ライフサイエンスコーパス: intracellulare

1 bes), and 3 (7%) were M. avium; none were M. intracellulare.

2 cum and M. phocaicum, and M. chimaera and M. intracellulare.

3 confidence interval = 1.25 to 22.73) than M. intracellulare.

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

5 stigate the public health significance of M. intracellulare.

6 ly, 130 divergent ORFs were identified in M. intracellulare.

7 avium could invade more efficiently than M. intracellulare.

8 so observed in patients infected by M. avium-intracellulare.

9 isolates from HIV-negative patients were M. intracellulare.

10 pecies Micobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare.

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

12 echanism of host defense against M. avium-M. intracellulare.

13 nical relapse/reinfection than those with M. intracellulare.

14 ins genetically diverse from M. avium and M. intracellulare.

15 induce killing of intracellular M. avium-M. intracellulare.

16 es, including M. smegmatis, M. avium, and M. intracellulare.

17 .82 degrees C (57.05 to 58.60 degrees C); M. intracellulare, 54.46 degrees C (53.69 to 55.23 degrees

18 wever, concentrations of Legionella spp., M. intracellulare, Acanthamoeba spp., and M. avium peaked d

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

20 Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare, an intracellular parasite of mononuclear

21 ing, 49 (90.7%) respiratory isolates were M. intracellulare and 4 (7.4%) were Mycobacterium chimaera.

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

23 tinguish closely related species (such as M. intracellulare and M. chimaera).

24 Furthermore, transformants of Mycobacterium intracellulare and Mycobacterium bovis BCG carrying the

25 a single isolate each of both Mycobacterium intracellulare and Mycobacterium smegmatis.

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

27 cobacterium avium complex (MAC; M. avium, M. intracellulare, and "nonspecific or X" MAC) are emerging

28 s, 61% were M. avium, 37% were Mycobacterium intracellulare, and 2% were species nonspecific MAC.

29 ded patients, 54% were M. avium, 18% were M. intracellulare, and 28% were M. chimaera.

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

31 utation and included M. avium, Mycobacterium intracellulare, and Mycobacterium chimaera.

32 % confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.44) or M. intracellulare (AOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.62-5.99) were more

33 Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare are closely related organisms and compris

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

35 Although M. avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare can be identified with expensive, commerc

36 virus type 1-infected patients, M. avium-M. intracellulare can infect almost every tissue and organ.

37 tractive hybridization using M. avium and M. intracellulare chromosomal DNAs.

38 e identified as belonging to the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex (but not M. paratuberculosis), an

39 he rapid diagnosis of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex (MAC) bacteremia in patients with

40 Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare complex (MAC) is one of the most common o

41 Mycobacterium simiae and Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare complex but which possesses a distinct my

42 te that the currently identified M. avium-M. intracellulare complex includes strains genetically dive

43 rate the diagnosis of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex infections, an immunomagnetic PCR

44 nderstand the role of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex isolates in human disease.

45 The 159 Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex isolates were further identified

46 al differentiation of Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex strains into M. avium and M. intr

47 26 M. tuberculosis complex, 9 M. avium, 3 M. intracellulare complex, 3 M. kansasii, 4 M. gordonae, an

48 t samples were LiPA positive for M. avium-M. intracellulare complex, and all were identified as M. in

49 ntiates M. tuberculosis complex, M. avium-M. intracellulare complex, and the following mycobacterial

50 ium tuberculosis complex and the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex, as well as rapid- and slow-growi

51 oupled to magnetic beads with an M. avium-M. intracellulare complex-specific PCR protocol based on 16

52 fied as mycobacteria outside the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex.

53 specimens containing Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare complex.

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

55 ulosis than in patients with active M. avium-intracellulare disease or other nontuberculous pulmonary

56 fingerprinting of respiratory isolates of M. intracellulare from patients with underlying bronchiecta

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

58 determine if this is true for Mycobacterium intracellulare, household water sources for 36 patients

59 h of 10 clinical isolates of M. avium and M. intracellulare identified by conventional methods were a

60 , M triplex in 1 patient (5.3%), and M avium intracellulare in 1 patient (5.3%).

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

62 gral adenylyl cyclase Cya from Mycobacterium intracellulare in a nucleotide-bound state.

63 cellulare was observed only when M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected cells were treated with 10 mM H2

64 h of intracellular mycobacteria, M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected human monocytes were treated wit

65 H2O2-induced apoptotic death of M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected monocytes and its association wi

66 nt study, a long-term culture of M. avium-M. intracellulare-infected monocytes was used to further ev

67 tracellulare isolates, VNTR distinguished M. intracellulare into 42 clonal groups.

68 ts suggest that, among non-AIDS patients, M. intracellulare is more pathogenic and tends to infect wo

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

70 ed to characterize 32 Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare isolates, 4 Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolat

71 Starting with a collection of 167 M. intracellulare isolates, VNTR distinguished M. intracell

72 and patients, as well as eight Mycobacterium intracellulare isolates.

73 apy, seven of 13 patients with Mycobacterium intracellulare lung disease had an initial microbiologic

74 These results indicate that M. intracellulare lung disease in the United States is acqu

75 line shows potential for the treatment of M. intracellulare lung disease, but optimization of treatme

76 ollowing mycobacterial species: M. avium, M. intracellulare, M. kansasii, M. chelonae group, M. gordo

77 tuberculosis H37Rv (TBkatG) or Mycobacterium intracellulare (MACkatG) genes into M. tuberculosis H37R

78 Isolates of Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare (MAI) form multiple colony types named re

79 cin (CLARI) regimens for Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare (MAI) lung disease were evaluated.

80 Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare (MAI) pulmonary disease causes substantia

81 inhibitory effect on Mycobacterium avium-M. intracellulare (MAI) when blood collected and processed

82 llulare complex strains into M. avium and M. intracellulare may provide a tool to better understand t

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

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

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

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

87 In our system, M. avium-M. intracellulare parasitized the human monocytes and appea

88 gative with species-specific M. avium and M. intracellulare probes), and 3 (7%) were M. avium; none w

89 umophila, Mycobacterium avium, Mycobacterium intracellulare, Pseudmonas aeruginosa, or Acanthamoeba s

90 ynthesized: MAV and MIN, for M. avium and M. intracellulare, respectively, and MYCOB, for the slowly

91 oas abscess secondary to Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare, septic wrist, bacteremia, and septic tot

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

93 de probes that specifically detect either M. intracellulare, the two M. avium subspecies associated w

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

95 n of pretreatment and relapse isolates of M. intracellulare uncovered mutations in a previously uncha

96 induced apoptosis did not affect M. avium-M. intracellulare viability.

97 M. intracellulare was identified by nonsequencing methods i

98 M. intracellulare was more prevalent in women (1.33% of 3,3

99 duction in CFU) of intracellular M. avium-M. intracellulare was observed only when M. avium-M. intrac

100 One isolate of M. intracellulare was subsequently found to have been misla

101 Mycobacterium intracellulare was the most frequently recovered genotyp

102 nce of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare were analyzed in a cohort of 7,472 patien

103 We observed that M. avium and M. intracellulare were both tolerant to the acidic conditio

104 Genotypes of M. intracellulare were confirmed by internal transcribed sp

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

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

107 at were present in M. avium but absent in M. intracellulare were identified, including some that may

108 cterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare, were compared before and after vaccinati