8th European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International Health

The Danish Society for Tropical Medicine and International Health will be organising the European congress in 2013. We hope to see as many as possible. 

 

You may access the congress home page (as it develops) on www.ectmih2013.dk or via the home page of the Federation of European Societies for Tropical Medicine and International Health (www.festmih.eu). 

The congress will be held in Tivoli Congress Centre on 10-13 September, 2013.

Thanks.

The Circular Problem of Blastocystis

After submitting stool samples for microbiological analyses, many people with intestinal symptoms are informed by their GPs that they have Blastocystis, and that the clinical significance of this parasite is unknown (which is not entirely wrong). However, some GPs may want to try to eradicate Blastocystis in the absence of other potential causes of the symptoms, prescribing drugs such as Protostat/Flagyl (Metronidazole). During and after treatment, many patients will experience temporary alleviation only "to get back to where they started" after a couple of weeks or so. And often, they will also remain positive for Blastocystis (sometimes Blastocystis may be very difficult to detect during the course of treatment and immediately after treatment, which may be due to a transitory decrease in parasite load for direct and indirect reasons; see below). Anyway, this is the classical scenario.

The problem with Blastocystis is a circular one: There is currently no single 100% successful treatment, and when people with symptoms + Blastocystis cannot get rid of their parasites and thereby get the chance to report on symptom status after permanently cleared infection (+/-clinical improvement), it is - to put it mild - extremely challenging to collect information and data that can assist us in drawing conclusions. It doesn't make it any better that we know that a lot of people have Blastocystis without knowing and without having symptoms.We therefore shouldn't blame health care professionals for being in the dark.

People who do not know a lot about Blastocystis (and who does?) might take to the Internet to get more information, including how to deal with the infection. Not all the advice given on the Internet may be useful and little of it will be based on scientific evidence. Some people may be desperate to try and clear any parasite that they have been diagnosed with, without realising that some parasites might actually be a sign of a healthy gut ecological system and be of potential benefit in terms of maintaining a healthy immune system; we don't know much about this yet. Or maybe the use of antibiotics will damage the general intestinal flora and cause more or more severe symptoms than would the persistence of the parasitic infection! We don't know, but as hinted at in previous posts, our new technologies will assist us in obtaining the information that we have been looking for so long.

So, how do we move on from here? There is no doubt that scientific studies are key. Pilot data are available showing that at least one of the genetic variants (subtypes) of Blastocystis is more common in patients with symptoms than in the background population, but this still needs confirmation.

The genetic diversity of Blastocystis found in humans is huge. If the genetic diversity of Blastocystis was visible, different subtypes of Blastocystis would probably be as different as these marble balls!

We need substantial funding for carrying out large-scale studies aiming to confirm these data. Once epidemiological association has been sufficiently demonstrated, the next step is to find out whether those strains/subtypes associated with disease are characterised by having effector proteins not seen or - maybe more convincingly - not expressed in strains/subtypes seen in healthy individuals. If we have proof of both epidemiological association and expression of virulence genes, then next step could  include a randomised control treatment (RCT) study in order to identify the drug(s) that lead to microbiological and/or clinical improvement, i.e. parasite eradication and alleviation of symptoms, respectively.

It may be so that different subtypes of Blastocystis respond to different antibiotics. And if successful treatment is dependent on other factors as well such as complex microbial interspecies interactions, it may be perplexing to realise, that different individuals may respond differently to any given treatment. As Pepper and Rosenfield suggest in their paper about microbiome multistability: A key consequence of multistability is that different instances of the same type of system, such as different individual gut microbiomes, may show very different responses to the same perturbation.

And so, how does this relate to Blastocystis treatment? Well, since none of the treatments used for treating Blastocystis are specific for this parasite (metronidazole for instance is a broad-spectrum antibiotic used to eradicate a range of anaerobic bacteria, including Clostridium), there will probably be a mixture of direct and indirect effects on Blastocystis upon treatment. The direct effect on Blastocystis will depend on its susceptibility to the antibiotic, while the indirect effect will depend on the bacterial flora and how it responds during treatment. Hence, drugs may directly affect Blastocystis and/or perturb the intestinal flora to an extent which makes it an unsuitable habitat for Blastocystis. We hope soon to be able to investigate the interaction between Blastocystis and gut bacteria by metagenomic approaches. It should be kept in mind though that metronidazole is absorbed from the proximal part of the intestine, while Blastocystis is a parasite of the colon; hence, it may very well be so that metronidazole does not reach Blastocystis in its niche. When treating intestinal amoebiasis, metronidazole is given together with a luminal drug to ensure targeting both invasive and the luminal Entamoeba histolytica.

So, while we should keep pursuing the role of Blastocystis in disease, we should also try to explore whether there are some good sides to Blastocystis colonisation and whether we can learn to see the parasite as a proxy for something (clinical condition, enterotype, etc.). I have expanded a bit on this in my recent paper "Thinking Blastocystis Out Of The Box", available in the journal Trends in Parasitology. To this end, learning about the bacterial communities that may influence Blastocystis growth and establishment may improve our ability to understand Blastocystis in an ecological context.

For those who are interested in this, may I suggest some further reading (including papers on (unpredictable) antibiotics-associated changes in gut flora and individualised responses to perturbations in the gut microbiome and a couple of studies on Blastocystis subtypes where links to disease phenotypes have been identified):

Pepper, J., & Rosenfeld, S. (2012). The emerging medical ecology of the human gut microbiome Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27 (7), 381-384 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.03.002

Dethlefsen, L., & Relman, D. (2010). Colloquium Paper: Incomplete recovery and individualized responses of the human distal gut microbiota to repeated antibiotic perturbation Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (Supplement_1), 4554-4561 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1000087107

Stensvold, C., Christiansen, D., Olsen, K., & Nielsen, H. (2011). Blastocystis sp. Subtype 4 is Common in Danish Blastocystis-Positive Patients Presenting with Acute Diarrhea American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 84 (6), 883-885 DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.11-0005

Domínguez-Márquez, M., Guna, R., Muñoz, C., Gómez-Muñoz, M., & Borrás, R. (2009). High prevalence of subtype 4 among isolates of Blastocystis hominis from symptomatic patients of a health district of Valencia (Spain) Parasitology Research, 105 (4), 949-955 DOI: 10.1007/s00436-009-1485-y

Stensvold, C., (2012). Thinking Blastocystis Out Of The Box Trends in Parasitology DOI: 10.1016/j.pt.2012.05.004

Output from The Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium

For those who are interested in the work carried out by The Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium, I guide your attention towards a string of papers published just now:

The Human Microbiome Project Collection (PLoS Collections; 14 papers in total)
http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fissue.pcol.v01.i13

Microbiology: Learning about who we are + two other papers in Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486194a.html

Interested in more? Why not have a look at Ed Yong's blog post in The Scientist - you can see it here.

On Faecal Bacteriotherapy

For those of you who read my most recent blog post and who went on to read Carl Zimmer's article in The New York Times about gut flora transplantation on a woman suffering from chronic Clostridium difficile diarrhoea: The concept of faecal bacteriotherapy is maybe not that new. Allegedly, it dates back to Pliny the Elder and others, who prescribed orally ingested faeces to cure maladies! Stools were, however, incinerated first, and only the ashes ingested.

Pliny the Elder and others with him allegedly recommended  ingesting the ashes of faeces to cure disease.

In less ancient times - in 1989 to be more precise - Tvede and Rask-Madsen from Copenhagen, Denmark (Statens Serum Institut and The Danish State Hospital) reported on bacteriotherapy for chronic relapsing C. difficile diarrhoea in six patients. They hypothesised that absence of Bacteroides results in chronic relapsing C. difficile diarrhoea, and that its presence may prevent colonisation by C. difficile. In the current issue of Microbe Magazine, Young and Aronoff describe some of the mechanisms that may be involved in our indigenous gut flora's ability to prevent the colonisation of potentially pathogenic bacteria such as C. difficile. These include: (1) occupying space (physically preventing contact by newly arrived microbes with the host), (2) directly impairing the growth or germination of C. diffıcile, (3) withholding nutrients or germinants from C. diffıcile, and (4) shaping the host adaptive and innate immune responses.

Hence, the concept of dysbiosis and the ideas of manipulating the gut flora in order to "restore order" have been going on for a long time. Metagenomics, however, will assist us in exploring exactly what is happening in much more detail and in a much broader and standardised context than previously possible. We will be able to predict shifts in the structure, function and interaction of microbial communities - hopefully including micro-eukaryotes such as fungi (the "mycobiome") and common protists such as Blastocystis and Dientamoeba (maybe we can call it the "protistome"?), - and any influence of diet, pro- and antibiotics.

And fortunately, the focus on metagenomics continues: While CMI just launched a themed issue on metagenomics advances (see previous blog post), even Science and Science Translational Medicine now dedicated an entire joint issue to "The Gut Microbiota", and I hope to be able to address one or two of these papers soon. Until then, here's a bit of suggested reading:

'Bugs as Drugs'

Tvede, M., & Rask-Madsen, J. (1989). Bacteriotherapy for chronic relapsing Clostridium difficile diarrhoea in six patients The Lancet, 333 (8648), 1156-1160 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)92749-9

Young and Aronoff (2012). Clostridium difficile linked to disrupted gut microbiota. Microbe Magazine (ASM): http://goo.gl/FIZmC 

Mueller, K., Ash, C., Pennisi, E., & Smith, O. (2012). The Gut Microbiota Science, 336 (6086), 1245-1245 DOI: 10.1126/science.336.6086.1245

Blastocystis and Microbiomology

Speaking of metagenomics: The July 2012 issue of one of the most prestigious journals in the field of clinical microbiology, Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI – published by European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases), focuses entirely on recent advances in metagenomics, including its implications on clinical microbiology. Several of the keynote speakers from the MetaHIT conference in Paris (March, 2012) have contributed with papers, including Rob Knight, Willem M. de Vos and Paul W. O’Toole. In his editorial, Didier Raoult, puts emphasis on mainly two things: 1) that we need to be patient with data obtained from studies using metagenomics, since currently some conclusions are pointing in different directions and data are still scarce, and 2) that metagenomic studies should be independent of financial support from commercial sources, such as the industry of antibiotics and probiotics.

Although it may be too early to make b/w inferences from data already published, I think that the pioneers in metagenomics teach us to re-think or at least modify several hypotheses about the role of intestinal microbes in gastrointestinal health and disease and pursue new and exciting trajectories. In this blog post I would like to highlight a few things that may be interesting to people who are not familiar with metagenomics, but who are interested in our gut flora and how it may impact our lives.

So, what is metagenomics? Well, only a few years ago, microbiologists were used to looking at one single organism at a time, when exploring the potential role of an organism in health and disease. They were dependent on isolating the organism, for instance by culture, in order to have sufficient material for molecular studies, and in order to avoid mix-up of data from contaminating organisms. However, the human intestinal microbiome (gut flora) is made up by a plethora of organisms, mainly prokaryotes (bacteria), but also to some extent eukaryotes (parasites and fungi), archaea and viruses. Metagenomics, facilitated by massive high-throughput parallel sequencing of nucleic acids extracted from human faecal samples, allows us to get a holistic picture of the entire gut flora of a person. I.e.: We move from examining one single species or organism at a time, to be analysing entire eco-systems. We get to know not only the composition of microbic species inhabiting our gut, but also how they impact our body physiology: Interestingly, Gosalbes et al. (2012) describe how the composition of the intestinal flora may differ significantly from person to person, but later shows that the active intestinal flora is fairly similar among healthy individuals. So, what’s the active flora? Briefly: while metagenomics analyses the DNA (16s rDNA) from the microbiome and hence provides us with data on the mere composition of microbes, including a quantification, metatranscriptomics looks at RNA communities by looking at 16S rRNA and mRNA transcripts. In this way, we get to know the function of the intestinal microbiota and can temporarily ignore the part of the microbial community that is in “stand-by” mode only. The collective genome of the intestinal microbes vastly surpasses the coding capacity of the human genome with more than 3 million genes - in comparison the human genome comprises 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes.

So far, metagenomic studies have focused mainly on bacteria, and hence we know very little about how intestinal parasites directly or indirectly impact the remaining gut flora and the host, and, importantly, how the bacterial flora influences the presence and activity of parasites. This is due in part to methodological limitations, but mainly to the fact that the bacterial microbiome can be viewed as an organ of the human body (Baquero et al., 2012) taking care of vital and irreplaceable functions that the host is not otherwise capable of, ranging from energy and vitamin metabolism to epithelial barrier integrity and immune modulation (Salonen et al., 2012). Like any other organ, the microbiome has physiology and pathology, and the individual (and collective?) health might be damaged when its collective population structure is altered (Baquero et al, 2012). This is one of the reasons why studies of host-gut flora interactions have focused on bacteria.

One of the striking findings in metagenomic studies is that humans can be more or less successfully stratified into three enterotypes based on their intestinal flora (Arumugam et al., 2011):

We see that the three enterotypes are dominated by mainly three different types of bacteria (Bacteroides, Prevotelia and Ruminocoocus, respectively). However, as mentioned earlier, functional analysis (and probably a lot more sampling) is required to understand microbial communities. One of the interesting topics in this respect is how enterotypes correlate to different health/disease phenotypes; i.e. whether people with a certain gut flora are more prone to (a) certain type(s) of disease(s).There is preliminary evidence that variations in the microbiota are linked to diseases including bowel dysfunction and obesity.

In terms of parasites, I believe that in the near future we will see data revealing to which extent - if any - common intestinal micro-eukaryotes such as Blastocystis and Dientamoeba correlate with these enterotypes or other subsets of bacteria which will enable us to generate hypotheses on the interaction of micro-eukaryotes and the bacterial flora, which in turn may impact host physiology. I will expand a little more on this in an upcoming letter in Trends in Parasitology (article in press).

Interested in more: Why not have a look at Carl Zimmer's article in The New York Times about gut flora transplantation, or read about modulating the intestinal microbiota of older people to promote enhanced nutrition utilisation and to improve general health (O'Toole et al., 2012)... Also, have a look at my most recent blog post.

Literature:

O’Toole, P. (2012). Changes in the intestinal microbiota from adulthood through to old age Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 44-46 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03867.x  

Gosalbes, M., Abellan, J., Durbán, A., Pérez-Cobas, A., Latorre, A., & Moya, A. (2012). Metagenomics of human microbiome: beyond 16s rDNA Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 47-49 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03865.x  

Baquero, F., & Nombela, C. (2012). The microbiome as a human organ Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 2-4 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03916.x  

Salonen, A., Salojärvi, J., Lahti, L., & de Vos, W. (2012). The adult intestinal core microbiota is determined by analysis depth and health status Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 18, 16-20 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03855.x

Arumugam, M., Raes, J., Pelletier, E., Le Paslier, D., Yamada, T., Mende, D., Fernandes, G., Tap, J., Bruls, T., Batto, J., Bertalan, M., Borruel, N., Casellas, F., Fernandez, L., Gautier, L., Hansen, T., Hattori, M., Hayashi, T., Kleerebezem, M., Kurokawa, K., Leclerc, M., Levenez, F., Manichanh, C., Nielsen, H., Nielsen, T., Pons, N., Poulain, J., Qin, J., Sicheritz-Ponten, T., Tims, S., Torrents, D., Ugarte, E., Zoetendal, E., JunWang, ., Guarner, F., Pedersen, O., de Vos, W., Brunak, S., Doré, J., Consortium, M., Weissenbach, J., Ehrlich, S., & Bork, P. (2011). Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome Nature, 474 (7353), 666-666 DOI: 10.1038/nature10187

Brave New World

Using Blastocystis as an example, we have only recently realised the fact that conventional diagnostic methods in many cases fail to detect Blastocystis in faecal samples, which is why we have started using molecular diagnostics for Blastocystis. I was also surprised to realise that apparently no single drug can be used to treat Blastocystis, and that in fact we do not know which combo of drugs will actually consistently eradicate Blastocystis (Stensvold et al., 2010).

There will come a time - and it will be soon - where it will be common to use data from genome sequencing of pathogenic micro-organisms to identify unique signatures suitable for molecular diagnostic assays and to predict suitable targets (proteins) for chemotherapeutic intervention; in fact this is already happening (Hung et al., in press). However, despite already harvesting the fruits of recent technological advances, we will have to bear in mind that the genetic diversity seen within groups of micro-organisms infecting humans may be quite extensive. This of course will hugely impact our ablility to detect these organisms by nucleic acid-based techniques. For many of the micro-eukaryotic organisms which are common parasites of our guts, we still have only very little data available. For Blastocystis, data is building up in GenBank and at the Blastocystis Sequence Typing Databases, but for other parasites such as e.g. some Entamoeba species, Endolimax and Iodamoeba, we have very little data available. We only recently managed to sequence the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene of Iodamoeba, and we demonstrated tremendous genetic variation within the genus; it is now clear that Iodamoeba in humans comprises a species complex rather than "just" Iodamoeba bütschlii (Stensvold et al, 2012).

Cysts of Iodamoeba

Ribosomal RNA is present in all living cells and is the RNA component of the ribosome. We often use this gene for infering phylogenetic relationships, i.e. explaining how closely or distantly related one organism is to another. This again assists us in hypothesising on transmission patterns, pathogenicity, evolution, drug susceptibility and other things. Since ribosomal RNA gene data are available for most known parasites, we often base our molecular diagnostics on such data. However, the specificity and sensitivity of our molecular diagnostic assays such as real-time PCRs are of course always limited by the data available at a given point in time (Stensvold et al., 2011). Therefore substantial sampling from many parts of the world is warranted in order to increase the amount of data available for analysis. In terms of intestinal micro-eukaryotes, we have only seen the beginning. It's great to know data are currently builiding up for Blastocystis from many parts of the world, - recently also from South America (Malheiros et al., 2012) - but the genetic diversity and host specificity of many micro-eukaryotes are still to be explored. It may be somewhat tricky to obtain information, since conventional PCR and sequencing offer significant challenges in terms of obtaining sequence data; such challenges can potentially be solved by metagnomic approaches - today's high throughput take on cloning; however, although the current next generation sequencing technology hype makes us feel that we are almost there, it seems we still have a long way to go - extensive sampling is key!

Cited literature:

Hung, G., Nagamine, K., Li, B., & Lo, S. (2012). Identification of DNA Signatures Suitable for Developing into Real-Time PCR assays by Whole Genome Sequence Approaches: Using Streptococcus pyogenes as a pilot study Journal of Clinical Microbiology DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01155-12

Malheiros AF, Stensvold CR, Clark CG, Braga GB, & Shaw JJ (2011). Short report: Molecular characterization of Blastocystis obtained from members of the indigenous Tapirapé ethnic group from the Brazilian Amazon region, Brazil. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 85 (6), 1050-3 PMID: 22144442

Stensvold, C., Lebbad, M., & Clark, C. (2011). Last of the Human Protists: The Phylogeny and Genetic Diversity of Iodamoeba Molecular Biology and Evolution, 29 (1), 39-42 DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msr238  

Stensvold, C., Lebbad, M., & Verweij, J. (2011). The impact of genetic diversity in protozoa on molecular diagnostics Trends in Parasitology, 27 (2), 53-58 DOI: 10.1016/j.pt.2010.11.005

Stensvold, C., Smith, H., Nagel, R., Olsen, K., & Traub, R. (2010). Eradication of Blastocystis Carriage With Antimicrobials: Reality or Delusion? Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 44 (2), 85-90 DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181bb86ba

Blastocystis network on Facebook

This blog includes everything from updates on Blastocystis research, paper evaluations, polls, links, lab SOPs, to network opportunities and social interaction suggestions for all of us interested in Blastocystis. This time I want to guide your attention towards the Blastocystis network on Facebook. This is a good place to discuss personal experience with e.g. Blastocystis diagnosis and treatment and symptoms. The group is called "Blastocystis sp. (Blastocystis hominis and sp.)". If you have any experience and comments on Flagyl/Protostat (metronidazole), CDD regimens, including Secnidazole, Nitazoxanide, Furazolidone, Septrim (or Bactrim), Diloxanide Furoate, or other agents, please look up the group and share... We need your experience and views.

Blastocystis: To Treat or Not to Treat...

This year, Coyle et al. published a Clinical Practice paper in Clinical Infectious Diseases, a journal with a 5-year impact factor of almost 8. It is still difficult to get papers on Blastocystis published in clinical, peer-reviewed journals of major impact, probably due to the fact that evidence of Blastocystis' pathogenicity is so far only indicative, so it is great to see that the authors have managed to get their manuscript past those iron doors!

A few issues have come to my attention. When reading the abstract the reader will get the impression that subtypes are synonymous with genotypes, which is not the case. In the case of Blastocystis, a subtype is equivalent to a species; one of the reasons why we haven't allocated species names to Blastocystis from humans, other mammals and birds yet, is that we do not have sufficient data on genetic diversity and host specificity to come up with relevant names.

It says in the first page (pdf) that Blastocystis subtype (ST) 3 is found only in humans, which is not true. This subtype is common in non-human primates and can be seen in other, larger animals, including dogs, and also birds, if I remember correctly. However, so far, we only have multilocus sequence typing data from human and non-human primates, and these data indicate that ST3 found in non-human primates is often different from ST3 found in humans.

The authors recommend that asymptomatic individuals with few cysts should not be treated. Then what about asymptomatic individuals with many cysts? Also, with the diagnostic short-comings of microscopy of faecal concentrates, the suggested cut-off at 5 organisms per visual field appears arbitrary and, in best case, fortuitous.

In the abstract, the authors state that metronidazole is the drug of choice, although they appear to be quite aware that this drug has limited effect in terms of eradicating Blastocystis. So, why is metronidazole the drug of choice? Blastocystis is a parasite lodged primarily in the large intestine, and therefore we must anticipate that metronidazole often fails to reach the the parasite in sufficient concentrations due to absorption proximally in the gut. Luminal agents, such as paromomycin, are probably more likely to work, maybe in combination with metronidazole, although we have had a case, where even this combination was not effective.

When reviewing studies of treatment, it is important to acknowledge that insensitive methods have been used to evaluate drug efficacy. Culture combined with PCR is in my opinion the best method available in this respect. I prefer adding culture to the test, since culture detects viable Blastocystis (as opposed to PCR which will detect both viable and non-viable cells). Future randomised controlled treatment studies should therefore use culture and PCR to identify carriers both pre- and post-treatment. Whether Blastocystis-positive stool post-treatment is due to recrudescence, resistance or reinfection is not easily evaluated, but some useful information can be achieved by multi-locus sequence typing of isolates pre- and post-treatment.

Literature cited:

Coyle CM, Varughese J, Weiss LM, & Tanowitz HB (2012). Blastocystis: to treat or not to treat... Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 54 (1), 105-10 PMID: 22075794  

Stensvold CR, Alfellani M, & Clark CG (2012). Levels of genetic diversity vary dramatically between Blastocystis subtypes. Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases, 12 (2), 263-73 PMID: 22116021  

Stensvold CR, Smith HV, Nagel R, Olsen KE, & Traub RJ (2010). Eradication of Blastocystis carriage with antimicrobials: reality or delusion? Journal of clinical gastroenterology, 44 (2), 85-90 PMID: 19834337

Blastocystis Sequence Typing Home Page

Last year, we launched the Blastocystis Sequence Typing Home Page, which is a publicly accessible resource including two major facilities: 1) A sequence database and 2) An isolate database.
The databases cover both SSU-rDNA data and Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST) data. For those interested in MLST, please visit this paper.The rest of this post will be about SSU-rDNA sequences.

The database has a BLAST function. Barcoding sequences (i.e. sequences which include the 500 5'-most bases in the SSU-rDNA) can be submitted individually or in bulks, and the output file will include information on subtype (ST) and allele. The number of alleles in ST3 is huge (currently n=38) compared to other subtypes, for which only 2-3 alleles have been identified (e.g. ST8). In case a sequence is submitted that is not similar to an allele already present in the database, I suggest that you do an individual sequence query, which enables the generation of an alignment, which will show you the polymorphism(s). In case a new allele is identified, I suggest that we submit this new allele to the sequence database.
We not only strongly encourage using this BLAST feature for quick and standardised subtype and allele identification, but also for submitting isolate data, i.e. barcode sequences with provenance data (data on host, symptoms, geographical origin, etc.); again this can be done by contacting the curator (me); please look up the site for more information.

Our goal is to produce a database which accommodates large sets of data that can be submitted to scrutiny by everyone. The isolate database currently holds almost 700 isolates with 118 unique alleles - I hope this can be expanded much, much more. Also, data extracts can be done at all times, and below is a random example of an extract from human and non-human data from France downloaded from GenBank:

The colours indicate different alleles in different hosts (see legend to the right). A file with all alleles in fasta format is available here. You can paste them into the search field here for a total list of alleles currently in the database; try clicking on a couple to familiarise yourself with the system... One of the things that we can see here is that alleles 34, 36, 37 (ST3) and allele 4 (ST1) are the most common alleles in humans in France. It may seem a bit confusing to speak of both subtypes AND alleles. However, alleles are a good proxy for MLST data, and hence, looking at alleles is useful, e.g. in terms of transmission studies.

There are many other ways of extracting and visualising data from the isolate database. For more information on barcoding, subtypes, alleles, and the databases, please do not hesitate to contact me. I emphasise that the database only works with sequences that include the barcode region; mutliple SSU-rDNA targets have been used for subtyping, but due to the fact that this database is based on barcode data, we recommend that subtyping be done by barcoding (see references).

Useful literature:

Stensvold, C., Alfellani, M., & Clark, C. (2012). Levels of genetic diversity vary dramatically between Blastocystis subtypes Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 12 (2), 263-273 DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.11.002  

Scicluna SM, Tawari B, & Clark CG (2006). DNA barcoding of Blastocystis. Protist, 157 (1), 77-85 PMID: 16431158

1,000 page views!

This blog was put up not even a month ago, and I'm happy to see that the blog has had more than 1,000 page views already! Main interest seems to come from the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK.
I celebrate the "anniversary" by enabling Google Translate - so now this blog should be available in multiple languages. Thanks for stopping by!

What is Blastocystis?

Intestinal parasites of humans can be divided into mainly helminths ('worms' including cestodes, nematodes and trematodes), and single-celled eukaryotic organisms. Most single-celled intestinal parasites belong to one of four main groups:

• Archamoebae or Amoeboids (e.g. Entamoba, Iodamoeba, Endolimax)
• Ciliates (e.g. Balantidium)
• Sporozoa (e.g. Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Cystoisospora; even microsporidia)
• Flagellates (e.g. Giardia, Chilomastix, Enteromonas, Pentatrichomonas, Retortamonas, Dientamoeba (unflagellated flagellate!))

Traditionally, these four groups have been referred to as protozoa.

However, the most common, single-celled intestinal parasitic eukaryote, Blastocystis, does not belong in any of these four categories. Taxonomically, Blastocystis belongs to the heterogeneous group of Stramenopiles, which includes slime nets, diatoms, water moulds and brown algae. Most stramenopiles are free-living organisms. Blastocystis is an atypical stramenopile not only as this group is named for the straw-like tubular hairs on the flagella and sometimes the cell body - Blastocystis has no flagella and lacks any tubular hairs - but also due to its parasitic nature.

Often, Blastocystis is referred to as a 'protozoon', although 'protist' is more appropriate. Protists can be defined basically as any eukaryote that is not a plant, an animal or a fungus.

One of the closest relatives of Blastocystis identified to date is Proteromonas lacertae, a parasite of reptiles.

Interestingly, Proteromonas does have flagella and hairs on the cell body. For comparison, the image below shows Blastocystis (culture) - appearing almost amoeboid, only with very limited morphological hallmarks (note examples of binary fission and the eccentrically located nuclei and mitochondrion-like organelles).

Blastocystis is one of two Stramenopiles known to infect humans, the other being Pythium insidiosum, which has been associated with keratitis and dermatological lesions mainly in SE Asia.

Other organisms with close relation to Blastocystis include Karotomorpha, Cepedea, Protoopalina and Opalina.

For further information, please visit

Silberman, J., Sogin, M., Leipe, D., & Clark, C. (1996). Human parasite finds taxonomic home Nature, 380 (6573), 398-398 DOI: 10.1038/380398a0  

HOEVERS, J., & SNOWDEN, K. (2005). Analysis of the ITS region and partial ssu and lsu rRNA genes of Blastocystis and Proteromonas lacertae Parasitology, 131 (2), 187-196 DOI: 10.1017/S0031182005007596  

Kostka, M., Cepicka, I., Hampl, V., & Flegr, J. (2007). Phylogenetic position of Karotomorpha and paraphyly of Proteromonadidae Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 43 (3), 1167-1170 DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.11.002

Blastocystis Facts Sheet

I've tried to summarise a few facts here:

• Blastocystis is a single-celled, microbial parasitic protist colonising mainly the large intestine of man and other mammals, birds, reptiles, and other animals, even insects.
• The parasite is extremely common in humans, and possibly the most common microbial non-fungal eukaryote in the human intestine. More than one billion people may be colonised.
• Blastocystis comprises many ribosomal lineages, most or all of which are comparable to separate species; they are currently known as subtypes (ST).
• Humans are common hosts of ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4, whereas other subtypes such as ST6, ST7 and ST8 are seen occasionally. ST5 and ST9 are very rare in humans. 
• Almost all subtypes found in humans are also found in animals; however, zoonotic transmission is probably uncommon, at least for the most common subtypes (ST1—ST4).
• Most carriers do probably not experience more intestinal symptoms than the average individual.
• We do not know when to seek to eradicate Blastocystis and there are no valid treatment guidelines. The effect of metronidazole may be very limited.
•  ST3 is probably the most common subtype in humans.
• ST4 may be more much more common in Europe than outside Europe. 
• ST4 has been seen frequently in patients with different types of diarrhoea or other intestinal problems, but appears uncommon in healthy individuals.
• Blastocystis is best detected by (real-time) PCR and culture; conventional parasitological techniques have generally poor sensitivity.

·         Ongoing epidemiological studies seek to analyse subtype distributions in various cohorts, e.g. IBS patients and the background population. We also continuously explore the genetic variation and host specificity of Blastocystis. Genome studies seek to unravel virulence genes that may be involved in pathogenesis, but only the genome for ST7 has been sequenced so far.

Intestinal Symptoms

For over a century, the clinical significance of Blastocystis has puzzled medical doctors scientists. After realising the extensive genetic diversity in Blastocystis, one of the current main hypotheses is that Blastocystis subtypes differ in terms of clinical significance. In other words: Symptoms, such as diarrhoea or other intestinal upset, may be associated only with one or more subtypes, while other subtypes are strict commensals.

Blastocystis is very difficult to eradicate and colonisation is chronic. Do symptoms caused by potentially  pathogenic subtypes persist or do they develop initially only to diminish after host immunological adaptation? Do fluctuations in symptoms reflect fluctuations in parasite load? Such issues ire important when interpreting results generated from cross-sectional surveys of subtypes in various cohorts.
Moreover, intestinal symptoms are difficult to define. Diarrhoea may be defined by 3 stool passages per day or more, while many other symptoms can be very difficult to define, if at all possible. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and - to some extent - food allergy may both be considered differential diagnoses of symptomatic Blastocystis infections.

IBS diagnosis is currently defined by the Rome III criteria, and there are at least three types of IBS, namely IBS with diarrhoea, IBS with constipation and IBS with a mixture of diarrhoea and constipation.

Symptoms may be experienced differently from person to person. While abdominal cramping is perceived mostly as a symptom and something unpleasant, flatulence may by many be seen as a sign of a "healthy tummy" (e.g. due to consumption of a high fibre diet), although "inconvenient". Some individuals may very well tolerate intermittent intestinal symptoms and do not consult their GPs or other health care professionals, while others may be much more sensitive to any changes in for instance stool patterns.

What some people do not realise is that many methods fail to detect Blastocystis. PCR and culture are the most sensitive methods, but are still only rarely used. Moreover, PCR is also suitable for the detection of Dientamoeba fragilis, which is a parasite often seen in co-infection with Blastocystis. These two parasites are probably the most common single-celled eukaryotes in the human intestine.

This means that complete and accurate microbiological make-ups are far from always performed. And so, incomplete microbiological examination coupled with differential diagnostic challenges, potential immunological adaptation and the very subjective components of symptom presentation renders our quest for clear-cut associations extremely challenging. Blastocystis will often be seen as the culprit of symptoms, possibly simply to the reason that it is the only potential microbial pathogen that has been demonstrated in a stool sample. Cohort studies using sensitive diagnostic methods for pathogen surveillance are expensive, but may be one of the few only ways forward with regard to epidemiological studies that can assist us in resolving the clinical significance of Blastocystis.

Blastocystis Subtyping in Routine Microbiology Labs

When I speak to colleagues in and outside Europe and visit research portals and social media, including Facebook groups, I get the impression that Blastocystis subtyping is something that is still very rarely done, despite the fact that most clinical microbiologists and biologists acknowledge that subtypes may differ in terms of clinical significance and in other respects. We get new data on Blastocystis subtypes in various cohorts from time to time from research groups around the world, but all reports are characterised by relatively small sample sizes and subtyping methodology has not yet been standardised. This type of research is moreover challenged by the fact that Blastocystis is common in healthy individuals (i.e. people not seeing their GPs for gastrointestinal problems), and this makes it extremely difficult to identify the subtype distribution in the "background" population.

Although we recommend barcoding (see one of my previous posts) as the subtyping method of choice, there is no "official report" identifying the Blastocystis subtyping gold standard. Therefore, I'm currently setting up a lab project that is going to help us compare the most common methods used for subtyping in order to identify the one most suitable. I emphasise that the best method used for subtyping is not the PCR that should be used for diagnostic purposes, mostly due to the fact that PCRs for subtyping amplify 300-600 bp, which are much longer amplicons than the one we go for in diagnostic PCRs (typically 80-100 bp). We therefore recommend our novel TaqMan-based real-time PCR for initial diagnosis, or culture, which is inexpensive and relatively easy and provides you with a good source of cells for DNA extraction.
I hope that we will be able to come up with some robust data soon that will allow us to recommend the most suitable approach and hope to publish our results in a clinical microbiology journal of high impact, and I hope that this will prompt Blastocystis subtyping in many labs. Once this report has been published, I intend to upload a protocol here at the site where lab procedures for diagnosis and subtyping will be described in detail. Stay tuned!

Blastocystis @ EzineArticles

I realise that output from my research ends up being read/noticed by only relatively few people compared to the number of individuals colonised by Blastocystis (!) This is due to the fact that research results are published in a language and context not always easily understood by laymen, and that few of my articles are available online free of charge.

This is part of why I created this blog. And  now I also have the pleasure of recommending a Blastocytis article on EzineArticles: Blastocystis - Everyone's Parasite?

Please share.

On Subtypes, Genotypes, Alleles and Sequence Types (SQTs)

There has been some confusion about Blastocystis "subtypes" and "genotypes". 

Often, these two terms have been used interchangeably. While “subtype” refers to a distinct ribosomal lineage (which in the case of Blastocystis may very well be a distinct species), “genotype” denotes variation WITHIN subtypes. 

Currently, there is no clear definition of genotypes in Blastocystis. Based on phylogenetic analysis of barcode sequences of ST4, the existence of two genotypes in ST4 has been mentioned (Stensvold et al., 2011).  

Based on markers in the mitochondrion-like organelle of Blastocystis, we recently developed MLST assays for ST3 and ST4 and published data on intra-subtype variation in these two subtypes (Stensvold et al., 2012). While 58 sequence types (SQTs) were found among 81 ST3 isolates, only 5 SQTs were found among 50 ST4 isolates. 

By comparing SQTs with barcode sequences, we discovered that barcode sequences belonging to the same subtype may display intra-subtype diversity, and we found out that barcode sequences can be seen as valid proxies for SQTs. We have chosen to use the term "allele" to enable denotation of variation in barcode sequences. Currently, we have discovered 38 ST3 alleles (i.e. 38 different ST3 barcode sequences) as opposed to 8 different ST4 alleles. There are still no published data on ST1 and ST2 SQTs, but given the fact that 22 different alleles have been discovered so far for each of these two subtypes, we may expect a substantial number of SQTs.

The world of Blastocystis terminology and subtyping, etc. may seem a bit overwhelming and at times confusing, but believe me, - much has improved since 2006, when Blastocystis terminology was completely up in the air! 

For more information or further clarification, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Cited literature:

1. Stensvold CR, Alfellani M, Clark CG. Levels of genetic diversity vary dramatically between Blastocystis subtypes. Infect Genet Evol. 2012 Mar; 12 (2) :263-73. PubMed PMID:22116021.

2. Stensvold CR, Christiansen DB, Olsen KE, Nielsen HV. Blastocystis sp. subtype 4 is common in Danish Blastocystis-positive patients presenting with acute diarrhea. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011 Jun; 84 (6) :883-5. PubMed PMID:21633023; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3110361.

A Few Words On Blastocystis Morphology and Diagnosis

Blastocystis is a sinlge-celled parasite. The parasite produces cysts (probably the transmissible form) and vegetative stages (including the stage commonly referred to as the vacuolar stage). Vegetative stages are commonly seen in fresh faecal samples and in culture. This is what they look like under light microscopy:

Vegetative stages of Blastocystis (unstained) (source: www.dpd.cdc.gov)

Using permanent staining of fixed faecal material, the eccentrically located nuclei become more apparent:

Vegegtative stages of Blastocystis (Trichrome stain) (source: www.dpd.cdc.gov)

Although sensitive, permanent staining techniques (e.g. Trichrome, Giemsa and Iron Haematoxylin) are relatively time-consuming, impractical and expensive. Since also conventional concentration of unfixed stool using e.g. the Formol Ethyl-Acetate Concentration Technique is not appropriate for diagnosis (Blastocystis cysts are very difficult to pick up, and vacuolar stages become distorted or disintegrate), we recommend short-term in-vitro culture (using Jones' or Robinson's medium) and/or Real-Time-PCR on genomic DNAs extracted directly from faeces using QIAGEN Stool Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) or - in modern laboratories - by automated DNA extraction robots. Once genomic DNAs have been extracted and screened by PCR, positive samples can be submitted to subtyping using the barcoding method, and DNAs can be screened for other parasites by PCR as well. In fact the use of insensitive methods to distinguish carriers from non-carriers is one of our greatest obstacles to obtaining valid prevalence data on Blastocystis.

Having an isolate in culture adds the benefit of having a continuous source of DNA for further genetic characterisation (for instance complete SSU-rDNA sequencing) in case a particular isolate turns out to be genetically different from those already present in GenBank or the isolate database at Blastocystis Sequence Typing Home Page. And chances are that there are quite a few "novel" subtypes out there... especially in animals. However, Blastocystis from animals may not always be successfully established in culture.

Why "Blastocystis sp." and not "Blastocystis hominis"?

Blastocystis identified in humans used to be referred to as "Blastocystis hominis". However, after the advanced use of nucleic acid-based tools in the 90s and 00s it became clear that

1) morphologically identical Blastocystis can be genetically extremely diverse
2) Blastocystis in humans comprises at least 9 species (or, perhaps more correctly, ribosomal lineages), 8 of which can be found in other animals as well.

This means that host origin is not a reliable indicator of organism identity.

Blastocystis appears to exhibit only moderate host specificity - at least at subtype level - , and until a more substantial sampling from various hosts has been carried out, we will have to go with "Blastocystis sp." followed by an appropriate subtype (ST) number (according to species/ribosomal lineage), e.g. "Blastocystis sp. ST3", which is one of the 4 subtypes commonly found in humans.

In order to make subtype analysis very easy, we have created a site (together with Keith Jolley, Oxford University), where a bulk of sequences can be assigned to subtype in few seconds. Single sequence entries are also possible.

To sum up: Blastocystis hominis is a misleading and currently an invalid taxon.

(Read more about this in our Blastocystis consensus paper from 2007 in Trends in Parasitology)

Happy Easter!

I’m still exploring the potential of this blog. I’m happy to see that I have a constant flow of visitors. The aim of the blog is to serve primarily as a resource for ”people in business” and for all of those who are colonised with Blastocystis or who take an interest in the parasite for some reason.

As a courtesy to my colleagues, I plan to provide regular updates on Blastocystis research, information on tools that will make your Blastocystis studies easier, SOPs and protocols on lab procedures such as sampling, culture, PCR screening, subtyping, sequence typing (MLST), phylogenetic analysis and identification of (new) subtypes. Occasionally, I will also try to go into more detail with some of the things that I find particularly interesting.

For those not in business but who seek some useful information on Blastocystis I plan to do a short overview with some bullet points in plain language on the clinical and public health significance of Blastocystis, - what to think of it, when to treat, transmission, prevalence, etc. For all, it is important for me to try and provide some impartial information on Blastocystis; there are people out there trying to make a commercial success of Blastocystis, perpetuating anecdotal data and information on the parasite for which there is currently no support.