• 1.

    WHO , 2015. Chagas disease in Latin America: an epidemiological update based on 2010 estimates. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 90: 3344.

  • 2.

    Zingales B et al., 2009. A new consensus for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific nomenclature: second revision meeting recommends TcI to TcVI. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 104: 10511054.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Messenger LA, Miles MA, Bern C, 2015. Between a bug and a hard place: Trypanosoma cruzi genetic diversity and the clinical outcomes of Chagas disease. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 13: 9951029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Brenière SF, Waleckx E, Barnabé C, 2016. Over six thousand Trypanosoma cruzi strains classified into discrete typing units (DTUs): attempt at an inventory. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10: 119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Coura J et al., 2002. Control of Chagas Disease: Second Report of the WHO Expert Committee. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. doi: 10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90338-x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Altclas J et al., 2010. Chagas’ disease and solid organ transplantation. Transplant Proc 42: 33543359.

  • 7.

    Antinori S, Galimberti L, Bianco R, Grande R, Galli M, Corbellino M, 2017. Chagas disease in Europe: a review for the internist in the globalized world. Eur J Intern Med 43: 615.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Manne-Goehler J, Umeh CA, Montgomery SP, Wirtz VJ, 2016. Estimating the burden of chagas disease in the United States. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10: 17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Chin-Hong PV, Schwartz BS, Bern C, Montgomery SP, Kontak S, Kubak B, Morris MI, Nowicki M, Wright C, Ison MG, 2011. Screening and treatment of Chagas disease in organ transplant recipients in the United States: recommendations from the Chagas in transplant working group. Am J Transplant 11: 672680.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Lenzi HL, Oliveira DN, Lima MT, Gattass CR, 1996. Trypanosoma cruzi: paninfectivity of CL strain during murine acute infection. Exp Parasitol 84: 1627.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Herrera L, Martínez C, Carrasco H, Jansen AM, Urdaneta-Morales S, 2007. Cornea as a tissue reservoir of Trypanosoma cruzi. Parasitol Res 100: 13951399.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Schijman AG, Altcheh J, Burgos JM, Biancardi M, Bisio M, Levin MJ, Freilij H, 2003. Aetiological treatment of congenital Chagas’ disease diagnosed and monitored by the polymerase chain reaction. J Antimicrob Chemother 52: 441449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Marcet PL, Duffy T, Cardinal MV, Burgos JM, Lauricella MA, Levin MJ, Kitron U, Gürtler RE, Schijman AG, 2006. PCR-based screening and lineage identification of Trypanosoma cruzi directly from faecal samples of triatomine bugs from northwestern Argentina. Parasitology 132: 5765.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Bontempi IA, Bizai ML, Ortiz S, Manattini S, Fabbro D, Solari A, Diez C, 2016. Simple methodology to directly genotype Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units in single and mixed infections from human blood samples. Infect Genet Evol 43: 123129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Gain P, Jullienne R, He Z, Aldossary M, Acquart S, Cognasse F, Thuret G, 2016. Global survey of corneal transplantation and eye banking. JAMA Ophthalmol 134: 167173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Zhang L, Tarleton RL, 1999. Parasite persistence correlates with disease severity and localization in chronic Chagas’ disease. J Infect Dis 180: 480486.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Burgos JM et al., 2007. Direct molecular profiling of minicircle signatures and lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi bloodstream populations causing congenital Chagas disease. Int J Parasitol 37: 13191327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Riarte A et al., 1999. Chagas’disease in patients with kidney transplants: 7 years of experience, 1989–1996. Clin Infect Dis 29: 561567.

  • 19.

    Barcán L, Lunaó C, Clara L, Sinagra A, Valledor A, De Rissioí AM, Gadanoá A, García MM, de Santibañes E, Riarte A, 2005. Transmission of T. cruzi infection via liver transplantation to a nonreactive recipient for Chaga’s disease. Liver Transpl 11: 11121116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Cura CI, Lattes R, Nagel C, Gimenez MJ, Blanes M, Calabuig E, Iranzo A, Barcan LA, Anders M, Schijman AG, 2013. Early molecular diagnosis of acute Chagas disease after transplantation with organs from Trypanosoma cruzi-infected donors. Am J Transplant 13: 32533261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Report: Molecular Detection and Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi in Ocular Tissue from Donors with Chagas Disease

View More View Less
  • 1 Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín (IIBIO-UNSAM), Buenos Aires, Argentina;
  • | 2 Hospital Oftalmológico Santa Lucía, Buenos Aires, Argentina;
  • | 3 Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina

ABSTRACT.

Corneal transplantation is the most frequent transplant worldwide. Tissue characteristics allow storage and transport, even between continents, increasing its accessibility around the world. Donor infection with Trypanosoma cruzi is not defined as a corneal discarding factor, although the transplant is not recommended preventively, as in any infectious diseases. Herein, by means of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) strategies, we analyzed parasite presence in ocular tissue from 10 deceased donors with Chagas diseases. Among them, positive findings were obtained in corneas, scleras, and eye muscle samples of three, two, and one donor, respectively. Moreover, among the six T. cruzi defined populations, TcV and TcVI parasites were found in some samples based on group-specific amplification strategies. Our findings point out the actual possibility of T. cruzi transmission due to corneal transplantation and makes donor’s serological status knowledge mandatory regardless of graft provenance. Failing that, we suggest a posttransplant follow-up of recipients from seropositive donors.

Author Notes

Address correspondence to Juan Miguel Burgos, Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín Campus Miguelete, 25 de Mayo 1301, San Martín, Buenos Aires 1650, Argentina. E-mail: jburgos@iib.unsam.edu.ar

Authors’ addresses: Gianfranco Alí Santoro and Sofía Belén Drago, Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín (IIBIO-UNSAM), Buenos Aires, Argentina, E-mails: gianfranco.as@gmail.com and sofiadrago27@gmail.com. Marta Inés Starcenbaum Bouchez and Elisabeth Cittadino, Hospital Oftalmológico Santa Lucía, Buenos Aires, Argentina, E-mails: martabouchez@yahoo.com.ar and elicittadino@hotmail.com. María Susana Leguizamón and Juan Miguel Burgos, Instituto de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas, Universidad Nacional de San Martín (IIBIO-UNSAM), Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina, E-mails: sleguiza@unsam.edu.ar and jumibu@gmail.com.

Save