ORIGINAL ARTICLE INFECTIOUS DISEASES Oral mucosa as a source of Mycobacterium leprae infection and transmission, and implications of bacterial DNA detection and the immunological status T. S. Martinez 1,2, M. M. N. R. Figueira 2, A. V. Costa 1, M. A. Gonçalves 1, L. R. Goulart 3,4 and I. M. B. Goulart 1,2 1) National Reference Center for Sanitary Dermatology and Leprosy, Hospital das Clínicas, 2) Graduate Program in Health Sciences, School of Medicine, 3) Institute of Genetics and Biochemistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil and 4) Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA Abstract Leprosy is an important health problem in Brazil despite extensive use of multidrug therapy. The nasal mucosa is the preferential site of entry and exit of Mycobacterium leprae, and although lesions have been found in the oral mucosa, its potential involvement in the transmission of leprosy bacilli has never been investigated. We investigated the presence of the M. leprae DNA in buccal swabs of leprosy patients (334) and household contacts (1288) through polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and correlated this with clinical and laboratorial evaluations. The overall positivity for patients and contacts was 18.26% and 6.83%, respectively. Subclinical infection among contacts was considered when PCR and anti-pgl-1 ELISA presented positive results. This study provides evidence that the oral mucosa may be a secondary site of M. leprae transmission and infection, and contacts with bacillary DNA may be actively involved in transmission. We have also shown that bacilli DNA is more frequently found in the oral mucosa of PB patients. Our findings have great epidemiological relevance and indicate an additional strategy for leprosy control programmes and dental clinics. Keywords: Buccal swab, household contacts, leprosy, molecular epidemiology, patients Original Submission: 10 July 2010; Revised Submission: 10 December 2010; Accepted: 21 December 2010 Editor: M. Drancourt Article published online: 31 December 2010 Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17: 1653 1658 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03453.x Corresponding author: Talita da Silva Martinez, Av. Aspirante Mega, 77, B. Jaraguá, Uberlândia/MG CEP 38413-018, Brazil E-mail: ttalittasm@yahoo.com.br Introduction Leprosy is considered to be a public health problem in Brazil, which has the second largest number of cases in the world, with a prevalence of 41 817 cases at the beginning of 2009 and an incidence of 38 914 in 2008 [1]. It is a spectral disease and variation in clinical forms is related to distinct immunological patterns [2]. Among the polar forms, tuberculoid (TT) and lepromatous (LL), there are immunologically unstable forms: borderline-tuberculoid (BT), borderline-borderline (BB) and borderline-lepromatous (BL) [3]. The source of infection is a patient with a non-treated high bacterial load of the multibacillary form (MB) [4], but persons infected who display no clinical manifestation of the disease but have the presence of bacillus in their nasal mucosa may be involved in subclinical transmission [5]. The nasal mucosa is the preferential site for entry and exit of the Mycobacterium leprae [6] and the initial infection occurs in the upper airways [7]. However, involvement of the oral cavity is rarely reported and oral lesions are described in patients with lepromatous leprosy, and in a few cases of patients with tuberculoid and borderline forms [8 10]. The mouth may act as a transmission source, with an important role in the production of new cases. Because it is a contagious infectious disease, the earlier the diagnosis and treatment, the greater the possibility of a favourable clinical course [11]. Mycobacterium leprae genomic regions have been detected by PCR in oral mucosa biopsies of MB patients [12]. Similar results were predicted for buccal swabs, but this study has not been performed yet. Despite the ample epidemiological distribution and leprosy being considered a public health problem, few studies in the literature cover the relationship of the oral cavity with the disease [10]. Clinical Microbiology and Infection ª2011 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
1654 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 17 Number 11, November 2011 CMI Thus, this study had the objective of detecting M. leprae DNA in buccal swabs of leprosy patients and household contacts in order to determine the involvement of the oral mucosa as a source of infection and transmission of bacilli. Additionally, we have explored the possible implications of these findings by associating the DNA detection with the bacterial index (BI), anti-pgl-1 ELISA and the Mitsuda test, which have been used as auxiliary tools in diagnosis and classification of clinical forms of leprosy patients and for monitoring of household contacts. Cases and Methods Treatment-naïve patients with leprosy (334) and their household contacts (1288) seen at the National Reference Center for Sanitary Dermatology and Leprosy of Uberlândia, participated in the cross-sectional study approved by the Ethics in Research Committee under # 099/2003, signed the informed consent forms and authorized the collection of samples. Patients were diagnosed and classified into TT, BT, BB, BL and LL forms, according to Ridley Jopling [2], based on Bacterial Index (BI) of dermal swabs, histological analyses, BI of skin lesion biopsies, and the Mitsuda intradermal test, to evaluate cellular immunity to M. leprae, considering positive values 4 mm [13]. To assess humoral response, the ELISA serological test against the bacillus-specific antigen, PGL-1 (kindly donated by Dr John Spencer, Colorado State University), was performed, considering positive results with a cutoff 1.1, as demonstrated elsewhere [14,15]. Patients received an operational classification as paucibacillary (PB) or multibacillary (MB). TT or BT forms with five or less skin lesions and negative BI were considered PB. BT forms with more than five skin lesions and/or a BI from zero to two in the skin lesion were considered MB [16]. The household contacts that resided or had resided with the patient over the previous 5 years [17] submitted to the dermato-neurological examination, Mitsuda test and anti-pgl-1 ELISA assay to assure their health status. DNA extraction and PCR The collection of nasal swabs from patients and buccal swabs from patients and contacts was carried out by introducing small flexible brushes, and swabbing the nasal septum via both nasal fosses and the oral mucosa (mucosa lining of the cheeks and lips). The stems with the material were deposited in sterile tubes containing 500 ll of lysis buffer (NaCl 400 mm, EDTA, 50 mm ph 8.0 and Tris HCl 25 mm ph 8.0). Each sample was individually conditioned in sterile microtubes and maintained at 4 C until DNA extraction. For the detection of M. leprae in samples, a pair of primers [18] was used to amplify 130 bp fragments of the RLEP M. leprae genomic region (Fig. 1), using standardized conditions for PCR reactions described elsewhere [19]. Statistical analysis Descriptive analyses were carried out for the data. The chisquare test was used to evaluate differences in positivity between samples from patients and contacts, and among clinical forms. Pearson s correlation coefficient was employed to determine the association among the results of anti- PGL-1ELISA, the Mitsuda test and BI of skin lesions, considering p <0.05 as significant. (a) (b) FIG. 1. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA by PCR. (a) Quality of the total DNA extracted in buccal swab samples from patients with leprosy visualized in agarose 0.8% gel and stained with ethidium bromide. (b) The positive detection of M. leprae DNA is demonstrated by the amplification of a 130 bp fragment of the RLEP3 genomic region: columns 1 (positive control), 3 and 6. Negative samples: columns 2, 4, 5, 7 10. B: negative control; M-100 bp marker. Fragments of 200 bp observed in columns 1 10 correspond to the amplification of the NRAMP1 gene as the internal control.
CMI Martinez et al. Oral mucosa as a source of M. leprae infection 1655 Bl of the skin smears (R 2 = 0.7991) Anti-PGL-1 ELISA (R 2 = 0.8227) Mitsuda test (R 2 = 0.8978) Bl of the skin biopsy (R 2 = 0.9039) 100 100 PCR of buccal swab (R 2 = 0.4446) 100 100 100 % positivity 80 60 40 20 0 13.16 11.54 0 64.39 33.61 16.05 9.38 5.57 64.52 15.69 3.28 12.77 TT BT BB BL Clinical forms 0 0 FIG. 2. Percentage of positivity (%) for bacterial index of skin smears and skin biopsies, Mitsuda test, serum anti-pgl1 ELISA and buccal swab in leprosy patients and their distribution according to the clinical forms of Ridley and Jopling. 42.86 LL Results The mean age of patients was 47.66 ± 16.14 years, with a predominance of the male gender (206/334; 61.68%). The most prevalent operational form of patients was the MB, reaching 67.66% (226/334). For the clinical classification, the highest prevalence was in the borderline group, corresponding to 67.66% (226/334), with a predominance of 38.32% (128/334) of the BT form. The positivity of laboratory assays, according to the clinical classification [2], is presented in Fig. 2. We observed a strong positive correlation between anti-pgl-1 ELISA and BI of the skin smears (r = 0.9763 and p 0.0044), anti-pgl-1 ELISA and BI of the skin biopsy (r = 0.9204 and p 0.0266) and BI of the skin smears and BI of the skin biopsy (r = 0.9423 and p 0.0165), and strong negative correlations between the Mitsuda test and anti-pgl-1 ELISA (r = )0.9994 and p <0.0001), BI of the skin smears (r = )0.9711 and p 0.0059) and BI of the skin biopsy (r = )0.9253 and p 0.0242). Positivities of buccal swabs, skin smears, skin biopsy and anti-pgl-1 ELISA tests increased towards the MB forms, reaching 42.86% in buccal swabs in the LL form and 100% in the BL and LL forms in the other laboratory assays. On the other hand, the Mitsuda test demonstrated 100% positivity in the TT form, and was negative for all patients with BL and LL forms. DNA detection in buccal swabs of patients (Fig. 1) demonstrated a positivity of 18.26% (61/334), varying from 13.16% (5/38) in the TT form to 42.86% (30/70) in LL (Fig. 2). Significant differences of positivities were observed between LL vs. TT (v 2 = 15.746; p 0.0001), LL vs. BT (v 2 = 21.457; p < 0.0001), LL vs. BB (v 2 = 12.608; p 0.0006), and LL vs. BL (v 2 = 16.276; p <0.0001) forms. Within the 334 buccal swab samples there were missing data for other parameters, and only 290 nasal swab samples were matched for the same patients, so correlation analysis was performed only for patients who had paired data. PB patients demonstrated 12.37% (12/97) positivity for M. leprae DNA detection in buccal swabs, and although almost 50% lower, it was not significantly different from MB patients, who demonstrated 20.21% (39/193) positivity (v 2 = 2.254; p 0.190). However, PB patients demonstrated 6.18% (6/97) positivity for buccal swabs when nasal swabs were negative, while detection in nasal swabs when buccal swabs were negative demonstrated a 3.09% (3/97) positivity (v 2 = 1.080; p 0.4821). Positive detection for PB patients in both collection sites was 6.18% (6/97). Interestingly, among MB patients detected using buccal swabs, only the BT-MB and BB forms demonstrated positive results when nasal swabs were negative (4.21%; 4/95). Evaluation of the positivity for nasal swabs when buccal swabs were negative indicated that MB patients showed a two-fold positivity (36.27%; 70/193) compared with that observed in both buccal and nasal swabs (18.13%; 35/193) (v 2 = 8.309; p 0.0065) (Table 1). The overall positivity of the bacillary DNA detection was 17.59% (51/290) in buccal and 39.31% (114/290) in nasal swabs from patients (v 2 = 11.588; p 0.0012). The positivity of both collection sites has increased toward the LL pole, TABLE 1. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA by PCR in samples of buccal (B) and nasal (N) swabs of leprosy patients according to the clinical forms Clinical forms PCR B+N) B)N+ B+N+ Total n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) TT 2 (6.06) 0 (0.00) 3 (9.09) 33 (11.38) BT PB 4 (6.25) 3 (4.69) 3 (4.69) 64 (22.07) BT MB 1 (1.92) 2 (3.85) 1 (1.92) 52 (17.93) BB 3 (6.98) 10 (23.26) 4 (9.30) 43 (14.83) BL 0 (0.00) 25 (64.10) 4 (10.26) 39 (13.45) LL 0 (0.00) 33 (55.93) 26 (44.07) 59 (20.34) Total 10 (3.45) 73 (25.17) 41 (14.14) 290 (100) TT, tuberculoid; LL, lepromatous; BT, borderline-tuberculoid; BB, borderlineborderline; BL, borderline-lepromatous, MB, multibacillary.
1656 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 17 Number 11, November 2011 CMI reaching 44.07% (26/59) in buccal swabs and 100% (59/59) in nasal swabs (v 2 = 77.643; p <0.0001). Of all patients, 3.45% (10/290) demonstrated positive results for buccal swabs and negative results for nasal swabs (Table 1). A concomitant positivity for both PCR in buccal swabs and anti-pgl-1 ELISA was observed in 13.2% (36/272) of the patients. Positive DNA in buccal swabs and negative Mitsuda tests were observed in 13.5% (35/260) of the patients. Among the 1288 household contacts, the mean age was 28.46 ± 19.3 years, and 55.9% (720/1288) were female. The operational classification of the index cases was predominantly MB (77.09%; 993/1288). The overall positivity for detection of bacillary DNA in buccal swabs of contacts was 6.83% (88/1288), which was significantly different from the overall positivity of 18.26% (61/334) found in patients (v 2 = 5.207; p 0.0373). Analysing the household contacts of PB and MB patients, 5.08% (15/295) and 7.35% (73/993) had positive buccal swabs, respectively (v 2 = 0.415; p 0.7187). Among the positive contacts for M. leprae DNA in buccal swabs, 21.67% (13/60) displayed positive anti-pgl-1 ELISA, and 15% (12/80) were negative for the Mitsuda test. Discussion This is the first investigation that extensively covers the molecular epidemiology of M. leprae in buccal swabs by detecting bacillary DNA in leprosy patients and household contacts, with additional comparisons with PCR results from nasal swabs, and with stratification of samples into clinical forms of leprosy, and also taking into consideration the humoral and cellular responses. The recruited patients came from an area where leprosy was endemic, and there was a greater prevalence of men, which agrees with previous studies that point to lifestyle and greater involvement in the workforce as factors that increase the risk for men [4]. Regarding the operational classification, the greater prevalence of MB patients also concurs with the literature [20]. We have also observed a predominance of the borderline group, especially the BT form, similar to the African prevalence of leprosy, which is likely to reflect a genetic factor in the capacity to express cell-mediated immunity to M. leprae [3]. Our results showed that the humoral response, assessed by the anti-pgl-1elisa, is directly proportional to the bacillary load, measured by the BI of the smears and the biopsy of skin lesions [21,22], increasing as the spectrum is traversed towards the LL pole, and inversely proportional to the Mitsuda test, which is strongly positive in the TT pole, corroborating the spectral classification of the disease [2]. Regarding the PCR analysis of the buccal swabs, despite the higher positivity in MB patients, the positivity rates of M. leprae DNA in the oral cavity were similar in all clinical forms of the disease, including the TT form, indicating that they are carriers of the bacillus and that the mouth might function as a route of initial and transitory infection for this clinical form, which displayed negative BI in skin smears and in skin biopsies. Additionally, the presence of M. leprae DNA in the TT form might also contribute to the transmission of the bacillus to household contacts. In this investigation, we have also demonstrated that the positivity rates of the nasal swabs in patients were greater than buccal swabs in all clinical forms of the spectrum, with the exception of the TT form, corroborating findings that demonstrated the nasal mucosa as the preferential site for entry and exit of M. leprae [19]. However, when patients were stratified based on their individual or combined detection in nasal and buccal swabs, the M. leprae DNA was more prevalent in buccal swabs of PB patients, while the bacilli DNA was more frequently found in nasal swabs of MB patients. This is the first time that the oral mucosa has been shown to be a more prevalent site in PB patients, and may have important implications for transmission. Furthermore, the observation of positive buccal swabs for M. leprae DNA concurrent with negative nasal swabs from patients may suggest that for some individuals the mouth may act as the primary site of infection, and might also be involved in bacilli dissemination through this route. The detection of M. leprae DNA in buccal swabs of patients that also had positive anti-pgl-1 ELISA and negative Mitsuda tests, reinforces the involvement of MB patients as a primary source of transmission of the bacillus through the upper airways [3]. The three-fold difference in the overall positivity of DNA detection in buccal swabs of patients compared with contacts also suggests that the greatest source of infection and transmission of M. leprae is non-treated patients. The greater prevalence of women and their mean age range among household contacts may be explained by the greater number of adult women who seek healthcare services when summoned for surveillance programmes for contacts of leprosy patients [17]. The lack of a difference in M. leprae DNA detection in buccal swabs of household contacts of PB and MB patients may be explained by the presence of M. leprae DNA in the upper airways of PB patients, which may also disseminate bacilli as it occurs in MB patients, which was also demonstrated in this investigation. This fact justifies the two-fold increased risk of household contacts acquiring leprosy in comparison to noncontacts [4]. Moreover, it may be possible that contacts of PB
CMI Martinez et al. Oral mucosa as a source of M. leprae infection 1657 and MB patients that live in areas where the disease is endemic may also create opportunities for new contacts with the bacilli [23]. Another important inference from the epidemiological data from contacts, regarding those with detection of M. leprae DNA in buccal swabs and negative results for the anti- PGL-1 ELISA, is the possibility that they are bacilli carriers and a secondary source of transmission, contributing to its dissemination; this may be due to the high pressure of bacillary load from patients with whom they live, which creates a highly infective environment before treatment, especially during the initial phase of the disease [11,24]. However, in a second phase, these healthy household contacts are not only carriers of the bacillus in their oral cavity, but they also bear a subclinical infection, presenting with concomitant positivity of anti-pgl-1 ELISA in serum and DNA in buccal swabs, as demonstrated in the present investigation, thus reinforcing even further an active role in the transmission of the disease [25 27]. The association of bacillary DNA in buccal swabs with negative Mitsuda tests in contacts is an important combined risk factor for acquiring leprosy, and these individuals may be closely monitored, once a negative Mitsuda test alone confers a six-fold higher risk of leprosy occurrence [11,24]. So, a contact with a negative Mistuda test lacks cellular immunity and is predisposed to M. leprae infection, and therefore, the presence of the mycobacteria DNA in the oral mucosa of a negative Mitsuda household contact will pose a greater risk of acquiring leprosy when compared with a non carrier (negative DNA detection). Our results suggest that endemic countries must maintain a special surveillance programme for contacts, looking for those with M. leprae DNA in buccal swabs, anti-pgl-1 ELISA seropositivity, and a negative Mitsuda test [11,24]. This molecular and immunological study of leprosy epidemiology provides evidence of the oral mucosa as a secondary source of infection and transmission of M. leprae, and the contacts may be involved in the active transmission of bacilli in endemic areas. Our results have great epidemiological relevance and may lead to an additional and important strategy in leprosy surveillance programmes, with a direct effect on prevention and control of the disease. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the staff of the National Reference Center for Sanitary Dermatology and Leprosy for fundamental support and FAPEMIG/CNPq/CAPES/FINEP and the Ministry of Health for financial support. Transparency Declaration The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. References 1. World Health Organization (WHO). Global leprosy situation. Wkly Epidem Rec 2009; 84: 333 340. 2. Ridley DS, Jopling WH. Classification of leprosy according to immunity: a five-group system. Int J Lepr 1966; 34: 255 273. 3. Pfaltzgraff RE, Bryceson A. Clinical leprosy. In: Hastings RC, ed., Leprosy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985; 134 176. 4. Noordeen SK. The epidemiology of leprosy. In: Hastings RC, ed., Leprosy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985; 15 30. 5. Moet FJ, Meima A, Oskam L, Richardus JH. Risk factors for the development of clinical leprosy among contacts, and their relevance for targeted interventions. Lepr Rev 2004; 75: 310 326. 6. Rees RJW, MCDougall AC. Airbone infection with Mycobacterium leprae in mice. J Med Microbiol 1977; 10: 63 68. 7. Ramaprasad P, Fernando A, Madhale S et al. Transmission and protection in leprosy: indications of the role of mucosal immunity. Lepr Rev 1997; 68: 301 315. 8. Reis SRA, Viana LC, Souza VF, Marchionni VMT. Manifestações Orais da Hanseníase. Rev Fac Odontol UFBA 1996; 17: 53 58. 9. D Abreu PC, Durães SMB, Estrela RR, Baltazar MCNP, Rochael MC. Hanseníase virchowiana diagnosticada através de exame histopatológico de lesão oral em paciente com pênfigo foliáceo. An Bras Dermatol 2000; 75: 339 346. 10. Costa LCV, Andrade KLC, Carmo MAV, Ferreira MAA, Garrocho AA. Manifestações bucofaciais da hanseníase. Rev CROMG 2002; 8: 191 197. 11. Goulart IMB, Goulart LR. Leprosy: diagnostic and control challenges for a worldwide disease. Arch Dermatol Res 2008; 300: 269 290. 12. Santos GG, Marcucci G, Guimarães Júnior J, Margarido LC, Lopes LHC. Pesquisa de Mycobacterium leprae em biópsias de mucosa oral por meio da reação em cadeia da polimerase. An Bras Dermatol 2007; 82: 245 249. 13. Jopling WH, McDougall AC. Manual de Hanseníase. Rio de Janeiro/ São Paulo: Atheneu, 1991: 61. 14. Lobato J, Silva DA, Mineo TW et al. Detection of immunoglobulin G antibodies to Neospora caninum in humans: high seropositivity rates in patients who are infected by human immunodeficiency virus or have neurological disorders. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2006; 13: 84 89. 15. Goulart IMB, Reis EM, Nunes MM et al. Sorologia e PCR quantitativa na classificação clínica de Ridley-Jopling da hanseníase. In: Seixas J, Cerasoli J, ed., UFU, ano 30 tropeçando universos (artes, humanidades, ciências). Uberlândia: EDUFU, 2008; 529 553. 16. Rudeeaneksin J, Srisungngam S, Sawanpanyalert P et al. LightCycler TM real-time PCR for rapid detection and quantitation of Mycobacterium leprae in skin specimens. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2008; 54: 263 270. 17. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria no 125/SVS-SAS de 2009. Brasília, 2009. 18. Goulart IMB, Cardoso AM, Santos MS, Gonçalves MA, Pereira JE, Goulart LR. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in skin lesions of leprosy patients by PCR may be affected by amplicon size. Arch Dermatol Res 2007; 299: 267 271. 19. Patrocínio LG, Goulart IMB, Goulart LR, Patrocínio JA, Ferreira FR, Fleury RN. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae in nasal mucosa
1658 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 17 Number 11, November 2011 CMI biopsies by the polymerase chain reaction. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2005; 44: 311 316. 20. Lombardi C, Suárez REG. Epidemiologia da Hanseníase. In: Talhari S, Neves RG, eds, Hanseníase. Manaus: Gráfica Tropical, 1997; 127 136. 21. Cho SN, Yanagihara DL, Hunter SW, Rea TH, Gelber RH, Brennan PJ. Serological specificity of phenolic glycolipid I from Mycobacterium leprae and use in the serodiagnosis of leprosy. Infect Immun 1983; 41: 1077 1083. 22. Scollard DM, Adams LB, Gillis TP, Krahenbuhl JL, Truman RW, Williams DL. The continuing challenges of leprosy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006; 19: 338 381. 23. Klatser PR, Van Beers S, Madjid B, Day R, de Wit MY. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae nasal carriers in populations for which leprosy is endemic. J Clin Microbiol 1993; 31: 2947 2951. 24. Goulart IMB, Souza DOB, Marques CR, Pimenta VL, Gonçalves MA, Goulart LR. Risk and protective factors for leprosy development determined by epidemiological surveillance of household contacts. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008; 15: 101 105. 25. Cho SN, Kim SH, Cellona RV et al. Prevalence of IgM antibodies to phenolic glycolipid I among household contacts and controls in Korea and the Philippines. Lepr Rev 1992; 63: 12 20. 26. Baumgart KW, Britton WJ, Mullins RJ, Basten A, Barnetson RS. Subclinical infection with Mycobacterium leprae a problem for leprosy control strategies. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1993; 87: 412 415. 27. Van Beers S, Hatta M, Klatser PR. Seroprevalence rates of antibodies to phenolic glycolipid I among schoolchildren as an indicator of leprosy endemicity. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis 1999; 67: 243 249.