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
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]
