Article:Ecology and transmission of Buruli ulcer disease: a systematic review (3001905)

From ScienceSource
Revision as of 18:28, 22 April 2019 by Charles Matthews (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is the ScienceSource HTML version of the scholarly article described at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21144518. Its title is Ecology and transmission of Buruli ulcer disease: a systematic review and the publication date was 2010-12-14. The initial author is Richard W. Merritt.

Fuller metadata can be found in the Wikidata link, which lists all authors, and may have detailed items for some or all of them. There is further information on the article in the footer below. This page is a reference version, and is protected against editing.



Converted JATS paper:

Journal Information

Title: PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Ecology and Transmission of Buruli Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review

Alternative Title: Buruli Ulcer Disease Review

  • Richard W. Merritt
  • Edward D. Walker
  • Pamela L. C. Small
  • John R. Wallace
  • Paul D. R. Johnson
  • M. Eric Benbow
  • Daniel A. Boakye

[1]Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America

[2]Department of Entomology and Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America

[3]Department of Microbiology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America

[4]Department of Biology, Millersville University, Millersville, Pennsylvania, United States of America

[5]Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia

[6]Department of Biology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, United States of America

[7]University of Ghana, East Legon, Ghana

  • Richard O. Phillips (Editor)

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) School of Medical Sciences, Ghana

Publication date (collection): 12/2010

Publication date (epub): 12/2010

Abstract

Buruli ulcer is a neglected emerging disease that has recently been reported in some countries as the second most frequent mycobacterial disease in humans after tuberculosis. Cases have been reported from at least 32 countries in Africa (mainly west), Australia, Southeast Asia, China, Central and South America, and the Western Pacific. Large lesions often result in scarring, contractual deformities, amputations, and disabilities, and in Africa, most cases of the disease occur in children between the ages of 4–15 years. This environmental mycobacterium, Mycobacterium ulcerans, is found in communities associated with rivers, swamps, wetlands, and human-linked changes in the aquatic environment, particularly those created as a result of environmental disturbance such as deforestation, dam construction, and agriculture. Buruli ulcer disease is often referred to as the “mysterious disease” because the mode of transmission remains unclear, although several hypotheses have been proposed. The above review reveals that various routes of transmission may occur, varying amongst epidemiological setting and geographic region, and that there may be some role for living agents as reservoirs and as vectors of M. ulcerans, in particular aquatic insects, adult mosquitoes or other biting arthropods. We discuss traditional and non-traditional methods for indicting the roles of living agents as biologically significant reservoirs and/or vectors of pathogens, and suggest an intellectual framework for establishing criteria for transmission. The application of these criteria to the transmission of M. ulcerans presents a significant challenge.

Summary

Author Summary

Buruli ulcer (BU) is a serious necrotizing cutaneous infection caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans. It is a neglected emerging disease that has recently been reported in some countries as the second most frequent mycobacterial disease in humans after tuberculosis (TB). Cases have been reported from at least 32 countries in Africa (mainly west), Australia, Southeast Asia, China, Central and South America, and the Western Pacific. BU is a disease found in rural areas located near wetlands (ponds, swamps, marshes, impoundments, backwaters) and slow-moving rivers, especially in areas prone to human-made disturbance and flooding. Despite considerable research on this disease in recent years, the mode of transmission remains unclear, although several hypotheses have been proposed. In this article we review the current state of knowledge on the ecology and transmission of M. ulcerans in Africa and Australia, discuss traditional and non-traditional methods for investigating transmission, and suggest an intellectual framework for establishing criteria for transmission.

Paper

Introduction

Buruli ulcer (BU) is a serious necrotizing cutaneous infection caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans[1][7]. Before the causative agent was specifically identified, it was clinically given geographic designations such as Bairnsdale, Searles, and Kumasi ulcer, depending on the country [8][11]. BU is a neglected emerging disease that has recently been reported in some countries as the second most frequent mycobacterial disease in humans after tuberculosis (TB) [12][14]. Large lesions often result in scarring, contractual deformities, amputations, and disabilities [2][4], [7], [14][22] (Fig. 1). Approximately 80% of the ulcers are located on the limbs, most commonly on the lower extremities yet some variation exists [3], [13], [23], [24]. In Africa, all ages and sexes are affected, but most cases of the disease occur in children between the ages of 4–15 years [5], [13], [17], [25][28].

10.1371/journal.pntd.0000911.g001Figure 1

Buruli ulcer on leg and contractual deformity on wrist and hand. (Photo by R. Kimbirauskas).

BU is a poorly understood disease that has emerged dramatically since the 1980's, reportedly coupled with rapid environmental change to the landscape including deforestation, eutrophication, dam construction, irrigation, farming (agricultural and aquaculture), mining, and habitat fragmentation [3][7], [29], [30]. BU is a disease found in rural areas located near wetlands (ponds, swamps, marshes, impoundments, backwaters) and slow-moving rivers, especially in areas prone to flooding [3], [4], [23], [27], [29], [31][36] (Fig. 2). Cases have been reported from at least 32 countries in Africa (mainly west), Australia, Southeast Asia, China, Central and South America, and the Western Pacific [3], [6], [20], [28], [37], [38] (Fig. 3). A number of cases have been reported in non-endemic areas of North America and Europe as a sequel to international travel [20], [39][42].

10.1371/journal.pntd.0000911.g002Figure 2

Typical Buruli ulcer riverine endemic sites in Ghana and Benin, respectively. (Photos by M. E. Benbow and M. McIntosh, respectively).

10.1371/journal.pntd.0000911.g003Figure 3

A global map representing countries that have reported cases of Buruli ulcer disease as of 2009 (WHO).

Buruli ulcer disease is often referred to as the “mysterious disease” because the mode of transmission remains unclear, although several hypotheses have been proposed. The objectives of this article are to: 1) review the current state of knowledge on the ecology and transmission of M. ulcerans, 2) discuss traditional and non-traditional methods for investigating transmission, and 3) suggest an intellectual framework for establishing criteria for transmission.

Methods

Data Sources and Search Strategy

Selection of the publications cited was based on the following approaches: 1) Direct knowledge of the authors of this manuscript regarding their background in the field of Buruli Ulcer research and knowledge of key papers and unpublished data; 2) Online search engines for Buruli Ulcer and Mycobacterium ulcerans (predominantly PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, Centers for Disease Control (CDC); 3) Knowledge in the field of Buruli Ulcer research in that three of the authors (Merritt, Small, Johnson) are on the WHO Technical Advisory Committee for Buruli Ulcer in Geneva, Switzerland; 4) Review of the following websites: Buruli ulcer disease maintained by WHO in Geneva, Switzerland (http://www.who.int/buruli/en), The Buruli Ulcer Disease Ecology Research Consortium (BUDERC) (https://www.msu.edu/~budiseco/index.html); and UBS Optimus Foundation (http://www.stopburuli.org).

Results and Discussion

The Pathogen

M. ulcerans is a slow-growing environmental mycobacterium that can be isolated from primary lesions after a 5–8 week incubation period, although up to 6 months may be required [43], [44]. M. ulcerans falls into a group of closely related mycobacterial pathogens which comprise the M. marinum complex. The M. marinum complex contains mycobacterial species pathogenic for aquatic vertebrates and includes M. marinum (fish), M. pseudoschottsii (fish) and M. liflandii (frogs) [45][48]. All of these species are characterized by slow growth rates and low optimal growth temperatures [49]. From a genomic standpoint, the species in the M. marinum complex can be considered a single species based on the fact that they share over 97% identity in the 16sRNA gene sequence [50]. However, practical considerations have led to the establishment of separate names based on differences in host tropism and pathogenesis analogous to other mycobacterial groupings, such as the M. avium and M. tuberculosis complexes.

Genomic analysis suggests that M. ulcerans evolved from an M. marinum-like ancestor [21], [51] through the acquisition of a large virulence plasmid and accumulation of multiple copies of insertion sequences, IS2404 and IS2606. The genome has undergone considerable reductive evolution through a number of mutational events including transposon insertion. As a result, the genome has accumulated over 700 pseudogenes [21], [52]. Although it has been reported that micro-aerophilic conditions enhance the growth of M. ulcerans in the BACTEC system [53], the M. ulcerans genome strain lacks both nitrate and fumarate reductase systems, suggesting that M. ulcerans is considerably handicapped in the ability to grow under low oxygen conditions compared with M. marinum. The reported discrepancy in the oxygen requirements of M. ulcerans may be due to strain differences and requires closer investigation. A mutation in crtI, a key gene in the pathway for carotinoid biosynthesis, is suggested to compromise the ability of M. ulcerans to survive in direct sunlight [52]. A number of genes in ion transport and lipid biosynthesis have been lost and the repertoire of PE, PPE genes are considerably reduced compared with M. tuberculosis or M. marinum. Taken together, these results suggest that M. ulcerans is undergoing adaptation to a different and narrower niche than M. marinum. This idea has recently gained support from experimental work in which Medaka fish were infected with M. marinum and M. ulcerans. In these studies, M. marinum produced a lethal infection in Medaka, whereas M. ulcerans was not pathogenic and declined over a 23-week infection period (L. Mosi, unpubl. data).

The most important phenotypic characteristic of M. ulcerans is the low optimal growth temperature and the extremely restricted growth temperature range. M. marinum exhibits growth between 25–35°C, although the optimal growth temperature is 30–35°C [54], [55] and many M. marinum isolates are capable of growth at 37°C. In contrast, growth of M. ulcerans strains under laboratory conditions is characterized by a remarkably narrow temperature range between 28–34°C and optimal growth of most strains is found between 30–33°C [56]. The restricted growth temperature of M. ulcerans is thought to play a substantial role in the pathogenesis of BU by limiting infection to the skin. The organism has never been isolated from internal organs of human patients or from bone in cases of osteomylelitis, or from the internal organs or blood of experimentally infected animals [51], [57][59]. It has been recently reported that many isolates of M. ulcerans survive at 37°C for 13 days, although numbers decline after the first few days. No one has isolated or derived a strain capable of growth at 37°C [60].

The characteristic pathology of BU is mediated by a polyketide-derived macrolide exotoxin called mycolactone, which is cytotoxic and immunosuppressive [51], [61], [62]. Because of the large metabolic cost of producing mycolactone, it is likely that mycolactone plays an important role in the survival and growth of M. ulcerans in its environmental niche.

Ecology and Distribution of the Pathogen and Disease

Detecting M. ulcerans in the environment

The slow growth rate of M. ulcerans and the complex mix of many faster growing bacteria and fungi in environmental samples have prevented direct culture on artificial media of M. ulcerans from the environment. A major breakthrough in environmental studies occurred with the development of the first PCR probes for M. ulcerans based on detection of IS2404 by Ross et al. [63]. This technique was rapidly adopted by a number of laboratories leading to identification of M. ulcerans DNA in environmental samples including detritus, soil, biofilms, water filtrates, fish, frogs, snails, insects and other invertebrates [18], [35], [64][75].

Although IS2404 PCR has become the gold standard for clinical diagnosis of Buruli ulcer, there are several caveats in applying these methods to environmental samples. First, PCR detects DNA, not intact organisms. The death of infected organisms will lead to the release of M. ulcerans DNA into the environment where it may stick to a number of substrates. Although in two different countries in Africa, Williamson et al. [67] found M. ulcerans DNA in 9.7% (8/82) of water filtrant samples and Vandelannoote et al. [59] found 7.7% (1/13) water samples positive for M. ulcerans, the significance of these small quantities of M. ulcerans in an environmental sample is difficult to evaluate. In southeastern Australia, M. ulcerans also has been detected in a range of environmental samples. Recently, Fyfe et al. [76], reported that 30% of selected samples including detritus, plant material, suspended solids, and soil collected from one highly-endemic area were weakly positive by quantitative PCR. However, in a low endemicity area, only 4/156 (3%) of samples (2 soil, 2 terrestrial plant) were positive. Interpretation of results from environmental PCR is complex. PCR methodology detects DNA, but it does not provide definitive proof for the presence of intact bacteria in a matrix. DNA bound to the surface of potential vectors in the water column also will be detected. However, the successful culture of M. ulcerans from an aquatic water bug collected in Benin [71] provides definitive evidence for the presence of M. ulcerans in an aquatic invertebrate. This considerable achievement was based on earlier observations using IS2404 PCR that implicated aquatic water bugs as possible reservoirs or vectors of M. ulcerans[70].

Ecological associations with disturbed water bodies

Until recently, a systematic and/or quantitative approach to the ecology of M. ulcerans in the environment has received little attention, despite the fact that nearly all epidemiological studies have associated disease outbreaks with villages in close proximity to human-disturbed aquatic habitats, including both standing and moving water bodies [7], [9][11], [19], [20], [25], [33], [77][80]. Increased BU incidence has been reported in association with: 1) unprecedented flooding of lakes and rivers during heavy rainfall [9], [16], [30], [37], [81]; 2) the damming of streams and rivers to create impoundments and wetlands [4], [9], [30], [37]; 3) resorts that modify wetlands [16], [30]; 4) deforestation practices and increased agriculture leading to increased flooding [4], [9], [18], [30], [37]; 5) construction of agricultural irrigation systems [4], [30], [81]; 6) rice cultivation [4], [9]; 7); alluvial, pit and sand mining operations [30], [37], [82]; and 8) population expansion, resettlement and migration closer to water bodies [9], [16], [18], [27], [30], [37].

Indeed, many water bodies associated with increased sedimentation and eutrophication have low dissolved oxygen concentrations that may enhance the growth of M. ulcerans[53]. Hayman [9] speculated that in Australia M. ulcerans enters surface waters through deforestation, erosion and run-off contamination. He suggested that populations of M. ulcerans were washed into aquatic habitats where environmental conditions facilitated growth and proliferation, much like an algal bloom. Because most infectious diseases have a strong correlation between infective dose and incubation period for disease, Hayman [9] speculated that slow growth of M. ulcerans might be required for the bacteria to achieve population numbers sufficient to produce infection and the appearance of disease. The way in which M. ulcerans could be washed down into these habitats has never been explained, but is consistent with other reports of increased BU outbreaks associated with deforested and heavily flooded African lands [20], [33].

Further, deforestation leads to lost riparian cover, resulting in increased water temperatures that may facilitate M. ulcerans growth at optimal temperatures of 30–33°C [11], [18], [20]. Associated sedimentation (e.g., turbidity) also would provide ultraviolet light (UV) attenuation and protection for M. ulcerans biofilm near the bottom substrates and on submerged plant surfaces as proposed by Merritt et al. [30]. It has been documented that UV lowers M. ulcerans cell viability [52], and thus deforestation and high-impact agriculture may promote increased nutrients, higher temperatures, UV attenuation and lower dissolved oxygen – environmental conditions that facilitate M. ulcerans growth.

Because of the association with freshwater habitats, Eddyani et al. [83] hypothesized that freshwater plankton, specifically protozoans, may act as reservoirs for M. ulcerans, or may even facilitate the multiplication of the bacteria [18]. Although the former authors did not detect M. ulcerans DNA in free-living amoebae collected BU endemic areas in Benin, this area of research definitely warrants further investigation.

Landscape ecology of the disease

Buruli ulcer has been widely associated with proximity to aquatic habitats. The disease is rare in the savanna regions of West Africa and drier areas of Australia. Its presence in Australia is notably costal however, where water is often saline. This association between ecosystem ecology and disease has not been quantified. Rather, the association is most often anecdotal or related to specific human risk factors (e.g., wading, swimming, fishing, bathing, washing, farming, mining, etc.) in different countries and/or regional districts (see review below). To date, there have been few ecological studies focused on statistically determining why residence near certain water bodies is associated with BU, whereas the disease is absent along others [30], [67], [68]. For example, BU is highly associated with residence along several major river systems in both Benin and Ghana [12], [14], [20], [84], [85], whereas disease is essentially non-existent in communities within a few kilometers of Lake Volta, the largest water system in Ghana, as well as along the Mono River in Benin. Williamson et al. [67] recently found that in Ghana, PCR results suggesting that M. ulcerans and/or other mycolactone producing mycobacteria are widely distributed in water bodies in endemic and non-endemic villages. In these studies, however, the identification of endemic versus non-endemic sites was based on passive surveillance. A community was considered endemic if a case had been identified in the public health center in the past three years. A community that is not listed in the health center records, in association with a case of Buruli ulcer, was considered non-endemic. A preliminary survey to validate the non-endemic status of several communities in the GA district of Ghana through active surveillance showed that Buruli ulcer cases could be indentified in nearly all of the villages visited along the Densu River in the GA district (P. C. Small, unpubl. data). In areas where much of the disease is not reported, this can lead to significant error in the designation of “non-endemic.”

There have been case control studies and observational reports of disturbed landscape associations with BU disease [29], [30], [86]; however, there have only been a few recent studies to statistically quantify landscape characteristics and relationships with disease [36], [79], [81], [87]. Duker et al. [79] found that arsenic levels in soil and gold mining were significant covariates related to increased disease risk in the Amansie West district of Ghana, while Wagner et al. [36], [81] addressed larger scale land use/land cover relationships using satellite imagery, GIS, and country wide BU data from Benin. In the latter studies, Wagner et al. [36], [81] reported highest disease in communities surrounded by an agriculture matrix, and thus deforestation, with abundant wetlands and other habitats that experience frequent flooding. These were low-lying areas with complex topography far removed from urban settings [36], [81]. In another country-wide study using GIS, Brou et al. [88] found that in Côte d'Ivoire, communities near landscapes of irrigated rice and other agriculture near dams used for irrigation were related to increased risk of BU. These studies confirm previous epidemiological studies and indicate that there are quantifiable relationships between landscape features and land use that are related to BU disease. It is also clear that communities involved with these activities are at high risk for disease, yet how specific activities are associated with transmission remains unresolved.

Risk factors associated with Buruli ulcer disease

Recently, Jacobson and Padgett [89] systematically reviewed the risk factors associated with M. ulcerans infection throughout the world and concluded that poor wound care, failure to wear protective clothing, and living or working near water bodies were commonly identified risk factors in most studies. However, a number of epidemiological studies have identified other potential risk factors associated with M. ulcerans infection and these are summarized in Table 1. For each specific risk factor investigated, it is stated as to whether or not there was an increased or decreased risk of infection reported, or if the factor was not considered a risk factor in the analysis. Several of the commonly reported risk factors showed few consistent associations depending on the country, type of analysis conducted, use of different case definitions, and based on the control populations used [89]. For instance, in a case-control study from Ghana, Aiga et al. [25] found that swimming in rivers on a habitual basis was a significant risk factor, whereas drinking, cooking, washing clothing and bathing were not. However, in another Ghanaian study, wading, bathing, and swimming were all confirmed to be significant risk factors for BU [77]. Two studies found a decreased risk of infection with mosquito net use, while another study found no association between bed net use and infection (Table 1). However, in a case control study performed in southeastern Australia, use of insect repellent was associated with reduced risk and the reporting of mosquito bites on the forearms and lower legs was associated with increased risk [90]. Despite the association with water contact, fishermen were not found to be at high risk for the disease (Table 1). Although a review of these potential risk factors suggests that transmission of M. ulcerans might occur through direct inoculation of bacteria into the skin via contact with environmental sources, insect bites or trauma, it was clear that additional comparative studies are required to clarify the potential modes of transmission of M. ulcerans[89].

10.1371/journal.pntd.0000911.t001Table 1

A summary of reported risk factors associated with infection Mycobacterium ulcerans.

Country Risk Factor(s) Increased Risk of Infection Decreased Risk of Infection Not Considered a Risk Factor Citation
Ghana 1) Arsenic-enriched drinking water (from mining) X Duker et al. (2004)
Ghana 1) Exposed skin2) Bednet and mosquito coils use3) Insect bites, cuts, scratches, and other wounds4) Exposure to riverine areas (wading and swimming)5) Association between BCG and vaccination or HIV infection6) Not wearing protective clothing7) Fishing XXX XXXX Raghunathan et al. 2005
Ghana 1) Age 2–14 years of age2) Use of water for drinking, cooking, bathing, washing3) Association with agricultural activities4) Swimming in rivers XX XX Aiga et al. 2004
Benin 1) 5–14 years of age2) Unprotected water from swamps3) BCG-vacinated patients >5 years old4) Participated in agricultural activities5) Sex XXXX X Debacker et al. 2004, 2006
Benin 1) Mosquito bed net use2) Association with agricultural activities3) Improper wound care X X X Nackers et al. 2007
Cameroon 1) Living near cocoa plantation or woods2) Wading in swamps3) Wearing protective clothing while farming4) Association with agricultural activities5) Improper wound care6) Bed nets7) Mosquito coils8) Unprotected water sources9) Fishing XXX XX XXXX Pouillot et al. 2007
Cote d′ Ivoire 1) Age group2) Wearing protective clothing during farming activities3) Washing clothes4) Swimming5) Fishing XX XXX Marston et al. 1995
Australia 1) Wearing protective clothing2) Use of insect repellent3) Most patients > 60 years old4) Washing wounds after sustaining minor skin trauma5) Exposure to mosquitoes XX XXX Quek et al. 2007

Although there have been reports of a seasonal distribution in BU cases related to rainfall-influenced patterns of village waterbody usage [32], and by season in southeastern Australia [91], other studies have not shown this relationship [12]. Recording monthly trends for BU cases over a 3-year period in Benin, Sopoh et al. [12] found consistent average monthly BU case occurrence, without an apparent seasonal trend. However, country-wide data can obscure local variation in climate and the issue of seasonal trends needs to be more closely investigated at the local level. The unknown incubation period for Buruli ulcer, which may vary from 2 weeks to 7 months [92], [93], also makes it difficult to analyze seasonal factors with Buruli ulcer occurrence. Duker et al. [4], and more recently Marion et al. [94], discussed seasonal variations and M. ulcerans infections reported from different countries and concluded that there may be a temporal relationship between BU incidences and relatively dry periods; however, it also has been reported that M. ulcerans infections occurred mainly after flooding events [9], [16], [33], [34], [95].

Environmental Reservoirs and Transmission

Africa

Unlike leprosy and tuberculosis, which are characterized by person-to-person transmission, it is hypothesized that M. ulcerans is acquired through environmental contact. Direct human to human transmission of M. ulcerans is extremely rare. The one reported case occurred following a human bite [96]. In this instance it was hypothesized that the patient's skin surface was contaminated with M. ulcerans from an environmental source (e.g. swamps) and driven into the skin by the playmate's bite. Non-human mammals and reptiles have been tested in the environment without positive findings [95], and several arthropods (i.e., bedbugs, black flies, mosquitoes) in Africa associated with vectoring other disease agents tested negative in early studies [18], [32]. However, few organisms of each taxonomic group were tested in these studies, and insect sampling methods were neither systematically employed nor standardized. Buruli ulcer cases in wild and domesticated animals in Africa have not been reported [97].

Portaels and colleagues [70] were first to suggest that aquatic bugs (Hemiptera) might be reservoirs of M. ulcerans in nature, and recently they described the first isolation in pure culture of M. ulcerans from a water strider (Hemiptera: Gerridae, Gerris sp.) from Benin [71]. A survey study [18] based on detection of M. ulcerans DNA in aquatic insects (Hemiptera, water bugs; Odonata, dragonfly larvae; Coleoptera, beetle larvae) collected from African BU endemic swamps confirmed their earlier findings, and suggested that small fish might also contain M. ulcerans[66], [98][100]. Marsollier et al. [64], [66], [98][100] conducted a series of laboratory studies and demonstrated that M. ulcerans could survive and show limited replication within the salivary glands of biting aquatic bugs (Naucoridae: Naucoris cimicoides). In their experimental model they demonstrated that M. ulcerans could be acquired from feeding on inoculated insect prey (a blow fly maggot), transmitted to mice via biting; and that the infected mice subsequently developed clinical BU [66]. Although there has been some controversy regarding the interpretation of this work [68], [101], [102] and subsequent follow-up studies on tracing the pathogen through the bug [103], [104], Marsollier and colleagues concluded that biting water bugs belonging to the families Naucoridae (creeping water bugs) and Belostomatidae (giant water bugs) could be considered reservoirs, and most importantly could serve as vectors in the transmission of M. ulcerans to humans in nature. More recently, Mosi et al. [101] investigated the ability of M. ulcerans to colonize aquatic bugs (Belostomatidae) collected from Africa. Using a natural infection model in which M. ulcerans-infected mosquito larvae served as prey that were then fed to the predacious bugs, Mosi and colleagues confirmed Marsollier's finding that infected belostomatid bugs could become infected with M. ulcerans via feeding. However, they concluded that transfer of bacteria through feeding was most likely to have occurred through contact with the heavily colonized raptorial arms and other external parts of the belostomatid, rather than through saliva or contact with other internal organs as originally reported [66]. Together, these experiments indeed support the hypothesis that predaceous aquatic insects may play an important role in maintaining M. ulcerans within food webs in the aquatic environment [1], [30], [68], [70] but, as detailed below, their role in actual transmission to humans remains unclear.

The role of other non-insect aquatic invertebrates as intermediate hosts or environmental reservoirs for M. ulcerans has been suggested by several authors [30], [66], [70], [73], [99], and recently confirmed in more field research [67], [68]. It was experimentally confirmed that aquatic snails could be transiently colonized by M. ulcerans after feeding on M. ulcerans-containing aquatic plant biofilms [64]. Aquatic plant extracts stimulated biofilm formation, and increased the uptake of labeled metabolites by M. ulcerans in laboratory experiments [65]. In the field, Kotlowski et al. [73] recorded M. ulcerans DNA in aquatic snails from endemic regions of Ghana and Benin, and other studies have found that average estimates of M. ulcerans increased by two orders of magnitude in detritus compared to water [72]. More recently, Marsollier et al. [104] described an extracellular matrix associated with the biofilm of M. ulcerans that may confer selective advantages to the mycobacteria in colonizing various microhabitats in the environment. Based on these studies and extensive environmental studies by Williamson et al. [67], it is evident that M. ulcerans DNA can be detected within biofilm on the plant surface, and as part of decaying organic matter (detritus) both of which serve as food for certain aquatic invertebrates and fish, suggesting reservoirs and movement throughout the aquatic food web.

A conceptual model, expanded and modified from Portaels et al. [70], illustrating the potential reservoirs and movement of M. ulcerans within and among aquatic environments was detailed by Merritt et al. [30] and more recently by Marion et al. [94]. Basically, M. ulcerans has been reported from mud, detritus, water filtrants, and plant biofilms, thereby allowing grazing or filtering aquatic insects (e.g., midges and mosquito larvae) or other invertebrates (snails, crustaceans, plankton) to concentrate mycobacteria through their feeding activities. Then, predatory aquatic vertebrates (i.e., some fish) and invertebrates (e.g., true bugs, beetles and dragonfly larvae) feed on other invertebrate prey or small fish, serving to move M. ulcerans from prey to biting insects. Lastly, aquatic insects capable of flight, and birds that prey on fish and/or aquatic invertebrates may potentially disseminate M. ulcerans to other aquatic environments [30].

Although the potential for different aquatic invertebrates in Africa to serve as environmental reservoirs for M. ulcerans has been clearly demonstrated, direct transmission by biting water bugs, other than by purely accidental means appears very unlikely for the following reasons. First, in Africa M. ulcerans DNA has only been detected in invertebrates that are not hematophagous. Predatory semi-aquatic Hemiptera (i.e., Naucoridae, Belostomatidae, Notonectidae) mainly feed on invertebrates (aquatic insects, Crustacea, snails) by inserting their piercing mouth parts into their prey, injecting saliva containing proteolytic enzymes, and then imbibing the liquefied prey tissues [105], [106]. Most employ an ambush strategy, waiting motionless clinging to vegetation for unsuspecting prey (Belostomatidae), while others may actively swim and pursue their prey (Naucoridae, Notonectidae) [107], [108]. Adults of most species of semi-aquatic Hemiptera possess the ability to disperse by flight, but mainly at night, and end up being attracted to electric lights during the breeding season, often correlated with the lunar cycle. Because of this, they often find their way into houses by accident [107], [108]. However, the very low disease prevalence among children less than three years of age suggests that infection does not occur in the house. When humans accidently come into contact with the bugs in the water, on aquatic vegetation, or away from water, they can be bitten [109]. However, these bugs do not actively search for humans, they do not require a blood meal or protein source to mature their eggs, nor is there any evolutionary history suggesting or supporting a vectorborne/pathogen transmission or co-evolving host/parasite relationship in the semi-aquatic Hemiptera [107], [110]. Therefore, based on the biology and behavior of predaceous aquatic insects, biting humans appears to be a rare event associated with a purely defensive reaction of these bugs [109], [111]. It should be noted, however, that the causative agent of Chagas disease (Trypanosoma cruzi) in humans is transmitted by a terrestrial hemipteran (Reduviidae), but it is through fecal contamination and not by the bite of the bug. Also, in this case the habitat of the vector (bug) is closely tied to that of its host [112].

In general, field studies on the prevalence of biting aquatic invertebrates do not support the hypothesis that biting aquatic bugs are vectors of M. ulcerans in nature; however, a recent study by Marion et al. [94] in Cameroon identified several water bug families as hosts of M. ulcerans in a Buruli ulcer endemic area. However, in Marion et al. [93], only one endemic area and one non-endemic area were evaluated, suggesting no replication, and thus, a limitation to testing how variable M. ulcerans is among endemic versus non-endemic areas/villages. This makes it difficult to compare to studies by Williamson et al. [67] and Benbow et al. [68] where multiple replicate sites were evaluated to test for M. ulcerans variability in standardized ecological samples. Benbow et al. [68] conducted the largest field study to date that examined biting water bugs in 15 disease-endemic and 12 non-disease-endemic areas of Ghana, Africa. From collections of over 22,000 invertebrates, they compared composition, abundance and invertebrate-associated M. ulcerans positivity among sites, and concluded that biting hemipterans were rare and represented a very small percentage of invertebrate communities. When endemic and non-endemic areas were compared, there were no significant differences in hemipteran abundance or invertebrate-M.ulcerans positivity rates (by PCR) between the areas, and there were no significant associations between hemipteran abundance and overall invertebrate-M.ulcerans positivity. Thus, there is little field evidence to support the assertion that biting bugs are major vectors of M. ulcerans in nature. However, as concluded by Marion et al. [94], the detection of M. ulcerans in water bugs in a specific area could possibly be used as an environmental indicator of the risk of M. ulcerans transmission to humans.

Australia

In Australia, infection with M. ulcerans occurs at low-levels in the wet tropical north where the climate is similar to sub-Saharan Africa [113][115]. However, more than 80% of Australia's cases of Buruli ulcer in the past 15 years have been in the temperate southeastern state of Victoria [93]. In comparison to Africa, people in Victoria have less direct contact with the environment, yet in two well-described outbreaks, 1.2–6.0% of the entire resident population in the outbreak areas developed Buruli ulcer [35], [116]. Visitors may also be at risk, and in one case, contact with an endemic town for just one day appeared to be sufficient to develop Buruli ulcer up to 7 months later [35].

In attempting to understand possible modes of transmission, two competing models have been proposed to explain this pattern of limited environmental contact, brief exposure, and high attack rates. Hayman [9] proposed that transmission by aerosol could partially explain outbreaks of M. ulcerans disease and an opportunity arose to test this hypothesis during a three year period when a large cluster of Buruli ulcer cases occurred in East Cowes, Phillip Island. This outbreak was significant in that only part of the town was affected, and there was a newly created wetland and a golf course at the center of the affected area. The golf course used a mixture of ground water and recycled water for irrigation and run-off from the golf course was likely to have drained towards the new wetland, connecting the two systems. Many of the case-patients lived close to the wetland or the golf course, supporting the concept of transmission by drifting aerosols from contaminated irrigation water [116][119].

Initially, no method existed for detection of M. ulcerans in environmental samples. However, as part of the outbreak investigation, Ross et al. [63] discovered IS2404, a high copy number insertion sequence in M. ulcerans. A PCR method using IS2404 as a target sequence has rapidly become the diagnostic method of choice for Buruli ulcer due to its high sensitivity, specificity, and its speed compared with traditional culture methods. IS2404 PCR was then adapted for application to environmental samples, and positive results were obtained from the wetland and golf course irrigation system-the first direct evidence that M. ulcerans DNA is present in environmental samples.

IS2404 PCR also can be used as a preliminary test for the presence of M. ulcerans in Africa, but aquatic mycobacteria associated with disease in fish and West African clawed frogs (Xenopus tropicalis) also contain IS2404. For this reason, IS2404 lacks sufficient specificity for use as sole criteria for M. ulcerans in Africa. To date, there is no evidence from Australia of the presence of IS2404 in any other environmental mycobacterium.

The above findings supported the hypothesis that the golf course irrigation system and nearby wetland at Phillip Island had become contaminated with M. ulcerans, although transmission by aerosol itself was not directly assessed [72], [120]. Drainage of the wetland, reduction in recycled water use, cleaning of the irrigation equipment at the golf course, and subsequent separation of ground water from recycled water were collectively associated with fewer cases in the following years. Buruli ulcer linked to Phillip Island is now rare; however, disease activity in at least one other Victorian endemic area also declined over a similar time frame without a specific intervention, making it difficult to conclude that the environmental alterations made at Phillip Island were directly responsible for the decline in cases. During the same period several possums (Australian native tree-dwelling marsupials) with Buruli ulcer were identified at Phillip Island [18], the significance of which will be discussed further below.

In 2002, a new outbreak commenced in a small town on the Bellarine Peninsula about 60 km to the west of Phillip Island, also in coastal Victoria, southeastern Australia. More than 100 people who either live in or have visited Point Lonsdale have now been diagnosed with Buruli ulcer [35]. Several other towns on the Bellarine Peninsula have been linked to cases, but in lower numbers thus far. Although Point Lonsdale also has a golf course, it is not centrally located, and does not use recycled water. In 2004, intense local mosquito activity seemed to be associated in time with new cases of BU and Buruli lesions were observed on ankles and elbows, and on the back where gaps in clothing could allow access for mosquitoes. In one case, Buruli ulcer developed on the ear of a child who was only briefly present in the outbreak area. The child's mother suspected a mosquito bite as the initiating event [35].

These observations led to a series of studies aimed at assessing a possible role for mosquitoes in the transmission of M. ulcerans. Using an improved real-time quantitative IS2404 PCR environmental screening method [74], more than 11,000 adult mosquitoes captured at Point Lonsdale were tested, and M. ulcerans DNA was identified in or on an estimated 4.3/1,000 mosquitoes. Most PCR positive mosquito pools were Aedes camptorhynchus (Thomson), the most common species on the Bellarine peninsula; however, M. ulcerans DNA also was detected in one or more pools of four other species [35]. PCR amplification and sequence analysis of one variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) locus confirmed that mosquitoes were carrying M. ulcerans DNA, indistinguishable from that of the human outbreak strain [74], [121].

A review of notifiable diseases in Victoria in the period 2002-8, demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between notifications of Buruli ulcer and Ross River Virus/Barmah Forest Virus infections (RRV/BFV) – both of which are transmitted by mosquitoes – but there was no correlation with any other non-mosquito borne notifiable disease [122].

A case-control study, conducted on the Bellarine Peninsula including Point Lonsdale, showed that the odds of being diagnosed with Buruli ulcer were at least halved in respondents who frequently used insect repellent, wore long trousers outdoors, and immediately washed minor skin wounds, and were at least doubled for those who received mosquito bites on the lower legs or lower arms. In a multivariate model, after adjusting for age and location, use of insect repellent and being bitten by mosquitoes on the lower legs were found to be independently associated with Buruli ulcer risk [90].

In laboratory experiments using a green fluorescent protein (GFP) labeled M. ulcerans mutant, in which GFP was linked to the mycolactone toxin polyketide synthase promoter, it was shown that when fed as a single pulse to live mosquito larvae, M. ulcerans-GFP was able to persist through 4 larval instars in the mouth parts and midgut of the insect. This was not observed with a closely related M. marinum-GFP mutant that did not produce mycolactone [123]. This permissive effect of mycolactone on allowing M. ulcerans to selectively colonize aquatic insects also was observed in experiments using aquatic water bugs [66], [100], [104]. However, other investigators found equal colonization with mycolactone negative and wild type strains [101], and this earlier selective effect was not observed in a study on M. ulcerans colonization of mosquitoes conducted by Wallace et al. [124].The latter study found a nearly 100% infection rate was obtained when wild type M. ulcerans, an isogenic mycolactone-negative M. ulcerans, and M. marinum (a non-toxin producing potential progenitor of M. ulcerans) were used to infect mosquito larva. These findings are in line with the fact that mosquito larvae do not discriminately feed on specific bacteria or other foods unless ingestion is mediated by particle size [125], [126]. Differences in experimental conditions and bacterial strains used may help to explain these conflicting findings.

Collectively, the above transmission research conducted in southeastern Australia lends support to mosquitoes as being a possible vector of the pathogen for Buruli Ulcer disease in this region of the country (see Bradford Hill guidelines for a critical assessment, below). More recently, it also has been discovered that that 38% of ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Boddaert)) and 24% of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula Flannery) captured at Point Lonsdale had laboratory-confirmed M. ulcerans skin lesions and/or M. ulcerans PCR positive feces (Fyfe et al. [76]). The exact sequence of events linking mosquitoes, humans, contaminated possum excreta and infected possums has yet to be determined, but direct or indirect mosquito transmission from a possum reservoir presents a parallel model with aerosol transmission from contaminated environmental water sources. Neither the aerosol nor mosquito transmission hypothesis in temperate Australia is incompatible with transmission by direct contact with the environment or by other vectors not yet examined. Future research on the biological relationships within each model will help to resolve the relative probability and plausibility of either mode.

Criteria for Establishing the Role of Insect Vectors of M. ulcerans

Stringent criteria exist in biomedical research for indicting the roles of living agents as biologically significant reservoirs and/or vectors of pathogens. The application of these criteria to the transmission of M. ulcerans presents a significant challenge. The above review reveals that various routes of transmission may occur, varying amongst epidemiological setting and geographic region, and that there may be some role for living agents as reservoirs and as vectors of M. ulcerans, in particular aquatic insects, adult mosquitoes or other biting arthropods. It is also clear that the exact mode of transmission, if indeed there is a single mode, remains unknown. We briefly discuss the process by which a vector is incriminated to the point of as much certainty as is possible, and then discuss the application of this process to indictment of insect vectors for transmission of M. ulcerans. If Buruli ulcer is a vectored disease, intervention might be designed to reduce the possibility of transmission since there are possibilities other than suppressing vector populations.

Vector incrimination traditionally involves satisfying a set of criteria analogous to Koch's postulates, summarized by Barnett [127] as follows: (1) the vector must be shown to acquire the pathogen from an identified source such as an infected vertebrate host or other reservoir, and thereafter become infected with the pathogen; (2) the vector must be shown convincingly to have close associations with infected hosts, including humans, in time and space; (3) individual vectors collected in endemic settings must repeatedly be found infected with the pathogen; and (4) efficient transmission to competent vertebrate hosts must be demonstrated experimentally, under well controlled conditions, by individual vectors, such as by bite or other means of direct contact. These criteria accommodate mechanical transmission if infection includes recovery of the pathogen from the vector's body, without making any assumptions about replication of the pathogen on or in the vector. Further, they do not preclude the possibility of parallel modes of transmission other than vectors. For example, the causative agent of plague, Yersinia pestis, has a flea vector and during sporadic outbreaks is transmitted by flea bites; but these bacteria also are transmitted during epidemics in aerosols generated by sneezing of pneumonically-infected humans or animals such as cats, which is probably the predominant mode of transmission in epidemics [128]. Similarly, human infection with the causative agent of tularemia, Franciscella tularensis, may occur through direct contact with contaminated water, by aerosols, by contact with blood or infected tissues of animals, or by bites of infected ticks, deer flies, or mosquitoes [129], [130]. The causative agent of Rift Valley fever, a Phlebovirus in the family Bunyaviridae, is transmitted amongst infected vertebrate reservoirs (mainly ungulates) by mosquitoes; however, many human infections occur upon exposure to infected animal blood at the time of slaughter, by aerosolization, as well as by mosquito bites [131]. Another useful illustration is that of Chlamydia trachomatis, the causative agent of trachoma, where the transmission to human eyes has been definitively associated with contact by Musca sorbens flies (Diptera: Muscidae) that breed in human feces in various parts of Africa [132]. Despite this observation, other mechanisms of transmission for this disease are known, such as person-to-person contact with contaminated fingers and wash towels [133], [134]. In two of the above examples (plague and Rift Valley fever), the pathogen has a close biological relationship with, and dependency upon, insect vectors; neither pathogen could persist in nature without infecting their respective vectors. For tularemia and trachoma, vectors are not essential to pathogen persistence in nature, even though fly control in the latter case was shown to reduce incidence of disease in humans [135]. However, it is unlikely in the case of tularemia and trachoma that even highly effective fly control could eliminate human infection in endemic areas owing to other modes of transmission [133]. Therefore, using a critical approach to address the issue of insect vector incrimination for M. ulcerans, one must be cognizant of the relative biological dependency of this bacterium on an insect vector, and the potential for facultative and facilitative relationships between these bacteria and various insect “hosts” to exist which may be ancillary or even spurious to the essential and normal transmission modes.

The most thorough examination of the role of an insect vector for transmission of M. ulcerans stems from investigations of aquatic, predaceous Hemiptera (true bugs) as reviewed above, which go far in addressing and meeting Barnett's criteria. It is important to recognize that the vast number of studies of M. ulcerans in environmental samples provide qualitative, indirect evidence of M. ulcerans based on very sensitive methods for detecting M. ulcerans DNA. Such studies revealed repeatedly that natural infection by M. ulcerans in field-collected bugs occurred, but it was tempered by detection of M. ulcerans in many other aquatic insects [18], [67]. Thus, definitive incrimination of a single species or group of closely-related aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera to the exclusion of other insects was not initially established. Other studies suggested natural contamination of the surfaces of these insects with M. ulcerans and suggested that M. ulcerans growth could occur as biofilms on the external appendages of such ‘bugs’ [101]. Thus, although aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera and other insects found to harbor M. ulcerans in nature might provide habitat for the bacteria, along with numerous other living and non-living surfaces where biofilms could form [104], this is insufficient evidence for indicating an obligatory or even facultative vectorial role to these insects. Although the experiments reported by Marsollier et al. [64], [66], [98][100] suggested modest bacterial replication in internal tissues of bugs, acquisition of bacterial infection from a live source (infected fly maggots meant to simulate an infected prey item), and transmission to mice, this evidence does not establish natural infection coupled with transmission to humans. Finally, there has been no epidemiological association established between spatial and temporal distribution of contacts with aquatic Hemiptera, or bites by them, and development of Buruli ulcer in humans [68]. As reviewed above, the common understanding of the feeding habitats of aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera does not include feeding on humans. More likely, infection in aquatic insects is associated with exposure to M. ulcerans in detritus and on biofilms formed on submerged materials, leading to a generalized distribution of M. ulcerans and M. ulcerans DNA in aquatic environments. In this particular scenario, despite the body of research on the topic, Barnett's criteria have not yet been fulfilled satisfactorily.

The recent research by Wallace et al. [124], whilst firmly documenting growth of M. ulcerans in mosquito larvae and transtadial infection after the molt, showed that infection did not persist upon metamorphosis to the adult stage. Thus, the link between presence of M. ulcerans in aquatic environments in which larval mosquitoes are found and adult mosquito infection with M. ulcerans, was not confirmed experimentally. However, these studies did show that M. ulcerans DNA could be detected on surface components of some adult mosquitoes. This brings up an important issue regarding experimental design and suggests that interpretation of PCR results obtained from whole insect lysates must be cautiously interpreted. These findings suggest that further research is required to confirm the association between mosquito bites, adult mosquito infection, and incidence of Buruli ulcer in humans in Australia (reviewed above), where a link between mosquito feeding on infected possums and transmission of the agent via the same species of mosquitoes was proposed (Fyfe et al.[76]). An analysis of blood host choice by mosquitoes, documenting blood feeding on both possums and humans in the area where human cases of Buruli ulcer are occurring, would be required as one element of satisfying Barnett's criterion #2. At best, Barnett's criteria for vector incrimination have not been completely satisfied for a mosquito vector role, but more compelling data may be forthcoming on this matter in the future.

A second approach to vector incrimination involves application of the Bradford Hill guidelines for establishing causation of infection and disease in epidemiological/ecological contexts [136]. Rather than rely upon experimental evidence, the Bradford Hill guidelines emphasize epidemiological/ecological association and use of logical inference to build up support and evidence for a strong conclusion of cause and effect, where A represents the “cause” and B the “effect” in the relationships under study [137]. The result is an “evidence hierarchy” that can be used in formal deduction [138], and represents an interdisciplinary approach to causal investigation in disease ecology. Here, “A” would be contact between an insect vector infected with M. ulcerans, and “B” would be human infection with M. ulcerans. The guidelines are qualitative in nature and do not require the clear endpoints of Barnett's criteria, yet represent a logical approach to the problem of cause and effect under epidemiological circumstances [139]. They are as follows (Table 2):

10.1371/journal.pntd.0000911.t002Table 2

Listing of Hill's guidelines (Bradford Hill guidelines, Hill 1965) for associating a role of insect vectors of pathogens causing human disease.

Term Descriptor/Qualifier
1. Plausibility Plausible, rational given knowledge of the biology of the putative vector, biology of the pathogen, and epidemiology of the disease. Specious associations would contraindicate a positive association.
2. Temporality The insect vector must show a temporal association with infection in humans; in particular, infected vectors should be found in endemic areas immediately before human cases occur.
3. Strength The association of the putative insect vector with human cases must be strong in time and space and in an epidemiological context. Correlation analysis supports the conclusion of strength if the correlation is positive.
4. Biological Gradient Prevalence of human cases should co-vary with prevalence of infection in the insect population.
5. Consistency Confirmed human cases should consistently be associated with infected insect vectors in time and space.
6. Alternate Explanations Explanations other than those related to a role of an insect vector should be considered and ruled out, or validated.
7. Experimentation Role of an insect species as a vector should be validated through experimental analysis with adequate controls and with realism in experimental design.
8. Specificity Infection with M. ulcerans in humans occurs when, and only when, a bite by an infected insect occurs first.
9. Coherence The association of human infection with insect transmission must cohere to knowledge of similar relationships in other similar associations.

(1) Plausibility. The cause and effect association of A and B must be plausible, that is, rational and lacking in speciousness. By this is meant that the association reflects the common understanding of the normal behavior and other attributes of both A and B, bringing the appropriate factors together in such a way that abnormally implausible (i.e., irrational) explanations must be discounted. In formal philosophy, plausibility must be demonstrated by sets of binary outcomes whose relationships are clearly defined propositions which can be resolved by the application of logical discourse [140]. Although plausibility can be formulated axiomatically, it cannot be analyzed statistically. It is important, therefore, not to confuse “plausible” with “probable” as the latter allows for rare and unusual circumstances and events to be explanatory under the right circumstances, whereas the former involves a rigorous, but non-probabilistic analytical process. Put more simply, plausibility addresses qualitatively how likely or unlikely it is that A results in B. A common problem in epidemiological scenarios that confronts plausibility is the issue of clusters of cases of infection (e.g., [134]), which may or may not have spatial associations with other nearby cases or with the landscape qualities near those cases [136]. In the case of Buruli ulcer and vector transmission of M. ulcerans, it is not implausible that Hemiptera and human cases are associated in time and space, but it is not plausible that there is a direct, causal relationship between the pair except in rare, accidental circumstances. Hence, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that biting hemipterans are a significant vector of M. ulcerans, although they may act as environmental reservoirs.

(2) Temporality. If A results in B, then A must consistently precede B in temporal sequence. For Buruli ulcer, there is no evidence that bites of particular insects consistently precede development of patent M. ulcerans infection in humans, although there is evidence that mosquito bites are associated with increased risk [90]. The problem with this guideline is the prolonged period of time between exposure and development of symptoms in Buruli ulcer disease. However, if bites from true bugs always preceded disease, patients are likely to remember these due to the painful nature of a naucorid or belostomatid bite, in contrast to bites by mosquitoes that often go unnoticed.

(3) Strength. Is the “strength” of the association great? For example, is there a statistically significant correlation between A and B in space and or time? The association between contact with water sources and M. ulcerans infection in humans is reasonably strong, but between insect bites and infection it is not for hemipterans, nor yet firmly established for mosquitoes in Australia and virtually non-existent for mosquitoes in Africa.

(4) Biological gradient or dose-response relationship. Infection in B should increase proportionately as A increases. This principle can operate at the dose-response level, as in a toxicological series; or at the population level, as when, e.g., more dengue virus infected mosquitoes results in more human cases of infection with that virus in space and time. The relationship may not be linear, thus confounding the interpretation of the relationship. There is no evidence that higher infection rate of M. ulcerans in aquatic insects results in higher incidence of infection in humans, although there is evidence that adult mosquitoes caught in highly endemic area in southeastern Australia are more likely to be PCR positive than those caught in areas with lower endemicity [35].

(5) Consistency. Episodes and research data where A and B show spatial and temporal associations commensurate with the other Bradford Hill guidelines must consistently reveal the association to be a positive one. Consistency could be revealed by meta-analysis of many data sets or through replicated, longitudinal studies across time and space. If scenarios emerge in which B occurs, but A does not in space and time, then doubt emerges regarding the veracity of the association. Although there are vignettes, correlations, and observations regarding insect vectors of M. ulcerans, there is no clear consistency among epidemiological scenarios to currently support the notion that insects are the predominant vector in most geographic regions. Consistent data are lacking for the ubiquitous role of vectors in the M. ulcerans transmission system.

(6) Consideration of alternate explanations and analogous situations. Explanations other than causation due to A must be carefully weighed as alternatives. Causation may be inferred by analogous correspondence with other scenarios. For Buruli ulcer, a wide range of alternate explanations for transmission exists, such as human behavior linkages involving activities that increase direct skin contacts with contaminated water and inoculation with infective doses of M. ulcerans through lesions. However, as we have seen, several diseases with insect vector associations have alternative transmission modes, such as tularemia, plague, Rift Valley fever, and trachoma. Thus, it is plausible that there are multiple modes of transmission in Buruli ulcer, with certain modes more likely given specific environmental and socio-cultural contexts.

(7) Experimentation. If experimental manipulations are feasible and can be structured realistically, then outcomes of the treatment regime conferred upon B (such as exposure to the effects of A) must reflect the association in a positive way. Often, however, Bradford Hill guidelines are utilized because experiments are either not possible, or not sufficiently rigorous or realistic. Experimental data on insect-M. ulcerans relationships have been reviewed above. There seems to be a sufficient body of work with sufficient variation in outcomes that the treatment manipulations do not lead to easily generalized conclusions on the association. Furthermore, it is often difficult to find true replication for large-scale experiments (e.g., treating replicate ponds with a specific chemical agent to test of changes in M. ulcerans), making it difficult to rigorously evaluate and experimentally test complex dynamics related to multiple modes of transmission of M. ulcerans within the environment.

(8) Specificity. In this guideline, B follows A, but B does not follow when other plausible explanatory factors and events occur in temporal or spatial association. It is one of the most difficult of the guidelines to satisfy and comes closest to a strict criterion, usually because of incomplete information, multiple causes of B, random effects, and systematic errors of measurement. The review of the literature on cause and effect between insects and Buruli ulcer cases indicates a paucity of data to prove specificity. Furthermore, there are few studies relating disease incidence and insect abundance in time and space especially in Africa, and none of the alternate explanations for transmission reviewed above, such as through aerosols (9), have been discounted. The current available data points to a multiple transmission model for Buruli ulcer, indicating that the Buruli ulcer disease system lacks specificity with regard to vector insects, with the possible exception of southeastern Australia. Therefore, more complete and rigorous qualitative assessments of data are critical to provide evidence for consistency and specificity with regard to the role of vectors and reservoirs in transmission of M. ulcerans.

(9) Coherence. The association of B with A must cohere to knowledge of similar relationships in other similar associations. For M. ulcerans, insect transmission is quite unusual, as the remainder of the M. marinum group does not depend upon invertebrate vectors for transmission and infection in fish hosts. Furthermore, there is no scientific precedent for transmission of any disease agent from the direct bites of hemipteran bugs, nor is there precedent for biological transmission of any bacterial pathogen by mosquitoes known. Thus, coherence is overall not strong. However, although closely related to M. marinum, M. ulcerans is a distinct species with a genomic signature indicating it has diverged from its free-living ancestor and now occupies a specialized niche environment. Either a vertebrate gastrointestinal tract (e.g. possums) or insects may provide this unknown microenvironment.

In summary, neither the application of Barnett's strict criteria nor the Bradford Hill guidelines support conclusively that bites by M. ulcerans-infected insects' result in human infection with M. ulcerans. However, further research will reveal if any associations might result in higher risk of infection under certain circumstances. Infection with anthrax bacteria, Bacillus anthracis, provides a useful comparison, not as a directly transferable model, but rather as a model for conceptualization of how insects, like mosquitoes, may have ancillary roles in bacterial transmission when other transmission modes also exist [141]. In that system, infection occurs in animals endemically and sporadically. When they are stressed (as in a drought), they become susceptible to low dosages of bacterial spores in soil. As animals die, colonization of necrophilic flies during decomposition results in infection locally and increased bacterial sporulation and more animal cases occur as a result (the so-called “case multipliers” effect of insects). As more animals become infected, an insect-mediated dispersal of bacteria occurs by biting flies such as deer flies and horse flies, whose mouthparts can become contaminated with bacteria during blood feeding (the so-called “space multiplier” effect of insects). The role of flies in both modes furthers epizootics of anthrax. Although these two processes are unlikely to occur for Buruli ulcer, which appears to be mainly an endemic disease, the scenario for anthrax establishes a model by which insects might be envisioned to have ancillary roles in transmission for M. ulcerans as well.

Conclusions

As stated in the beginning of this review, Buruli ulcer disease has been referred to as the “mysterious disease” because the exact mode(s) of transmission, in the strictest sense, remain unclear, although several hypotheses have been proposed. We have reviewed the hypotheses and reported on studies that provide good evidence of probable reservoirs for the disease, particularly in Australia. An intellectual framework for establishing criteria for transmission followed this. Finally, we recommend that the following research studies be conducted to help better understand transmission of M. ulcerans in nature: 1) in depth studies of human behavior patterns in African endemic villages to better understand exposure to the pathogen in the environment; 2) a search for mammalian and/or other animal reservoirs and potential arthropod vectors in Africa; 3) understanding the relationship between mosquitoes, humans and infected possums who frequently share the same habitats in Australia; 4) laboratory competency studies with Australian mosquitoes using local strains of MU to determine whether transmission could occur vertically (larvae to adult) or horizontally (adult feeds on possum and then on humans); 5) further field and laboratory experiments on vector transmission and vector competence to confirm current hypotheses and experimental evidence on arthropod transmission; and 6) the development of new and innovative studies aimed at satisfying Hill's Criteria to provide strong and logically defendable evidence about the true mode, or modes, of Buruli ulcer transmission in nature.

Supporting Information

Checklist S1

PRISMA checklist.

(0.07 MB DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. K. Asiedu of the World Health Organization for his continued encouragement and support of our research on Buruli Ulcer. We also would like to thank E. Campbell for assistance with final copy editing.

References

  1. F PortaelsS ManuelW Meyers2009Buruli ulcer.Clinics in dermatology2729130519362692
  2. TS van der WerfY StienstraC JohnsonR PhillipsO Adjei2005Mycobacterium ulcerans disease.Bulletin of the World Health Organization8378579116283056
  3. D WalshF PortaelsW Meyers2008Buruli ulcer (Mycobacterium ulcerans infection).Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene10296997818657836
  4. AA DukerF PortaelsM Hale2006Pathways of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection: A review.Environment International3256757316492390
  5. M Wansbrough-JonesR Phillips2006Buruli ulcer: emerging from obscurity.Lancet3671849185816753488
  6. PG JanssensSR PattynWM MeyersF Portaels2005Buruli ulcer: an historical overview with updating to 2005.Bulletin des séances Académie royale des Sciences d'outre-mer, Brussels51165199
  7. PDR JohnsonTP StinearPLC SmallG PluschkeRW Merritt2005Buruli ulcer (M. ulcerans Infection): new insights, new hope for disease control.PLoS Med24e10815839744
  8. Uganda Buruli Group1971Epidemiology of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection (Buruli ulcer) at Kinyara, Uganda, 1971.Trans R Soc Trop Med & Hyg657637755157438
  9. J Hayman1991Postulated epidemiology of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.Int J Epidemiol20109310981800409
  10. AJ Radford1975Mycobacterium ulcerans in Australia.Aust NZ J Med5162169
  11. Horsburgh CR JrWM Meyers1997Buruli Ulcer.CR Horsburgh JrAM NelsonPathology of Emerging InfectionsWashington, D.C.American Society for Microbiology119126
  12. GE SopohRC JohnsonA ChautyAD DossouJ Aguiar2007Buruli ulcer surveillance, Benin, 2003-2005.Emerg Infect Dis131374137618252113
  13. M DebackerJ AguiarC SteunouC ZinsouWM Meyers2004Mycobacterium ulcerans disease: role of age and gender in incidence and morbidity.Trop Med Int Health91297130415598261
  14. GK AmofahF BonsuC TettehJ OkrahK Asamoa2002Buruli ulcer in Ghana: results of a national case search.Emerging Infectious Diseases816717011897068
  15. WM Meyers1995Mycobacterial infections of the skin.W DoerrG SeifertTropical pathologyHeidelbergSpringer-Verlag291377
  16. WM MeyersWM TignokpaGB PriuliF Portaels1996Mycobacterium ulcerans infection (Buruli ulcer): first reported patients in Togo.British Journal of Dermatology134111611218763437
  17. K AsieduS Etuaful1998Socioeconmoic implications of Buruli ulcer in Ghana: a three-year review.Trans R Soc Trop Med & Hyg5910151022
  18. F PortaelsK ChemlalP ElsenPDR JohnsonJA Hayman2001Mycobacterium ulcerans in wild animals.Rev sci tech Off int Epiz20252264
  19. HS ThangarajMRW EvansMH Wansbrough-Jones1999Mycobacterium ulcerans; Buruli ulcer.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene9333734010674068
  20. WHO2000Buruli ulcer - diagnosis of Mycobacterium ulcerans disease.GenevaWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland92
  21. T StinearPDR Johnson2007From marinum to ulcerans: a mycobacterial human pathogen emerges.Microbe2187194
  22. F PortaelsWM Meyers2006Buruli ulcer: Imported skin diseases.W FaberRJ HayB NaafsThe NetherlandsElsevier
  23. J NoeskeC KuabanS RondiniP SorlinL Ciaffi2004Buruli ulcer disease in Cameroon rediscovered.Am J Trop Med Hyg7052052615155984
  24. IC HospersIC WiersmaPU DijkstraY StienstraS Etuaful2005Distribution of Buruli ulcer lesions over body surface area in a large case series in Ghana: uncovering clues for mode of transmission.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene9919620115653121
  25. H AigaT AmanoS CairncrossJA DomakoOK Nanas2004Assessing water-related risk factors for Buruli ulcer: A case-control study in Ghana.Am J Trop Med Hyg7138739215516631
  26. DM PhanzuEA BafendeBK DundaDB ImposoAK Kibadi2006Mycobacterium ulcerans disease (Buruli Ulcer) in a rural hospital in Bas-Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2002-2004.American J Tropical Medicine and Hygiene75311314
  27. BJ MarstonMO DialloCR Horsburgh JrI DiomandeMZ Saki1995Emergence of Buruli ulcer disease in the Daloa region of Cote D'ivoire.Am J Trop Med Hyg522192247694962
  28. WHO2008Buruli ulcer: progress report, 2004–2008.WHOWeekly epidemiological record83Geneva, SwitzerlandWorld Health Organization14515618437758
  29. M DebackerF PortaelsJ AguiarC SteunouC Zinsou2006Risk factors for Buruli ulcer, Benin.Emerg Infect Dis121325133117073079
  30. RW MerrittME BenbowPLC Small2005Unraveling an Emerging Disease Associated with Disturbed Aquatic Environments: The Case of Buruli Ulcer.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment3323331
  31. HF LunnDH ConnorNE WilksGR BarnleyF Kamunvi1965Buruli (Mycobacterial) ulceration in Uganda.East African Medical Journal4227528814341980
  32. WDL RevillDJP Barker1972Seasonal distribution of mycobacterial skin ulcers.Brit J prev soc Med2623275016132
  33. DJP BarkerJW Carswell1973Mycobacterium ulcerans infection among Tsetse control workers in Uganda.International Journal of Epidemiology21611654777772
  34. F Portaels1995Epidemiology of mycobacterial diseases.Clin Dermatol132072228521363
  35. PDR JohnsonJ AzuolasCJ LavenderE WishartTP Stinear2007Mycobacterium ulcerans in mosquitoes captured during outbreak of Buruli ulcer, Southeastern Australia.Emerg Infect Dis131653166018217547
  36. T WagnerME BenbowM BurnsRC JohnsonR Merritt2008A Landscape-based Model for Predicting Mycobacterium ulcerans Infection (Buruli Ulcer Disease) Presence in Benin, West Africa.EcoHealth5697918648799
  37. PDR JohnsonTP StinearJA Hayman1999Mycobacterium ulcerans — a mini-review.J Med Microbiol4851151310359298
  38. H GuerraJC PalominoE FalconiF BravoN Donaires2008Mycobacterium ulcerans Disease, Peru.Emerging Infectious Diseases1437337718325248
  39. M SemretG KoromihisJD MacLeanM LibmanBJ Ward1999Mycobacterium ulcerans infection (Buruli Ulcer): First reported case in a traveler.American J Tropical Medicine and Hygiene61689693
  40. ER FarberA Tsang1967Mycobacterial (“Buruli”) ulcer in a Peace Corps worker.Arch Surg9529730016097304
  41. MR EvansJ MawdsleyR BullDN LockwoodH Thangaraj2003Buruli ulcer in a visitor to London.British Journal Dermatology149907909
  42. K EzzedineT PistoneJ CottinL MarsollierV Guir2009Buruli Ulcer in long-term traveler to Senegal.Emerging Infectious Diseases1511811919116070
  43. WHO2000Buruli ulcer. Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.Geneva, SwitzerlandWHO118
  44. D Yeboah-ManuT BodmerE Mensah-QuainooS OwusuD Ofori-Adjei2004Evaluation of decontamination methods and growth media for primary isolation of Mycobacterium ulcerans from surgical specimens.J Clin Microbiol425875587615583329
  45. M KäserJ HauserP SmallG Pluschke2009Large sequence polymorphisms unveil the phylogenetic relationship of environmental and pathogenic mycobacteria related to Mycobacterium ulcerans.Applied and Environmental Microbiology755667567519592526
  46. A Mve-ObiangRE LeeES UmstotKA TrottTC Grammer2005A newly discovered mycobacterial pathogen isolated from laboratory colonies of Xenopus species with lethal infections produces a novel form of mycolactone, the Mycobacterium ulcerans macrolide toxin.Infection and Immunity733307331215908356
  47. BS RangerEA MahrousL MosiS AdusumilliRE Lee2006Globally distributed mycobacterial fish pathogens produce a novel plasmid-encoded toxic macrolide, mycolactone F.Infect Immun746037604516923788
  48. MW RhodesH KatorA McNabbC DeshayesJM Reyrat2005Mycobacterium pseudoshottsii sp nov., a slowly growing chromogenic species isolated from Chesapeake Bay striped bass (Morone saxatilis).International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology551139114715879246
  49. GM Garrity2001Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology;GM GarrityNew YorkSpringer-Verlag
  50. TP StinearT SeemannS PidotW FriguiG Reysset2007Reductive evolution and niche adaptation inferred from the genome of Mycobacterium ulcerans, the causative agent of Buruli ulcer.Genome Res1719220017210928
  51. C DemangelTP StinearST Cole2009Buruli ulcer: reductive evolution enhances pathogenicity of Mycobacterium ulcerans.Nat Rev Microbiol7506019079352
  52. TP StinearA Mve ObiangPL SmallW FriguiMJ Pryor2004Giant plasmid-encoded polyketide synthases produce the macrolide toxin of Mycobacterium ulcerans.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1011345134914736915
  53. JC PalominoAM ObiangL RealiniWM MeyersF Portaels1998Effect of oxygen on growth of Mycobacterium ulcerans in the BACTEC system.J Clin Microbiol36342034229774612
  54. ML KentV WatralM WuLE Bermudez2006In vivo and in vitro growth of Mycobacterium marinum at homoeothermic temperatures.FEMS Microbiol Lett257697516553834
  55. HF ClarkCC Shepard1963Effect of environmental temperatures on infection with Mycobacterium marinum (Balnei) of mice and a number of poikilothermic species.J Bacteriol861057106914080772
  56. H BoisvertKH Schroder1977Skin ulcer caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans in Cameroon II: Bacteriologic study.Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales70125131579612
  57. F Fenner1956The pathogenic behavior of Mycobacterium ulcerans and Mycobacterium balnei in the mouse and the developing chick embryo.Am Rev Tuberc7365067313313952
  58. H HongE CoutanceauM LeclereL CaleechurnPF Leadlay2008Mycolactone diffuses from Mycobacterium ulcerans-Infected tissues and targets mononuclear cells in peripheral blood and lymphoid organs.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases2
  59. K VandelannooteL DurnezD AmissahS GryseelsA Dodoo2010Application of real-time PCR in Ghana, a Buruli ulcer-endemic country, confirms the presence of Mycobacterium ulcerans in the environment.FEMS Microbial Lett304191194
  60. M EddyaniF Portaels2007Survival of Mycobacterium ulcerans at 37 degrees C.Clin Microbiol Infect1319331035
  61. KM GeorgeD ChatterjeeG GunawardanaD WeltyT Lee1999Mycolactone: a polyketide toxin from Mycobacterium ulcerans required for virulence.Science2838548579933171
  62. G GunawardanaD ChatterjeeKM GeorgeP BrennanD Whittern1999Mycolactone A and B: toxins of Mycobacterium ulcerans.J Amer Chem Soc12160926093
  63. BC RossL MarinoF OppedisanoR EdwardsRM Robins-Browne1997Development of a PCR assay for rapid diagnosis of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.Journal of Clinical Microbiology35169617009196176
  64. L MarsollierT SeverinJ AubryRW MerrittJP Saint Andre2004Aquatic snails, passive hosts of Mycobacterium ulcerans.Appl Environ Microbiol706296629815466578
  65. L MarsollierTP StinearJ AubryJ-P Saint-AndreR Robert2004Aquatic plants stimulate the growth of and biofilm formation by Mycobacterium ulcerans in axenic culture and harbor these bacteria in the environment.Applied and Environmental Microbiology701097110314766593
  66. L MarsollierR RobertJ AubryJS AndreH Kouakou2002Aquatic insects as a vector for Mycobacterium ulcerans.Applied and Environmental Microbiology684623462812200321
  67. HR WilliamsonME BenbowKD NguyenDC BeachboardRK Kimbirauskas2008Distribution of Mycobacterium ulcerans in Buruli Ulcer Endemic and Non-Endemic Aquatic Sites in Ghana.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases2e20518365034
  68. M BenbowH WilliamsonR KimbirauskusM McIntoshR Kolar2008Aquatic invertebrates as unlikely vectors of Buruli ulcer disease.Emerg Infect Dis141247125418680648
  69. M EddyaniD Ofori-AdjeiG TeugelsD De WeirdtD Boakye2004Potential role for fish in transmission of Mycobacterium ulcerans disease (Buruli Ulcer): an environmental study.Appl Environ Microbiol705679568115345458
  70. F PortaelsP ElsenA Guimaraes-PeresP FonteyneWM Meyers1999Insects in the transmission of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.The Lancet353986
  71. F PortaelsWM MeyersA AblordeyAG CastroK Chemlal2008First Cultivation and Characterization of Mycobacterium ulcerans from the Environment.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases2e17818365032
  72. T StinearJK DaviesGA JenkinJA HaymanF Oppedisano2000Identification of Mycobacterium ulcerans in the environment from regions in Southeast Australia in which it is endemic with sequence Capture-PCR.Appl Environ Microbiol663206321310919771
  73. R KotlowskiA MartinA AblordeyK ChemlalP Fonteyne2004One-tube cell lysis and DNA extraction procedure for PCR-based detection of Mycobacterium ulcerans in aquatic insects, molluscs and fish.Journal of Medical Microbiology5392793315314202
  74. JAM FyfeCJ LavenderP JohnsonM GlobanA Sievers2007Development and Application of Two Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Mycobacterium ulcerans in Clinical and Environmental Samples.Appl Environ Microbiol734733474017526786
  75. KA TrottBA StacyBD LiflandHE DiggsRM Harland2004Characterization of a Mycobacterium ulcerans-like infection in a colony of African tropical clawed frogs (Xenopus tropicalis).Comp Med5430931715253278
  76. J FyfeC LandierK HandasydeA LegioneC O'Brien2010A major role for mammals in the ecology of Mycobacterium ulcerans cases.PLoS Negl Trop Dis4E79120706592
  77. PL RaghunathanEAS WhitneyK AsamoaY StienstraTH Taylor Jr2005Risk factors for Buruli Ulcer disease (Mycobacterium ulcerans Infection): results from a case-control study in Ghana.Clinical Infectious Diseases401445145315844067
  78. J HaymanK Asiedu2000Epidemiology.K AsieduR ScherpbierM RaviglioneMycobacterium ulcerans infectionGeneva, SwitzerlandWorld Health Organization914
  79. AA DukerEJM CarranzaM Hale2004Spatial dependency of Buruli ulcer prevalence on arsenic-enriched domains in Amansie West District, Ghana: implications for arsenic mediation in Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.International Journal of Health Geographics31915369592
  80. J Hayman1991Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.The Lancet337124
  81. T WagnerME BenbowT BrendenJ QiRC Johnson2008Buruli ulcer disease prevalence in Benin, West Africa: associations with land use/cover and the identification of disease clusters.International Journal of Health Geographics72518505567
  82. K KibadiM PandaJM TamfumAG FragaAL Filho2008New foci of Buruli ulcer, Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo.Emerging Infectious Diseases141790179218976574
  83. M EddyaniJF De JonckheereL DurnezP SuykerbuykH Leirs2008Occurrence of Free-Living Amoebae in Communities of Low and High Endemicity for Buruli Ulcer in Southern Benin.Applied and Environmental MicrobiologyVol. 7465476553
  84. GK AmofahC Sagoe-MosesC Adjei-AcquahEH Frimpong1993Epidemiology of Buruli ulcer in Amansie West district, Ghana.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene87644645
  85. RC JohnsonM MakoutodeGE SopohP ElsenJ Gbovi2005Buruli ulcer distribution in Benin.Emerg Infect Dis1150050115789490
  86. M DebackerJ AguiarC SteunouC ZinsouWM Meyers2004Mycobacterium ulcerans disease (Buruli ulcer) in rural hospital, Southern Benin, 1997-2001.Emerg Infect Dis101391139815496239
  87. AA DukerA SteinM Hale2006A statistical model for spatial patterns of Buruli ulcer in the Amansie West district, Ghana.International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation8126136
  88. T BrouH BroutinE ElgueroH AsseJF Guegan2008Landscape diversity related to Buruli ulcer disease in Cote d'Ivoire.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 219: e271.doic210.137
  89. K JacobsenJ Padgett2010Risk factors for Mycobacterium ulcerans infection.International Journal of Infectious Diseases
  90. TYJ QuekE AthanMJ HenryJA PascoJ Redden-Hoare2007Risk factors for Mycobacterium ulcerans infection, Southeastern Australia.Emerg Infect Dis131661166618217548
  91. TYJ QuekMJ HenryJA PascoDP O'BrienP Johnson2007Mycobacterium infection: factors influencing diagnostic delay.Med J Aust18756156318021043
  92. WM MeyersWM ShellyDH ConnorEK Meyers1974Human Mycobacterium ulcerans infections developing at sites of trauma to skin.Am J Trop Med Hyg239199234451232
  93. PDR JohnsonJA HaymanTY QuekJAM FyfeGA Jenkin2007Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and control of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection (Bairnsdale or Buruli ulcer) in Victoria, Australia.Medical Journal of Australia186646817223765
  94. E MarionS EyangohE YeramianJ DoannioJ Landier2010Seasonal and regional dynamics of M. ulcerans transmission in environmental context: Deciphering the role of water bugs as hosts and vectors.PLoS Negl Trop Dis4e73120625552
  95. AJ Radford1974Mycobacterium ulcerans: a review, I: Epidemiology.Papua New Guinea Medical Journal17129133
  96. M DebackerC ZinsouJ AguiarW MeyersF Portaels2003First case of Mycobacterium ulcerans disease (Buruli ulcer) following a human bite.Clin Infect Dis36e67e6812594656
  97. L DurnezP SuykerbuykV NicolasP BarriereE Verheyen2010The role of terrestrial small mammals as reservoir of Mycobacterium ulcerans in Benin.Appl Envir Microbiol
  98. L MarsollierP LegrasAL ManceauJP Saint-AndréJ Aubry2002Role des punaises d'eau dans la transmission de M. ulcerans.BULL ALLF or Bulletin de l'ALLF102325
  99. L MarsollierJ AubryJP Saint-AndreR RobertP Legras2003Ecology and transmission of Mycobacterium ulcerans.Pathologie Biologie5149049514568596
  100. L MarsollierJ AubryE CoutanceauJPS AndrePL Small2005Colonization of the salivary glands of Naucoris cimicoides by Mycobacterium ulcerans requires host plasmatocytes and a macrolide toxin, mycolactone.Cellular Microbiology793594315953026
  101. L MosiH WilliamsonJR WallaceRW MerrittPLC Small2008Persistent association of Mycobacterium ulcerans with West African predaceous insects of the family Belostomatidae.Applied and Environmental Microbiology747036704218836026
  102. MT SilvaF PortaelsJ Pedrosa2007Aquatic Insects and Mycobacterium ulcerans: an association relevant to Buruli ulcer control?PLoS Medicine4e6317326706
  103. L MarsollierJ AndreW FriguiG ReyssetG Milon2006Early trafficking events of Mycobacterium ulcerans within Naucoris cimicoides.Cellular Microbiology
  104. L MarsollierP BrodinM JacksonJ KordulakovaP Tafelmeyer2007Impact of Mycobacterium ulcerans biofilm on transmissibility to ecological niches and Buruli ulcer pathogenesis.PLoS Pathogens3e6217480118
  105. AC Cohen2000Chapt. 20. How carnivorous bugs feed.CW SchaeferAR PanizziBoca Raton, FLCRC Press563570In: Heteroptera of economic importance
  106. RW Sites2000Chapt. 21. Creeping water bugs (Naucoridae).CW SchaeferAR PanizziBoca Raton, FLCRC Press571576In: Heteroptera of economic importance
  107. H Hungerford1919Aquatic Hemiptera.Lawrence, KansasBulletin of the University of Kansas
  108. P Venkatesan2000Chapt. 22. Giant water bugs (Belostomatidae).CW SchaeferAR PanizziBoca Raton, FLCRC Press577582In: Heteroptera of economic importance
  109. V Haddad JrEF SchwartzCA SchwartzLN Carvalho2010Bites caused by Giant Water Bugs belonging to Belostomatidae family (Hemiptera, Heteroptera) in humans: A report of seven cases.Wilderness & Environmental Med21130133
  110. RL Smith1997Chapt. 6. Evolution of paternal care in the giant water bugs (Heteroptera: Belostomatidae).JC ChoeBJ CrespiUKCambridge Univ Press116149In: The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids
  111. C Schaefer2000Adventitious Biters- “Nuisance” Bugs;CW SchaeferAR PanizziLondonCRC Press
  112. BF EldridgeJD Edman2004Medical entomology: A textbook on public health and veterinary problems caused by arthropods: Springer-Verlag, New York.
  113. G FrancisM WhitbyM Woods2006Mycobacterium ulcerans infection: a rediscovered focus in the Capricorn Coast region of central Queensland.Medical Journal of Australia18517918016893367
  114. E JacksonA StewartEJ MaguireRE Norton2007Mycobacterial soft tissue infections in North Queensland.ANZ J Surg7736817497978
  115. G JenkinM SmithM FairlyP Johnson2002Acute, oedematous Mycobacterium ulcerans infection in a farmer from far north Queensland.Med J Aust17618011915879
  116. MGK VeitchPDR JohnsonPE FloodD LeslieAC Street1997A large localized outbreak of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection on a temperate southern Australian island.Epidemiol Infect1193133189440434
  117. P FloodA StreetP O'BrienJ Hayman1994Mycobacterium ulcerans infection on Phillip Island, Victoria.Med J Aust1601608295586
  118. P JohnsonM VeitchP FloodJ Hayman1995Mycobacterium ulcerans infection on Phillip Island, Victoria.Med J Aust162221
  119. PDR JohnsonMGK VeitchD LesliePE FloodJA Hayman1996The emergence of Mycobacterium ulcerans infection near Melbourne.Medical Journal of Australia16476788569576
  120. B RossP JohnsonF OppedisanoL MarinoA Sievers1997Detection of Mycobacterium ulcerans in environmental samples during an outbreak of ulcerative disease.Appl Environ Microbiol63413541389327583
  121. CJ LavenderTP StinearPDR JohnsonJ AzuolasME Benbow2008Evaluation of VNTR typing for the identification of Mycobacterium ulcerans in environmental samples from Victoria, Australia.FEMS Microbiology Letters28725025518754785
  122. PDR JohnsonCJ Lavender2009Correlation between Buruli ulcer and vector-borne notifiable diseases, Victoria, Australia.Emerging Infectious Diseases1561461519331750
  123. N TobiasT SeemannS PidotJ PorterL Marsollier2009Mycolactone gene expression is controlled by strong SigA-like promoters with utility in studies of Mycobacterium ulcerans and buruli ulcer.PLoS Negl Trop Dis3e55319936295
  124. J WallaceM GordonL HartsellL MosiM Benbow2010Interaction of Mycobacterium ulcerans with mosquito species: Implications for transmission and trophic relationships.Applied Environ Microbiol7662156222
  125. RW MerrittDA CraigED WalkerHA VanderploegRS Wotton1992Interfacial feeding behavior and particle flow patterns of Anopheles quadrimaculatus larvae (Diptera: Culicidae).Journal of Insect Behavior5741761
  126. RW MerrittRH DaddED Walker1992Feeding behavior, natural food, and nutritional relationships of larval mosquitoes.Annu Rev Entomol373493761347208
  127. HC Barnett1960The incrimination of arthropods as vectors of disease.H StrouhalM BeierProceedings of the 11th International Congress of Entomology1962341345
  128. KL GageDT DennisKA OrloskiP EttestadTL Brown2000Cases of cat-associated human plague in Western US, 1977-1998.Clin Infect Dis3089390010852811
  129. H EliassonE Back2007Tularaemia in an emergent area in Sweden: an analysis of 234 cases in five years.Scand J Infect Dis3988088917886125
  130. K SvenssonE BackH EliassonL BerglundM Granberg2009Landscape Edipemiology of Tularemia Outbreaks in Sweden.Emerging Infectious Diseases151937194719961673
  131. AD LeBeaudY OchiaiCJ PetersME MCH King2007Spectrum of Rift Valley fever virus transmission in Kenya: insights from three distinct regions.Amer J Trop Med Hyg7679580017488893
  132. K MillerYEP NM MeleseW AlemayehuM Bird2004Pesky trachoma suspect finally caught.British J Opthalmology88750751
  133. AW SolomonM ZondervanH KuperJC BuchanDCW Mabey2006Trachoma control: A guide for programme managers.Geneva, SwitzerlandWorld Health Organization
  134. M HagiJF SchemannF MaunyG MomoD Sacko2010Active trachoma among children in Mali: Clusterin and environmental risk factors.PLos Negl Trop Dis41e58320087414
  135. PM EmersonSW LindsayGE WalravenH FaalC Bogh1999Effect of fly control on trachoma and diarrhea.Lancet3531401140310227221
  136. AB Hill1965The environment and disease association or causation?Proc Roy Soc Med5829530014283879
  137. RK PlowrightSH SokolowME GormanP DaszakJE Foley2008Causal inference in disease ecology: investigating ecological drivers of disease ecology: investigating ecological drivers of disease emergence.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment6420429
  138. J HowickP GlasziouJK Aronson2009The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's guidelines for causation' contribute?J Roy Soc Med10218619419417051
  139. CV PhillipsKJ Goodman2004The missed lessons of Sir Austin Bradford Hill.Epidemiologic Perspectives and Innovations1315507128
  140. W KnealeM Kneale1984The development of logic.Oxford, UKOxford Univ. Press
  141. M Hugh-JonesJ Blackburn2009The ecology of Bacillus anthracis.Molecular Aspects of Medicine30
The underlying source XML for this text is taken from https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC3001905/fullTextXML. The license for the article is CC0. The main subject has been identified as infectious disease.