ライフサイエンスコーパス: M. intracellulare

1 enicum and M. phocaicum, and M. chimaera and M. intracellulare.

2 5% confidence interval = 1.25 to 22.73) than M. intracellulare.

3 Most patients (77%) had M. intracellulare.

4 nvestigate the public health significance of M. intracellulare.

5 larly, 130 divergent ORFs were identified in M. intracellulare.

6 clinical relapse/reinfection than those with M. intracellulare.

7 M. avium could invade more efficiently than M. intracellulare.

8 the isolates from HIV-negative patients were M. intracellulare.

9 es within the 16S rRNA genes of M. avium and M. intracellulare.

10 l mechanism of host defense against M. avium-M. intracellulare.

11 trains genetically diverse from M. avium and M. intracellulare.

12 sis induce killing of intracellular M. avium-M. intracellulare.

13 ecies, including M. smegmatis, M. avium, and M. intracellulare.

14 probes), and 3 (7%) were M. avium; none were M. intracellulare.

15 57.82 degrees C (57.05 to 58.60 degrees C); M. intracellulare, 54.46 degrees C (53.69 to 55.23 degre

16 However, concentrations of Legionella spp., M. intracellulare, Acanthamoeba spp., and M. avium peake

17 A marked age trend for the isolation of M. intracellulare among women was noted: 0.27% (1-fold)

18 Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare, an intracellular parasite of mononucl

19 encing, 49 (90.7%) respiratory isolates were M. intracellulare and 4 (7.4%) were Mycobacterium chimae

20 nts has not been epidemiologically linked to M. intracellulare and appears to be unique to M. avium.

21 distinguish closely related species (such as M. intracellulare and M. chimaera).

22 er evaluate the interaction between M. avium-M. intracellulare and primary human monocytes.

23 Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC; M. avium, M. intracellulare, and "nonspecific or X" MAC) are emerg

24 cluded patients, 54% were M. avium, 18% were M. intracellulare, and 28% were M. chimaera.

25 robe Culture Confirmation kits for M. avium, M. intracellulare, and MAC species; Gen-Probe).

26 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.44) or M. intracellulare (AOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.62-5.99) were mo

27 ellulare complex, and all were identified as M. intracellulare by the PCR-RFLP analysis.

28 ncy virus type 1-infected patients, M. avium-M. intracellulare can infect almost every tissue and org

29 subtractive hybridization using M. avium and M. intracellulare chromosomal DNAs.

30 were identified as belonging to the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex (but not M. paratuberculosis),

31 r the rapid diagnosis of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex (MAC) bacteremia in patients w

32 icate that the currently identified M. avium-M. intracellulare complex includes strains genetically d

33 elerate the diagnosis of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex infections, an immunomagnetic

34 r understand the role of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex isolates in human disease.

35 The 159 Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex isolates were further identifi

36 ional differentiation of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex strains into M. avium and M. i

37 or 26 M. tuberculosis complex, 9 M. avium, 3 M. intracellulare complex, 3 M. kansasii, 4 M. gordonae,

38 ient samples were LiPA positive for M. avium-M. intracellulare complex, and all were identified as M.

39 erentiates M. tuberculosis complex, M. avium-M. intracellulare complex, and the following mycobacteri

40 terium tuberculosis complex and the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex, as well as rapid- and slow-gr

41 y coupled to magnetic beads with an M. avium-M. intracellulare complex-specific PCR protocol based on

42 ntified as mycobacteria outside the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex.

43 in specimens containing Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex.

44 The clinical isolate of M. avium-M. intracellulare did not replicate in freshly explanted

45 or fingerprinting of respiratory isolates of M. intracellulare from patients with underlying bronchie

46 contrast, 41 of the 65 (63.1%) patients with M. intracellulare had probable to definite infection, a

47 each of 10 clinical isolates of M. avium and M. intracellulare identified by conventional methods wer

48 isolated in 62 (0.83%) of 7,472 patients and M. intracellulare in 65 (0.87%).

49 tracellulare was observed only when M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected cells were treated with 10 mM

50 eath of intracellular mycobacteria, M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected human monocytes were treated

51 ed, H2O2-induced apoptotic death of M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected monocytes and its association

52 esent study, a long-term culture of M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected monocytes was used to further

53 intracellulare isolates, VNTR distinguished M. intracellulare into 42 clonal groups.

54 sults suggest that, among non-AIDS patients, M. intracellulare is more pathogenic and tends to infect

55 solates did not contain IS1245 and 7% of the M. intracellulare isolates were found to carry IS1245.

56 used to characterize 32 Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare isolates, 4 Pseudomonas aeruginosa iso

57 Starting with a collection of 167 M. intracellulare isolates, VNTR distinguished M. intrac

58 These results indicate that M. intracellulare lung disease in the United States is a

59 quiline shows potential for the treatment of M. intracellulare lung disease, but optimization of trea

60 e following mycobacterial species: M. avium, M. intracellulare, M. kansasii, M. chelonae group, M. go

61 an inhibitory effect on Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare (MAI) when blood collected and process

62 acellulare complex strains into M. avium and M. intracellulare may provide a tool to better understan

63 lare (n = 57; 35.8%), and mixed M. avium and M. intracellulare (n = 2; 1.3%).

64 by MycoID as being M. avium (n = 98; 61.1%), M. intracellulare (n = 57; 35.8%), and mixed M. avium an

65 Rep-PCR also generated DNA fingerprints from M. intracellulare (n = 8) and MAC(x) (n = 2) strains.

66 ered more frequently from sterile sites than M. intracellulare (odds ratio, 4.6; P = 0.0092).

67 In our system, M. avium-M. intracellulare parasitized the human monocytes and ap

68 negative with species-specific M. avium and M. intracellulare probes), and 3 (7%) were M. avium; non

69 e synthesized: MAV and MIN, for M. avium and M. intracellulare, respectively, and MYCOB, for the slow

70 um strains were mig positive, and all of the M. intracellulare strains were mig negative.

71 otide probes that specifically detect either M. intracellulare, the two M. avium subspecies associate

72 We compared the abilities of M. avium and M. intracellulare to tolerate the acidic conditions of t

73 ison of pretreatment and relapse isolates of M. intracellulare uncovered mutations in a previously un

74 as-induced apoptosis did not affect M. avium-M. intracellulare viability.

75 M. intracellulare was identified by nonsequencing method

76 M. intracellulare was more prevalent in women (1.33% of

77 reduction in CFU) of intracellular M. avium-M. intracellulare was observed only when M. avium-M. int

78 One isolate of M. intracellulare was subsequently found to have been mi

79 We observed that M. avium and M. intracellulare were both tolerant to the acidic condi

80 Genotypes of M. intracellulare were confirmed by internal transcribed

81 However, when strains of M. avium and M. intracellulare were examined for their ability to ent

82 nd a clinical isolate of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare were examined.

83 that were present in M. avium but absent in M. intracellulare were identified, including some that m