article information

Jundishapur Journal of Microbiology: Vol.6, issue 2; 197-198
published online: March 2, 2013
article type: Letter
received: April 18, 2012
revised: May 6, 2012
accepted: May 7, 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm.5230
Crossmark

Entamoebahistolytica or Entamoeba histolytica/E. dispar

authors:

avatar Hossein Hooshyar 1 , * , avatar Parvin Rostamkhani 1

Department of Parasitology, School of Medicine, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, IR Iran

how to cite: Hooshyar H, Rostamkhani P. Entamoebahistolytica or Entamoeba histolytica/E. dispar . Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2013;6(2): 197-198. https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm.5230.

Dear Editor,

In Vol.5, No.2, 2012, Jundishapur Journal of Microbiology a paper entitled “A study on prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitic infections in HIV (+) patients referred to Ahvaz Razi Hospital in 2008-2009” was published. We are grateful to Dr Yosefi et al. for his effective paper in this journal. We read this manuscript with a great interest but there is one point that should be taken into consideration. In the paper it has been claimed that one of HIV positive patient 1.7% was infected with Entamoeba histolytica cyst (1). We would like to discuss on this topic. It is now known that the parasite previously named as E. histolytica actually consists of two morphologically identical but genetically distinct species, one E. histolytica, which is the causative organism of invasive intestinal and extra-intestinal amoebiasis. The other is E. dispar, a non-pathogenic intestinal commensally protozoan organism (2). Differential diagnosis of E. histolytica and E. dispar in stool samples is not easy on the basis of microscopy alone, except for the case of hematophagous trophozoites in acute dysentery. Currently, some expensive methods such as amoebic antigen and DNA detection, isoenzyme electerophoretic pattern, PCR-basis methods, are available to differentiate both nonpathogenic E. dispar from pathogenic E. histolytica, especially in cyst passer person (3, 4). An expert consultation of WHO on amoebiasis in Mexico City stressed needs for improved methods for the specific diagnosis of E. histolytica infections based on technologies appropriate for use in developing world (5). Also, This meeting recommended that when diagnosis is made by light microscopy, the cysts of two species are indistinguishable and should be reported as E. histolytica / E. dispar. Because in this paper differential diagnosis was not done on this cases and diagnosis was done with routine microscopy method, it is better than as other recent studies in Iran, this change to "one of HIV positive patient 1.7% was infected with E. histolytica /E.dispar cyst.

References

  • 1.

    Yosefi F, Rahdar M, Alavi SM, Samany A. A study on Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections in HIV (+) Patients Referred to Ahvaz Razi Hospital in 2008-2009. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2012;5(2):424-6. https://doi.org/10.5812/jjm.3537.

  • 2.

    Diamond L, Clark C. Entamoeba histolytica, Schaudin1903,(Emended Wallker, 1911) separating it from Entamoeba dispar, Brumpt 1925. J Euk Microbiol. 1993;40(3):340-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.1993.tb04926.x.

  • 3.

    Haque R, Ali IKM, Akther S, Petri WA. Comparison of PCR, Isoenzyme Analysis, and Antigen Detection for Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36(2):449-52. [PubMed ID: 9466756].

  • 4.

    Tanyuksel M, Petri WA. Laboratory Diagnosis of Amebiasis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003;16(4):713-29. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.16.4.713-729.2003.

  • 5.

    World Health Organization. Entamoeba taxonomy. Bull World Health Organ. 1997;75:291-2. [PubMed ID: 9277015].