YouTube Video on Blastocystis Subtyping

For those who want to venture into Blastocystis subtyping - the easy way - I've recorded and uploaded a video on YouTube fyi.




For even more information, please visit a selection of relevant blog posts here.

'Invasive Blastocystis' in ECCMID 2013

ECCMID - the annual European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (hosted by ESCMID) is currently taking place in Berlin. This year, I'm not attending, but I've been scanning the abstract book for 'Blastocystis', and it appears that an oral presentation was scheduled for yesterday in the "Emerging Infectious Diseases" section:

First of all: it's great to see fellow researchers screening larger (i.e. hundreds) of faecal DNAs by PCR for Blastocystis. I wish more people would do that to produce reliable data on prevalence and subtypes.

Now, as I've already mentioned, there are currently mainly two methods in use for subtyping, barcoding and STS PCR, and recently I evaluated these. To cut a long story short, barcoding is recommended for subtyping, since the STS method, which was used in the study by Tarasova et al. (abstract), appears to miss the majority of ST4 strains (the major genotype), and moreover, no STS primers exist for ST8 and ST9 (or any of the other 8 subtypes identified to date, but which have only been found in animals). So, the subtype data found in this study should be interpreted with this in mind.

Importantly however, I'm not sure whether the authors used the original Yoshikawa STS terminology or the terminology acknowledged in our 2007 consensus.

First, let us assume that consensus terminology is used. Then it's surprising to find ST5 in human samples in the first place, and finding a ST5 prevalence of 45% in a cohort of humans included in a larger study like this is very unlikely based on current evidence of more than 3,000 observations from all over the world, where the overall prevalence of ST5 in humans is <1%. Also, finding so much ST6 is also really striking. Also, if the consensus terminology is used, then I'm a bit puzzled why the authors put emphasis on ST7 not being found, since ST7 is relatively rare in humans.

And so let us assume that consensus terminology was not used, and the original Yoshikawa terminology was used instead. This would translate into STs 4, 6, and 7 not being detected in the CVH group. Which makes sense, since ST6 is extremely rare (at least in Europe), ST7 is only seen on occasion, and, as I said, the majority of ST4 infections are likely to go undetected by the STS method. However, ST4 appears quite common in Europe, and I suspect that it should be quite common in St Petersburg as well. But then there is one thing that comes to my mind: If ST4 infections are common, then there should be a relatively large number of samples detected by PCR which were untypable by PCR...and there is no information on untypable positive samples in the abstract...
But what is more:  STS subtype 5 translates into ST2 in consensus terminology, and similarly STS subtype 6 equals ST5 (yes, it may seem confusing, but we have provided a table in the 2007 consensus paper to make this easy). This means that no matter which of the two terminologies were used, ST5 is seen in abundance in patients with CVH in St Petersburg! Which is a very remarkable observation, and maybe more interesting than the rest of the data, which  I, by the way, find a bit difficult to follow (I expected to learn something about Blastocystis invasion, when I read the title of the abstract, but there is no data or information on invasiveness... and I'm very curious as to how the authors managed to obtain such a high number of samples from 'healthy people'! To evaluate the prevalence of Blastocystis in the control group, demographic data are needed, and a prevalence as low as 5.3% among healthy individuals makes me suspect that this control group consisted of newborns/toddlers who generally have a low prevalence of Blastocystis). Also, since when was ST1 'zoonotic'?

Anyway, often conference abstract are previews of upcoming articles, and so I expect that there will be a paper out soon from this group, and hopefully these issues will be clarified. The occasional confusion in Blastocystis epidemiology could be reduced to a minimum if everyone got into using barcoding and the Blastocystis 18S subtyping site (and go here for a video introduction to Blastocystis subtyping).

Are some citizens of St Petersburg infected by Blastocystis sp. ST5, a subtype seen primarily in livestock and African apes? Source

References:

Tarasova E, Suvorova M, Sigidaev A, Suvorov A. Blastocystis invasion in patients with chronic viral hepatitis in Saint Petersburg. ECCMID 2013 abstract O338.

Alfellani MA, Stensvold CR, Vidal-Lapiedra A, Onuoha ES, Fagbenro-Beyioku AF, & Clark CG (2013). Variable geographic distribution of Blastocystis subtypes and its potential implications. Acta Tropica, 126 (1), 11-8 PMID: 23290980

Stensvold CR (2013). Comparison of sequencing (barcode region) and sequence-tagged-site PCR for Blastocystis subtyping. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 51 (1), 190-4 PMID: 23115257

Stensvold CR, Suresh GK, Tan KS, Thompson RC, Traub RJ, Viscogliosi E, Yoshikawa H, & Clark CG (2007). Terminology for Blastocystis subtypes--a consensus. Trends in Parasitology, 23 (3), 93-6 PMID: 17241816

Blastocystis in Non-Human Primates

If my recent blog post "Blastocystis aux Enfers" could be described as "Blastocystis meets Dante Alighieri", then this post might come across as "Blastocystis meets Sir David Attenborough" (with all due respect to both of these gentlemen!).

Non-human primates (NHPs) include apes (hominoids), Old World monkeys (cercopithecoids), New World Monkeys (ceboids) and prosimians such as lemurs. I have been so fortunate to be involved in a study of Blastocystis in NHPs; a study which was led by Dr Alfellani with several co-investigators, and which has just appeared online in the journal Parasitology (click here to be diverted to the the website - first view article section).

The study is the first of its kind aiming to provide a substantial insight into the host specificity of Blastocystis in NHPs and included subtype observations for 441 captive and free-living animals representing no less than 30 genera; most of the data were generated during the study, while sporadic observations from similar studies were also included.

It was a huge study with a lot of interesting information, and I will try and summarise some of the points here.

Apes such as bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orangutans were colonised by some of the most common subtypes in humans, namely ST1, ST2, and ST3, accounting for about 77% of the cases. Contrary to humans though, ST5 also appeared rather common, accounting for about almost 14% of the cases, and some of the gibbons studied had ST8. Interestingly, a chimp and a gibbon were found to be hosts of a new subtype, ST15.

Old World monkeys were studied to an even larger extent, and again, ST1, ST3 and ST2 predominated, accounting for about 95% of all cases of single subtype infection. Here ST5 was also seen (2%) but only in langurs/lutungs and vervet monkeys. Interestingly, ST8 was seen only in 1/226 cases. ST13 was found by colleagues in Tanzanian colobus monkeys (Petrasova et al., 2011), and 8% of the 226 cases represented mixed/unknown subtype infections.

Woolly monkey (Lagothrix lagotricha) (Source)

New World monkeys included in the study were mainly represented by woolly monkeys, and these were colonised first and foremost by ST8 (49%), but ST3, ST2, ST1 were also found. So was a single case of ST4, which in general appears to be surprisingly rare among NHPs.

A few observations on lemurs were included, and such animals appear to host a vast variety of subtypes with no particular predilection, hence ST1, ST2, ST4, ST8, ST10 and ST15.

Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) (Source).

The most striking differences between humans and NHPs in terms of colonisation by Blastocystis subtypes is that humans are very rarely colonised by ST5, while this subtype appears common in apes and Old World monkeys. ST8 was seen only in arboreal apes and in woolly and howler monkeys, which are also tree-dwellers, and it is tempting to think that ST8 is found mainly in tree-dwelling NHPs; to my knowledge, ST8 has not been found in non-primate hosts, except for once in a bird. Human colonisation by ST8 has been demonstrated only very rarely, for instance in a Danish woman returning from holiday in Indonesia and in animal keepers. Conversely, ST4 is seen extremely rarely in NHPs, while very common in humans in some parts of the world, apparently especially in Europe. These clear discrepancies in subtype distribution in humans and NHPs may boil down to host specificity and/or apparent geographically restricted range of some subtypes.

Another striking observation was that cryptic host specificity exists in ST1 and ST3, meaning that ST1 and ST3 strains found in NHPs overall differ genetically from strains found in humans belonging to the same subtypes, adding support to our previous findings.This suggests that humans are generally colonised by other strains than those found in NHPs. It will be interesting to see, whether other types of hosts sharing these subtypes carry distinct, host-specific strains. While MLST is probably the best way of testing for this, a lot of information can be obtained simply by barcoding. Pets, for instance, may share subtypes seen in humans, and so barcoding of "pet blasto" may be one of the very interesting pathways to knowledge.

We found no evidence of those subtypes that we have nicknamed "avian subtypes", namely ST6 and ST7. In some parts of the world, these two subtypes do not appear uncommon in humans; in Denmark and Sweden, for instance, ST7 is seen on quite a few occasions. But, interestingly, both STs are apparently absent in NHPs.

Langurs - the front cover of one of my favourite books showcasing works by the magnificent Walton Ford.

Incidentally, there is a sequence in GenBank from a gorilla (JX159284) which possibly represents a novel subtype, which is related to reptilian Blastocystis, and so it appears that the host spectrum and diversity of Blastocystis in NHPs continues to unfold.

A recent study saw that faecal microbiomes of wild non-human primates co-vary with host species, hence reflecting host phylogeny. This was evidenced by higher intra-species similarity among wild primate species, which may reflect species specificity of the microbiome in addition to dietary influences. This may in part explain the differences in Blastocystis subtypes seen in different NHP host species, but it is also possible that differences in subtypes reflect differences in habitat (and thereby possibly exposure) or geographical differences in subtype distribution. Indeed Homo sapiens is host to a variety of subtypes, and while ST4 is common in Europe, it appears virtually absent in many other parts of the world. Likewise, the differences in the prevalence of ST8 may reflect differences in geographical distribution, habitat and diet (arboreal vs. ground) as well differences in host specificity.

The overall interesting thing here is the schism of exposure vs. host specificity.


Suggested reading:

Alfellani, M., Jacob, A., Perea, N., Krecek, R., Taner-Mulla, D., Verweij, J., Levecke, B., Tannich, E., Clark, C., & Stensvold, C. (2013). Diversity and distribution of Blastocystis sp. subtypes in non-human primates Parasitology, 1-6 DOI: 10.1017/S0031182013000255

Yildirim S, Yeoman CJ, Sipos M, Torralba M, Wilson BA, Goldberg TL, Stumpf RM, Leigh SR, White BA, & Nelson KE (2010). Characterization of the fecal microbiome from non-human wild primates reveals species specific microbial communities. PloS one, 5 (11) PMID: 21103066

Stensvold CR, Arendrup MC, Nielsen HV, Bada A, & Thorsen S (2008). Symptomatic infection with Blastocystis sp. subtype 8 successfully treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology, 102 (3), 271-4 PMID: 18348782

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

Blog Feedback

I'm very thankful for all the positive feedback I get from readers across the globe, mostly by email. Due to time limits I can only respond to 5-10% of the mail, and I'm sorry for not getting back to the rest of you.

Meanwhile, this blog currently holds more than 60 posts, and you will also find a lot of key words in the right side bar, so take your time and browse a few posts or look up a few relevant key words, -  you might find an answer to one or more  of your questions.

Having said that, I try to read all my email, and I am listening! The feedback and questions that I get are vital for our work and help us identify the avenues that we need to take to unveil the many mysteries of Blastocystis.

And let me just say this for now: A proper microbiological work-up (by state-of-the-art methods, including PCR for intestinal parasites), is something that is offered on a routine basis in only very few laboratories, and also the number of clinically orientated Blastocystis research centres can be counted on one hand, I believe. Subtyping of Blastocystis is currently done mostly in epidemiological surveys (as part of research projects), and I suspect that our lab is one of the very few labs in the world doing subtyping on a routine basis.

Oh, and I've been asked by some readers about how to get blog updates. It's easy: You can follow this blog by email, - just scroll down and find "follow by email" in the right side bar and enter your email address. You can also subscribe to posts via atom (go to the very bottom of the page).

And then here's a little something about stomach acidity and intestinal microbiota from Scientific American, - but make sure to read the comments underneath the post too!
 

A Penny For Your Thoughts

So, what should we do about Blastocystis? What do we want to know?

I believe the imminent answer to the latter question is easy: We want to know whether it’s pathogenic, whether we should treat it and how. But I also think that there are many other interesting aspects of Blastocystis which are also of broad interest to the general public, namely: How about the many cases of asymptomatic Blastocystis carriage? What does Blastocystis do in our guts? Could it have any potentially beneficial impact on our health?

Given the fact that Blastocystis has not been implicated in any outbreaks (admittedly: I guess that no one actually ever looked for Blastocystis in outbreak investigations... except for me!), I reckon that the chance of it being involved in acute diarrhoea is small. So, in that respect it's very different from the other intestinal protists such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, microsporidia, even Entamoeba histolytica. It's actually more reminiscent of helminth infections, which are are often chronic, and when light hardly give rise to symptoms (depending on species that is!).So I'm more thinking along the lines of co-evolution, adaptation, etc.

Maybe future research will call for a shift in paradigm, but until then I think that we should do what we already can, just at a larger scale and see where it takes us, namely:

Where Are We On Blastocystis Subtypes?

As mentioned, Blastocystis exhibits remarkable intrageneric diversity, which is continuously being explored by us and our colleagues. We are convinced that the genus of Blastocystis comprises multiple species, but for now we call them "ribosomal lineages" or "subtypes" and allocate numbers to each subtype, hence ST1, ST2, etc. While the number of subtypes that can be found in humans remains stable, we and our colleagues are still expanding the subtype universe in non-human hosts (I will be blogging on this shortly).

Barcoding currently represents state-of-the-art in Blastocystis subtyping, and luckily this method appears to gain a foothold in labs across the world.

Nine subtypes have been found in humans, but some of them only on rare occasions. A recent study going out from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and led by Dr Alfellani and published just now in Acta Tropica looked at 356 Blastocystis sequences from samples from the UK and Libya, but also from sub-Saharan Africa, namely Liberia and Nigeria.

To Treat or Not To Treat... But How?

In the "To Treat or Not To Treat" series (please look up previous post here), we have come to the "...But How?" episode.

Blastocystis may be susceptible to a number of drugs - in vitro. In vitro is not the opposite of in vivo. In vitro just  means that the test has been done on an organism that has been isolated from its usual habitat and tested e.g. in a flask, test tube, etc. In the lab, strains can be challenged and manipulated in multiple ways, but there is no guarantee that the outcome of an in vitro susceptibility test is reproducible in vivo, i.e. when the organism is challenged in its natural habitat and under "natural" conditions. Hence, if you test Blastocystis against metronidazole or any other compound (such as iodine) in vitro, and you observe an effect, you cannot rely on being able to reproduce the effect in vivo. This is due to a variety of reasons including pharmaco-kinetics and pharmaco-dynamics, including the ability of the drug to reach the parasite in its ecological niche, impact of the drug on other micro-organisms, drug interactions, strain-dependent differences in susceptibility (including inherent or acquired resistance), etc.

We recently described a case in which a woman with irritable bowel syndrome (according to the Rome III criteria) had both Blastocystis subtype 9 (ST9) and Dientamoeba fragilis. In order to try and eradicate the parasites and to see whether any eradication would impact on her clinical situation, she received multiple courses of antibiotic treatment:

1. Metronidazole (750 mg x 3/d for 10 days)
2. Tetracycline (500 mg x 4/d for 10 days)
3. Trimethoprim + Sulfamethoxazole (TMP 800 mg + SXT 160 mg x 2/d for 7 days)
4. Mebendazole + Metronidazole (100 mg x 2 separated by 2 weeks; subsequently metronidazole as in 1.)
5. Paromomycin + Metronidazole (PM 500 mg + MZ 170 mg x 3/d for 10 days)

Mebendazole was given to the entire household due to suspicion of pinworm infection running in the family that could be a potential reservoir of D. fragilis (re-)infection.

No clinical alleviation was seen throughout this period.

PCR-based detection of Blastocystis and D. fragilis was used to evaluate  faecal samples 5-10 days post-treatment: Microbiological effect was seen only on D. fragilis which was cleared only after treatment with PM + MZ (5).

So, Blastocystis "survived" this series of antimicrobial treatment. In Denmark, no further relevant treatment options are available for general use (actually, even the use of Humatin (PM) needs a special license).

None of the patient's family members or pets were found to be colonised by the same strain, probably indicating that there was no "local" reservoir for ST9, and that the repeated finding of ST9 was not due to re-infection.

It may be so that Blastocystis requires a certain intestinal bacterial flora to establish. However, we expect that substantial perturbations in the intestinal flora must have taken place during the patient's various treatments, and therefore Blastocystis must be able to quickly overcome and adapt to such perturbations. It may add to the conundrum that in this case the woman harboured ST9, which is only very rarely seen in humans, and we might therefore deduce that its presence would be more volatile. No animal/environmental reservoir has yet been identified for ST9.

There is no doubt that microbiomic profiling of the intestinal flora would be of great benefit in a case like this. If data could be achieved on the impact of these drugs on the relative bacterial structure and function by metagenomic approaches, then this would allow us to explore the changes in the general flora that Blastocystis is capable of withstanding. Certainly, none of these drugs had a measurable in-vivo protistocidal effect on Blastocystis when administered as shown.

I re-emphasise that it is far from certain that Blastocystis is capable of inducing disease, directly or indirectly, and hence, we do not know if, and in which situations, we should aim at eradicating it. Suffice it to say, that in our hands and with the compounds that are available for general use in Denmark, it is apparently extremely challenging to eradicate Blastocystis, if at all possible.

Microbe Resilience (Source)

Further reading:

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

Engsbro AL, & Stensvold CR (2012). Blastocystis: To Treat Or Not To Treat...But How? Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America PMID: 22893582

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

Is This A New Subtype?

To quote one of my colleagues attending the recent IWOP 2012 meeting in Tarrytown, NY, Blastocystis subtyping in humans and animals is becoming 'trendy', and so we keep trying to advocate for a standardisation of the metholodology of Blastocystis subtyping.

We recently changed the title of our page at www.pubmlst.org/blastocystis so that now it is called Blastocystis Subtype (18S) and Sequence Typing (MLST) Databases, and we added some text to front page:

In terms of genetic markers, the barcode region (Scicluna et al., 2006) is by far the best represented in publicly available sequence databases, and the correct subtype can be identified by BLAST analysis in the sequence database at the present site. Blasting against this database has the added advantages, compared to using GenBank, of automatically assigning allele types to the SSU-rDNA as well as using the consensus subtype nomenclature (unlike GenBank where the subtype is included only if one was part of the accession submission and no attempt to impose a standard nomenclature is made). In case the sequence does not match any of the ones in the database despite full coverage of the region, this indicates that the sequence represents a new allele or maybe even a new subtype depending on the amount of variation. If a new subtype is suspected, we suggest doing PCR and sequencing of the complete SSU rRNA gene with subsequent phylogenetic analysis using reference sequences.

Now, the last bit is extremely important. We have seen examples of researchers (including ourselves!) assigning sequences to a new a subtype in the absence of complete SSU rDNA data (in fact complete sequences for ST10-ST14 are not yet publicly available!). Doing so has a least two major limitations/drawbacks: Far from all SSU rDNA regions have been validated as being representative of the whole SSU rRNA gene in terms of phylogenetic analysis, and therefore phylogenetic inferences based on non-validated regions may have little or at least less support than anticipated. Moreover, if someone analyses e.g. position 600-1600, and phylogenetic analysis based on this region reveals a potentially new subtype, this makes it impossible for his/her colleague who has data covering positions 1-600 from a Blastocystis isolate that may also represent a new subtype to ascertain whether it might be same subtype (see example below)!

Obtaining complete SSU rDNA sequences directly from faecal DNA may be a cumbersome task but is sometimes possible by combining sequence-specific primers with low-specificity primers such as the RD5 and the RD3 primers (Clark, 1997). If a cultured isolate is available, obviously this makes complete SSU rDNA sequencing much easier.

While it appears that the number of subtypes occurring in humans stays around 9, our gut feeling is that we are yet to uncover quite a few subtypes colonising non-human mammals, and it's great to see an increasing number of teams exploring the genetic diversity of Blastocystis. For instance, Dr Ronald Fayer and his group recently published exciting data on a new Blastocystis subtype in cattle, which they named ST14 (Fayer et al., 2012).

Importantly, caution should be taken to avoid creating confusion in subtype terminology. Confusion can arise when independent researchers assign the same new subtype name (e.g. ST14, ST15, etc.) to novel sequences which in fact belong to different ribosomal lineages, or when incomplete SSU rDNA sequence data are used; this situation was seen recently, when Petrasova et al. (2011), assigned a Colobus sequence to ST5, although it was in fact a ST13 sequence (Clark et al., in press); the situation arose, since Petrasova et al. (2011) did not have data covering the region currently available for ST13 (Parkar et al., 2010), and therefore believed that their sequence was a unique ST5 variant. As for ST14, less than 500 bp are currently available, and these 500 bp are not in the barcode region, making it difficult for all teams using barcoding to compare their data. And so we would like to advocate for making complete SSU rDNA sequences publicly available (Genbank) for potentially new subtypes, for at least two reasons:

1. Phylogenetic inferences based on the complete SSU rDNA will be more robust than those obtained from analysing shorter sequence streches.

2. Complete seqeunces are needed for reference since subtype screening typically includes a single round PCR such as barcoding (Scicluna et al., 2006) amplifying about 550 bp; in the situation where complete SSU rDNAs are available for all known subtypes, it will be quick to analyse, whether a sequence may represent a new subtype, since this will be independent on the SSU rDNA region studied.We therefore hope that complete SSU rDNA sequences will soon be made publicly available for ST10-ST14.

So, when does a complete SSU rDNA sequence represent a new subtype? Well, we have a review paper in press in Advances in Parasitology on recent developments in Blastocystis research, which will be published in less than six months probably, and which also touches on this topic; once the paper is published, I will try and make a summary our thoughts on this...

Further reading:

Clark CG (1997). Extensive genetic diversity in Blastocystis hominis. Molecular and biochemical parasitology, 87 (1), 79-83 PMID: 9233675

Fayer R, Santin M, & Macarisin D (2012). Detection of concurrent infection of dairy cattle with Blastocystis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Enterocytozoon by molecular and microscopic methods. Parasitology research PMID: 22710524

Parkar U, Traub RJ, Vitali S, Elliot A, Levecke B, Robertson I, Geurden T, Steele J, Drake B, & Thompson RC (2010). Molecular characterization of Blastocystis isolates from zoo animals and their animal-keepers. Veterinary parasitology, 169 (1-2), 8-17 PMID: 20089360

Petrášová J, Uzlíková M, Kostka M, Petrželková KJ, Huffman MA, & Modrý D (2011). Diversity and host specificity of Blastocystis in syntopic primates on Rubondo Island, Tanzania. International journal for parasitology, 41 (11), 1113-20 PMID: 21854778
 
Scicluna SM, Tawari B, & Clark CG (2006). DNA barcoding of blastocystis. Protist, 157 (1), 77-85 PMID: 16431158

On Blastocystis and Animal Models

I was recently encouraged by one of my readers to do a blog post on Blastocystis and animal experimental models. This is not exactly my core competence, which probably boils down to the fact that animal models have only been scarcely used in Blastocystis research for reasons that I will try to account for below.

Animal models (mice, rats, guinea pigs) have often been used to study interactions between hosts and microbes as well as the effect of chemotherapeutic interventions. Therefore, one might assume that animal models are an obvious way of potentially establishing a link between Blastocystis and pathology. But currently, the rationale for carrying out some types of Blastocystis experiments on, say, mice or rats is limited. Why? Well, first and foremost because of at least three major issues.

1) Lack of correlation between in vitro and in vivo evidence. Experimental infections of laboratory mice (Elwakil and Hewedi, 2010) resulted in tissue invasion - something never reported in humans. Another study showed increased oxidative stress in Blastocystis infected rats (Chandramathi et al., 2010), again something not linked to human colonisation. Studies that provided evidence for induction of cytokines, contact mediated apoptosis, and barrier disruption all used axenic Blastocystis and in vitro mammalian cell cultures with no evidence that these effect occur in vivo.

2) Host specificity. Blastocystis exhibits extreme genetic diversity and multiple, genetically very different variants (species, subtypes) exist. These subtypes exhibit moderate host specificity. This means that some subtypes are common in one type of host, whereas other subtypes are common in other types of hosts. For instance, ST5 is very common in pigs, but we rarely see it in humans. ST4 is common in rodents, and in some human populations (mainly Europe it seems), but otherwise extremely uncommon. And so on. This means that some subtypes may be difficult to establish in experimental animals. It also means that any pathology detected in the animal, may not be “reproducible” in another host, - maybe due to the fact that this host has adapted to this particular subtype or even strain. Blastocystis is common in a huge variety of animals, and different animals may have adapted do different subtypes. It is not unlikely that this is due to co-evolution, and therefore it may not turn out to be a big surprise if Blastocystis per se is not usually directly associated with disease. It may still be so, however, that for humans, some subtypes or strains may be associated with disease, preliminary data point in this direction.

3) Study design. Another issue is the use of appropriate controls – for example, experimental infection of animals with Blastocystis from cultures growing with bacteria need to have the appropriate controls - namely infection with the accompanying bacterial flora alone – before it can be concluded that Blastocystis is responsible for any effects seen. It is extremely difficult to axenise (i.e. make sterile) Blastocystis strains, so they will always be accompanied by some bacterial species. Hence, any effect noticed after challenge with a Blastocystis strain will be difficult to interpret, - is it due to Blastocystis or to accompanying bacterial strains? (If you want to see what Blastocystis look like in culture, go to my previous blog post here.)

So, results from scientific studies using animal experimental models should be interpreted cautiously. In vitro experimental models using enterocyte mono-layers for instance may constitute a more attractive alternative, but the problems of using xenic (i.e. unsterile) strains are evident also here. A great challenge ahead is the development of a standardised method for axenising (sterilising) strains… so far, such a method does not exist.

Our French colleagues recently published the genome of Blastocystis sp. ST7. Functional genomic analysis is key to understanding the extent to which Blastocystis is capable of exerting any direct pathological effect, and will assist us in studying the potential pathogenicity of Blastocystis in the absence of a suitable animal model. Indirect pathological effects may be more difficult to identify and probably require studies of the interaction between the host, the parasite and the rest of the gut microbiota (bacteria). Given our recent technological advances, I believe that a pathway to knowledge lies in the study of Blastocystis in an ecological context. I think that we should get an understanding of: 1) Who are colonized with Blastocystis, 2) From where do we get it, 3) For how long do we have the parasite, and do we establish symptoms in the very beginning, only to adapt to the presence of the parasite later on, 4) does Blastocystis require a particular flora to establish (and are there differences between subtypes (in humans and animals)), 5) could Blastocystis be seen as a proxy for a given gut microbiota (biomarker), and/or does Blastocystis select for a given microbiota phenotype (metatranscriptomic analysis of the intestinal flora accompanying Blastocystis might be useful to study how the bacteria “behave” (i.e. gene expression) in the presence/absence of Blastocystis), 6) are any Blastocystis-induced symptoms related to parasite abundance, etc.; this can be explored in rough detail by using real-time PCR, of which two have been published.

So, while animal models may not be immediately suitable in our quest to study Blastocystis pathogenicity, our “omics” methodologies and data analyses may sooner than we know help us answer many of the questions that we have been pondering for decades.

Having said that, I think that for instance a pig experimental model might be useful in terms of studying the effect of chemotherapeutic intervention. Obvious studies include those aiming to identify drugs capable of eradicating Blastocystis, but it could also be interesting to study the structure and function (gene expression profiling) of the accompanying microbiota before and after intervention.
Since pig feed often contains a range of antibiotics, it could be interesting to test whether pigs on diets +/- antibiotics differ in terms of Blastocystis colonisation... a recent PNAS paper demonstrates a shift in the structure and function of the microbiome in medicated pigs compared to pigs fed a diet void of antibiotics.

Further reading:

Chandramathi S, Suresh KG, Mahmood AA, & Kuppusamy UR (2010). Urinary hyaluronidase activity in rats infected with Blastocystis hominis--evidence for invasion? Parasitology research, 106 (6), 1459-63 PMID: 20358228

Elwakil HS, & Hewedi IH (2010). Pathogenic potential of Blastocystis hominis in laboratory mice. Parasitology research, 107 (3), 685-9 PMID: 20499092

Hussein EM, Hussein AM, Eida MM, & Atwa MM (2008). Pathophysiological variability of different genotypes of human Blastocystis hominis Egyptian isolates in experimentally infected rats. Parasitology research, 102 (5), 853-60 PMID: 18193282 

Iguchi A, Ebisu A, Nagata S, Saitou Y, Yoshikawa H, Iwatani S, & Kimata I (2007). Infectivity of different genotypes of human Blastocystis hominis isolates in chickens and rats. Parasitology international, 56 (2), 107-12 PMID: 17251054

Looft T, Johnson TA, Allen HK, Bayles DO, Alt DP, Stedtfeld RD, Sul WJ, Stedtfeld TM, Chai B, Cole JR, Hashsham SA, Tiedje JM, & Stanton TB (2012). In-feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (5), 1691-6 PMID: 22307632

Scanlan PD (2012). Blastocystis: past pitfalls and future perspectives. Trends in parasitology PMID: 22738855

Stensvold CR, Alfellani MA, Nørskov-Lauritsen S, Prip K, Victory EL, Maddox C, Nielsen HV, & Clark CG (2009). Subtype distribution of Blastocystis isolates from synanthropic and zoo animals and identification of a new subtype. International journal for parasitology, 39 (4), 473-9 PMID: 18755193

Stensvold CR (2012). Thinking Blastocystis out of the box. Trends in parasitology PMID: 22704911

Yan Y, Su S, Ye J, Lai X, Lai R, Liao H, Chen G, Zhang R, Hou Z, & Luo X (2007). Blastocystis sp. subtype 5: a possibly zoonotic genotype. Parasitology research, 101 (6), 1527-32 PMID: 17665214

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

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.

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!

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.