This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Turenne, C. Y. Articles by Behr, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Turenne, C. Y. Articles by Behr, M. A.

Next Article 

Clinical Microbiology Reviews, April 2007, p. 205-229, Vol. 20, No. 2
0893-8512/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/CMR.00036-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Mycobacterium avium in the Postgenomic Era

McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Montreal H3G 1A4, Canada,¹ The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler, Department of Microbiology, Tyler, Texas 75708²

The past several years have witnessed an upsurge of genomic data pertaining to the Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC). Despite clear advances, problems with the detection of MAC persist, spanning the tests that can be used, samples required for their validation, and the use of appropriate nomenclature. Additionally, the amount of genomic variability documented to date greatly outstrips the functional understanding of epidemiologically different subsets of the organism. In this review, we discuss how postgenomic insights into the MAC have helped to clarify the relationships between MAC organisms, highlighting the distinction between environmental and pathogenic subsets of M. avium. We discuss the availability of various genetic targets for accurate classification of organisms and how these results provide a framework for future studies of MAC variability. The results of postgenomic M. avium study provide optimism that a functional understanding of these organisms will soon emerge, with genomically defined subsets that are epidemiologically distinct and possess different survival mechanisms for their various niches. Although the status quo has largely been to study different M. avium subsets in isolation, it is expected that attention to the similarities and differences between M. avium organisms will provide greater insight into their fundamental differences, including their propensity to cause disease.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Esparcia, O., Navarro, F., Quer, M., Coll, P. (2008). Lymphadenopathy Caused by Mycobacterium colombiense. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1885-1887 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rodrigues, L., Wagner, D., Viveiros, M., Sampaio, D., Couto, I., Vavra, M., Kern, W. V., Amaral, L. (2008). Thioridazine and chlorpromazine inhibition of ethidium bromide efflux in Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium smegmatis. J Antimicrob Chemother 61: 1076-1082 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Turenne, C. Y., Collins, D. M., Alexander, D. C., Behr, M. A. (2008). Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis and M. avium subsp. avium Are Independently Evolved Pathogenic Clones of a Much Broader Group of M. avium Organisms. J. Bacteriol. 190: 2479-2487 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Geier, H., Mostowy, S., Cangelosi, G. A., Behr, M. A., Ford, T. E. (2008). Autoinducer-2 Triggers the Oxidative Stress Response in Mycobacterium avium, Leading to Biofilm Formation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74: 1798-1804 [Abstract] [Full Text]