1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 68, Issue 7

Detection and quantification of in blood from infected chickens – addressing challenges with detection of DNA from infectious agents in host species with nucleated red blood cells Open Access

Abstract

. The present study aimed to establish pretreatment protocols as well as real-time and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodologies to detect and quantify (ER) DNA in blood samples from infected chickens, as tools for routine diagnostics and monitoring of experimental infections. Chicken blood is a problematic matrix for PCR analysis because nucleated erythrocytes contribute large amounts of host DNA that inhibit amplification.

. Using artificially spiked samples of fresh chicken blood, as well as blood samples from three experimental infection studies, the performance of pretreatment protocols, including choice of blood stabilization agent, centrifugation speeds and Ficoll gradient separation, was evaluated. The results were compared with those from traditional culture-based protocols combined with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS).

. Simple preparations producing cell-free samples performed well on artificial spike-in samples, providing high sensitivity. However, performance was poor in clinical samples or artificial samples where the bacteria were incubated for 4 h or more in fresh blood prior to DNA extraction. In these samples, a Ficoll separation protocol that creates samples rich in lymphocytes, monocytes and thrombocytes prior to DNA extraction was far more effective.

. Our results indicate that ER bacteria undergo rapid phagocytosis in chicken blood and that analysis of a blood fraction enriched for phagocytic cells is necessary for reliable detection and quantification. The presented results explain the poor performance of PCR detection reported in previously published experimental ER infection studies, and the proposed solutions are likely to have broader implications for PCR-based veterinary diagnostics in non-mammalian host species such as poultry and fish.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): blood , chicken , droplet digital PCR , Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae , nucleated erythrocyte and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
© 2019 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001016
2019-07-01
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/68/7/1003.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001016&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Sidstedt M, Hedman J, Romsos EL, Waitara L, Wadsö L et al. Inhibition mechanisms of hemoglobin, immunoglobulin G, and whole blood in digital and real-time PCR. Anal Bioanal Chem 2018; 410:2569–2583 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Morata P, Queipo-Ortuño MI, de Dios Colmenero J. Strategy for optimizing DNA amplification in a peripheral blood PCR assay used for diagnosis of human brucellosis. J Clin Microbiol 1998; 36:2443–2446
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cogswell FB, Bantar CE, Hughes TG, Gu Y, Philipp MT. Host DNA can interfere with detection of Borrelia burgdorferi in skin biopsy specimens by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34:980–982
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Strain MC, Lada SM, Luong T, Rought SE, Gianella S et al. Highly precise measurement of HIV DNA by droplet digital PCR. PLoS One 2013; 8:e55943 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Doescher A, Loges U, Petershofen EK, Müller TH. Evaluation of droplet digital PCR for quantification of residual leucocytes in red blood cell concentrates. Vox Sang 2017; 112:744–750 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Samour J. Diagnostic value of hematology. In Harrison G, Lightfoot T. (editors) Clinical Avian Medicine Brenthwood: Avian Medicine online; 2018 pp 587–610
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hoffman R, Silberstein LE, Weitz JI, Salama ME, Benz EJ et al. Hematology Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2018
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Pascho RJ, Elliott DG, Chase DM. Comparison of traditional and molecular methods for detection of Renibacterium salmoninarum . In Cunningham CO. editor Molecular diagnosis of salmonid diseases Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002 pp 157–209
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dekker JP. Metagenomics for clinical infectious disease diagnostics steps closer to reality. J Clin Microbiol 2018; 56:e00850–00818 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Mazaheri A, Lierz M, Hafez HM. Investigations on the pathogenicity of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae in laying hens. Avian Dis 2005; 49:574–576 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaufmann-Bart M, Hoop RK. Diseases in chicks and laying hens during the first 12 years after battery cages were banned in Switzerland. Vet Rec 2009; 164:203–207 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fossum O, Jansson DS, Etterlin PE, Vågsholm I. Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet Scand 2009; 51:1–9 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Stokholm NM, Permin A, Bisgaard M, Christensen JP. Causes of mortality in commercial organic layers in Denmark. Avian Dis 2010; 54:1241–1250 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Eriksson H, Brännström S, Skarin H, Chirico J. Characterization of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolates from laying hens and poultry red mites (Dermanyssus gallinae) from an outbreak of erysipelas. Avian Pathol 2010; 39:505–509 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Eriksson H, Nyman AK, Fellström C, Wallgren P. Erysipelas in laying hens is associated with housing system. Vet Rec 2013; 173:18 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Eriksson H, Bagge E, Båverud V, Fellström C, Jansson DS. Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae contamination in the poultry house environment during erysipelas outbreaks in organic laying hen flocks. Avian Pathol 2014; 43:231–237 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Pal N, Bender JS, Opriessnig T. Rapid detection and differentiation of Erysipelothrix spp. by a novel multiplex real-time PCR assay. J Appl Microbiol 2010; 108:1083–1093 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Harada K, Uchiyama M, Hoshi T, Takahashi T. Comparison of three DNA extraction methods for detection of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae in chicken blood by polymerase chain reaction. J Vet Diagn Invest 2009; 21:354–358 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Forde T, Biek R, Zadoks R, Workentine ML, De Buck J et al. Genomic analysis of the multi-host pathogen Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae reveals extensive recombination as well as the existence of three generalist clades with wide geographic distribution. BMC Genomics 2016; 17:461 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Shimoji Y. Pathogenicity of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae: virulence factors and protective immunity. Microbes Infect 2000; 2:965–972 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaspers B, Lillehoj HS, Lillehoj EP. Chicken macrophages and thrombocytes share a common cell surface antigen defined by a monoclonal antibody. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 1993; 36:333–346 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dalgaard TS, Norup LR, Rubbenstroth D, Wattrang E, Juul-Madsen HR. Flow cytometric assessment of antigen-specific proliferation in peripheral chicken T cells by CFSE dilution. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2010; 138:85–94 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Wigley P. Immunity to bacterial infection in the chicken. Dev Comp Immunol 2013; 41:413–417 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Genovese KJ, He H, Swaggerty CL, Kogut MH. The avian heterophil. Dev Comp Immunol 2013; 41:334–340 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferdous F, Saski C, Bridges W, Burns M, Dunn H et al. Transcriptome profile of the chicken thrombocyte: new implications as an advanced immune effector cell. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0163890 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Beutler E, Gelbart T, Kuhl W. Interference of heparin with the polymerase chain reaction. Biotechniques 1990; 9:166
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lam NY, Rainer TH, Chiu RW, Lo YM. EDTA is a better anticoagulant than heparin or citrate for delayed blood. Clin Chem 2004; 50:256–257
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Nunes P, Demaurex N. The role of calcium signaling in phagocytosis. J Leukoc Biol 2010; 88:57–68 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. White-Owen C, Alexander JW, Sramkoski RM, Babcock GF. Rapid whole-blood microassay using flow cytometry for measuring neutrophil phagocytosis. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30:2071–2076
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lennon JT, Muscarella ME, Placella SA, Lehmkuhl BK. How, when, and where Relic DNA affects microbial diversity. MBio 2018; 9:e00637–00618 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001016
Loading
Detection and quantification of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae in blood from infected chickens – addressing challenges with detection of DNA from infectious agents in host species with nucleated red blood cells
J. Med. Microbiol. 68, 1003 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001016
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001016
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001016
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error