the forward primer MBF04 (5′- CGTCAAGCGGGTGAACCA -3′), the 6-FAM labelled reverse primer MBR04-FAM (5′-6-FAM-GTCGTCCTCGCTCTTTCGC -3′), and the ATTO565 labelled reverse primer MBR10-ATTO565 (5′-ATTO565-GTCCTCGCTCTTCTTCGCG-3′). Primers were designed with the Genious software package (Ver. 6.1), to generate a specific 6-FAM labelled 326 bp DNA fragment for B. mallei and an ATTO565 labelled 325 bp DNA fragment for B. pseudomallei/B. thailandensis, respectively. Labelled primers were obtained from Microsynth (Balgach, Switzerland), the unlabelled primer from Jena Bioscience (Jena, Germany). PCR was conducted in a 20 μL reaction containing 0.3 μM of the primers (MBF04, MBR04-FAM, and MBR10-ATTO565), 1 × 5-Prime HotMasterMix (VWR, Darmstadt, Germany), 2.5% DMSO and 10 ng template (total DNA). The PCR was performed in a Mastercycler pro S™ (Eppendorf, Germany) under the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95°C for 1 min; 40 cycles at 95°C for 10 s, 63°C for 15 s, 70°C for 30 s, and the final extension at 70°C for 5 min. 13.3 μL PCR reaction mixed with 2.7 μL 6 × Loading Dye (Fermentas, Schwerte, Germany) were analysed by electrophoresis on a 1.25% agarose gel (wt/vol) at 9 V/cm for 40 min. Images were captured after an exposure period of 30 s for each LED/filter set using the G-Box EF2 Gel Documentation System (Syngene Europe, Cambridge, UK): Blue-LED/Filt525 and Green-LED/Filt605 for the visualisation of 6-FAM and ATTO565 labelled PCR products, respectively. For optional ethidium bromide imaging (302 nm UV illuminator/FiltUV), the gel was stained after capturing the 6-FAM/ATTO565 images. Fragment sizes (326/327 bp) and correct labelling (6-FAM/ATTO565) of the amplicons were confirmed by means of capillary electrophoresis using a Genetic Analyzer 3130 with a G5 filter set (Applied Biosystems/Hitachi, Darmstadt, Germany). Species specificity was tested with a panel of 13 Burkholderia type strains. Additionally, a total of 41 B. mallei field strains from equines, 36 B. pseudomallei field strains from human and environmental origin, and one B. thailandensis field strain, all from different geographic regions were tested and correctly identified (Table 1). Testing of 55 non-Burkholderia bacterial species revealed 100% specificity of the assay (Table 2). The minimum detection limit was 1 pg DNA or 160 genome equivalents (GE) for B. mallei and 130 GE for B. pseudomallei, respectively. In order to compare the sensitivity of our assay with other assays used by the National and OIE Reference Laboratory for Glanders, several clinical B. mallei samples were tested by a conventional fliP PCR [10] and a real time PCR assay targeting fliC [11]. Despite the lower sensitivity we determined for our assay, it revealed comparable sensitivity to the conventional fliP PCR and a higher sensitivity than the real time fliC assay in the tested clinical samples (Additional file 1).

Fluorescent primers are widely used in real time PCR technology and several highly sophisticated and elegant PCR assays have been developed for the identification and differentiation of B. mallei and B. pseudomallei and other Burkholderia species in the past few years [12]. This study describes the design of a simple conventional duplex PCR with fluorescent labelled primers for amplifying species-specific amplicons of B. mallei and B. pseudomallei/B. thailandensis, respectively. These closely related species can cause considerable problems during the identification process in the laboratory as colony characteristics and routine biochemical tests are not sufficiently discriminative for species identification. The benefit of this assay is not only the unambiguous identification of B. mallei and the closely related species B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis by fluorescence image capturing but also the possibility of detecting the B. mallei/pseudomallei/thailandensis complex on a standard ethidium bromide stained agarose gel.

Acknowledgements

Katja Fischer, Nadin Lemser and Peggy Marten are thanked for their excellent technical assistance. We appreciate the help of PD Dr. H. Scholz, Munich, Germany, of Prof. A. Pereira Lage, Minas Gerais, Brazil, of Dr. M. Saqib, Faisalabad, Pakistan, of PD Dr. R. Grunow, Berlin, Germany, Dr. U. Wernery, Dubai, UAE, and Dr. F. Al-Salloom, Kingdom of Bahrain, for providing sample material, strains and DNA preparations. This work was partially funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and research (BMBF #01KI1001A) and the EU (EAHC Grant Agreement No 2010 2102).

Abbreviations

ATCC

American type culture collection

CCUG

Culture collection university of Göteborg

DSM

Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen

FAM

Fluorescein

FSC

Francisella strain collection, Sweden

GE

Genome equivalent

LED

Light-emitting diode

NCTC

National collection of type cultures

Additional file

Additional file 1: (509.6KB, pdf)

Comparison of the mot B PCR assay to the conventional fli P and real time fli C PCR assays in clinical samples ( Burkholderia type strains ATCC 23343 T, ATCC 23344T).

Footnotes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

GS and ME designed the study; LDS drafted and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Contributor Information

Gernot Schmoock, Email: gernot.schmoock@fli.bund.de.

Mandy Elschner, Email: mandy.elschner@fli.bund.de.

Lisa D Sprague, Email: lisa.sprague@fli.bund.de.

References

  • 1.Dvorak GD, Spickler AR. Glanders. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2008;233:570–7. doi: 10.2460/javma.233.4.570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cheng AC, Dance DA, Currie BJ. Bioterrorism Glanders and Melioidosis. Euro Surveill. 2005;10:3. doi: 10.2807/esm.10.03.00528-en. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wiersinga WJ, Currie BJ, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1035–44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1204699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zysk G, Splettstösser WD, Neubauer H. A review on melioidosis with special respect on molecular and immunological diagnostic techniques. Clin Lab. 2000;46:119–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rotz LD, Khan AS, Lillibridge SR, Ostroff SM, Hughes JM. Public health assessment of potential biological terrorism agents. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:225–30. doi: 10.3201/eid0802.010164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brett PJ, DeShazer D, Woods DE. Burkholderia thailandensis sp. nov., a Burkholderia pseudomallei-like species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998;48:317–20. doi: 10.1099/00207713-48-1-317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Thibault FM, Hernandez E, Vidal D, Girardet M, Cavallo JD. Antibiotic susceptibility of 65 isolates of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei to 35 antimicrobial agents. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54:8. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkh471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gilad J. Burkholderia mallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei: the causative micro-organisms of glanders and melioidosis. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2007;2:233–41. doi: 10.2174/157489107782497335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Schmoock G, Ehricht R, Melzer F, Rassbach A, Scholz HC, Neubauer H, et al. DNA microarray-based detection and identification of Burkholderia mallei, Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia spp. Mol Cell Probes. 2009;23:178–87. doi: 10.1016/j.mcp.2009.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Scholz HC, Joseph M, Tomaso H, Al Dahouk S, Witte A, Kinne J, et al. Detection of the reemerging agent Burkholderia mallei in a recent outbreak of glanders in the United Arab Emirates by a newly developed fliP-based polymerase chain reaction assay. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;54:241–7. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2005.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tomaso H, Scholz HC, Al Dahouk S, Pitt TL, Treu TM, Neubauer H. Development of 5′ nuclease real-time PCR assays for the rapid identification of the Burkholderia mallei//Burkholderia pseudomallei complex. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2004;13:247–53. doi: 10.1097/01.pdm.0000137099.36618.cc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lowe W, March JK, Bunnell AJ, O’Neill KL, Robison RA. PCR-based methodologies used to detect and differentiate the Burkholderia pseudomallei complex: B. pseudomallei, B. mallei, and B. thailandensis. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2013;16:23–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES