4.6 Article

Genomic variability of Helicobacter pylori isolates of gastric regions from two Colombian populations

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 800-809

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i5.800

Keywords

Helicobacter pylori; Pathogenicity islet cag; CagA; VacA; Multiple colonization; PCR-RAPD

Funding

  1. Registro Poblacional de Cancer de Cali Research group (RPCC), Universidad del Valle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To compare the genomic variability and the multiple colonization of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) in patients with chronic gastritis from two Colombian populations with contrast in the risk of developing gastric cancer (GC): Tuquerres-Narino (High risk) and Tumaco-Narino (Low risk). METHODS Four hundred and nine patients from both genders with dyspeptic symptoms were studied. Seventy-two patients were included in whom H. pylori was isolated from three anatomic regions of the gastric mucosa, (31/206) of the high risk population of GC (Tuquerres) and (41/203) of the low risk population of GC (Tumaco). The isolates were genotyped by PCR-RAPD. Genetic diversity between the isolates was evaluated by conglomerates analysis and multiple correspondence analyses. RESULTS The proportion of virulent genotypes of H. pylori was 99% in Tuquerres and 94% in Tumaco. The coefficient of similarity of Nei-Li showed greater genetic diversity among isolates of Tuquerres (0.13) than those of Tumaco (0.07). After adjusting by age, gender and type of gastritis, the multiple colonization was 1.7 times more frequent in Tuquerres than in Tumaco (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION In Tuquerres, high risk of GC there was a greater probability of multiple colonization by H. pylori. From the analysis of the results of the PCR-RAPD, it was found higher genetic variability in the isolates of H. pylori in the population of high risk for the development of GC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available