¹ CBRN Medicine Branch, Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Tel-Hashomer;

² Microbiology Laboratory, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center Tel-Áviv, Israel

Corresponding Author: Jacob Gilad, Microbiology Laboratory, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizman St., Tel-Aviv 64239, Israel. Tel: 972-5781-25093; E-mail: giladko@014.net.il.

Running title: Burkholderia Mallei and Burkholderia Pseudomallei

	ABSTRACT
	INTRODUCTION
	OVERVIEW OF MELIOIDOSIS AND GLANDERS
	CLINICAL LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS
	ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING
	CONCLUSIONS
	REFERENCES

	ABSTRACT

Burkholderia mallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei are the causative organisms of Glanders and Melioidosis, respectively. Although now rare in Western countries, both organisms have recently gained much interest because of their unique potential as bioterrorism agents. These organisms are less familiar to medical and laboratory personnel than other select bioterrorism bacterial agents and thus heightened awareness of Glanders and Melioidosis is crucial in order to enable adequate emergency preparedness and response to deliberate release of B. mallei and B. pseudomallei. The microbiological diagnosis of both species in the clinical laboratory is complicated. This paper reviews the various challenges and pitfalls associated with the diagnosis of Melioidosis and Glanders in the clinical setting, with emphasis on the role of sentinel laboratories.

	INTRODUCTION

   Burkholderia mallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei are the causative organisms of Glanders and Melioidosis, respectively. Although now rare in Western countries, both organisms have recently gained much interest because of their unique potential as bioterrorism agents (1). Despite being unique organisms, B. mallei and B. pseudomallei share many similarities and should be considered together in the context of a deliberate release event.

   B.mallei and B. pseudomallei are less familiar to medical and laboratory personnel than other select bioterrorism bacterial agents such as Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis and Francisella tularensis and thus heightened awareness of Glanders and Melioidosis is crucial in order to enable adequate emergency preparedness and response to deliberate release of B. mallei or B. pseudomallei. Recognition of the principles of microbiological diagnosis of Glanders and Melioidosis is of utmost importance, in settings with little or no experience with these infectious diseases. This review will focus on the clinical features and diagnostic challenges and pitfalls with these agents in the clinical microbiology laboratory.

	OVERVIEW OF MELIOIDOSIS AND GLANDERS

   Melioidosis

   Most cases of melioidosis currently occur in endemic regions in Southeastern Asia and Oceania, especially Northern Australia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Burma, while cases in Western countries mainly involve reactivation or recent travel to endemic areas (2). In Australia, melioidosis is particularly common in the Northern Territory and to a lesser extent in Western Australia and Queensland (3). In Thailand, melioidosis is also endemic in the northern part of the country (4).

   Melioidosis affects both humans and animals. The main reservoir for B. pseudomallei is the contaminated environment, especially soil and water (5, 6). Various animals may contract melioidosis and serve as a reservoir for continued epizootic infection (2). Human-to-human and animal-to-human transmission is considered extremely rare. B. pseudomallei has a saprophytic nature and are capable of surviving in a relatively hostile environment, but also demonstrate significant surviving capabilities during its interaction with the host immune system (7).

   Humans (and animals) acquire melioidosis through percutaneous inoculation, inhalation or ingestion, and more rarely sexual transmission. The percutaneous route is thought to be the predominant portal of entry, even for patients with pneumonic melioidosis, but pulmonary infection may occur directly via inhalation (8) and has also been reported in the context of near-drowining following the Tsunami in Thailand (9). Host risk factors play a major role in the acquisition of melioidosis and nearly two-thirds of patients with naturally-occurring melioidosis had recognized risk factors, mainly being diabetes mellitus, chronic renal or lung disease and alcohol abuse (10, 11). Nevertheless, the natural history of exposure to B. pseudomallei in a deliberate release scenario is not well understood.

   The clinical manifestations of melioidosis are protean and primary infection and suppurative complications may involve virtually every body organ. A substantial percentage of melioidosis cases have bacteremia (40-60%) with septic shock present in one-fifth, and appreciable mortality (up to 60%) (10, 12, 13). Pneumonia is by far the most common syndrome associated with B. pseudomallei infection and in endemic areas, melioidosis may be the most common cause of community-acquired pneumonia (14). Pneumonia in melioidosis may be similar to acute pneumonia but may also manifest as subacute or chronic disease resembling tuberculosis (8). Pulmonary reactivation may occur uncommonly, up to 30 years from initial infection (15).

   Apart from pulmonary infection, melioidosis may affect every organ system, resulting in genitourinary infection (including prostatic infection) (10), suppurative parotitis (16), various forms of central nervous system infection (10), osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, intra-abdominal abscess formation mainly involving the spleen, liver or adrenals, nectrotizing skin infection, mycotic aneurysms or pericarditis and corneal abscesses (8).

   The outcome of melioidosis is related to host risk factors, adequate therapy and disease severity; mortality is <10% in isolated bacteremia or localized disease without bacteremia, up to 40% with septicemic disease involving at least one focus (e.g. pneumonia) with bacteremia, and 40-90% when severe sepsis or septic shock occur (17).

   Glanders

   Glanders primarily affects animals and can be transmitted both from animal-to-animal and animal-to-human, while human-to-human transmission is rare, at least in nature. Most human cases during the 20th century were occupational infections among laboratory workers, horse handlers, butchers and veterinarians (8). Glanders has also been implicated in the first modern attempt of biological warfare when used by the Germans against horses in The Great War (18). With quarantine and veterinary control, by 1939, glanders has been eliminated from most parts of Western Europe and North America (19). Enzootic foci continue in South America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

   An occupational B. mallei infection had occurred recently (year 2000) in the United States and involved a microbiology laboratory worker (20). The patient developed fever and lymphadenopathy, followed by diabetic ketoacidosis and intra-abdominal abscess formation and was successfully treated with antibiotics. Interesting points reflected from this case are: (1) Acquisition of B. mallei infection due to inadequate safety precautions while working with the organism; (2) Difficulty in diagnosing clinical B. mallei infection; and (3) Misidentification of the clinical isolate by routine laboratory methods.

   B. mallei shares many genetic elements with B. pseudomallei and both organisms have a similar allelic profile (21). It is not an environmental pathogen and its main reservoir is animals and it primarily causes a disease of equids. The mode of infection in glanders is not at all clear and probably includes inhalation, percutaneous inoculation and ingestion. Purulent discharge from infected animal respiratory tract or skin is highly contagious (8) and is a prime route of natural transmission among horses. The incubation period may range from 1-5 days (in inhalational infection) to many months. Reactivation has been described as in meliodosis.

   There are two types of clinical infection in equids (19). Glanders occurs through inhalation or more commonly ingestion whereas Farcy probably occurs through direct inoculation. In glanders, there is an acute or chronic lung infection spanning the whole upper and lower respiratory tract, and dissemination with multiple abscess formation. Farcy on the other hand, appears as swelling in skin and subcutaneous tissues that ulcerate. The surrounding lymphatic vessels become hard and enlarged as are regional lymph nodes (farcy pipes and farcy buds) (22).

   Human glanders, if acquired by the inhalational route, can produce fever, ulcerative necrosis of the upper and lower respiratory tract with purulent nasal discharge, extensive pneumonia, cervical or mediastinal lymphadenopathy and pustular skin lesions (which may resemble smallpox). Prostration, out of proportion to clinical signs is a classic finding (19). Septicemia follows with involvement of various internal organs, such as in melioidosis. Without treatment, death almost invariably occurs within 10 days. Chronic human glanders is associated with multiple subcutaneous and intramuscular abscesses, lymphadenopathy and lymphangitis and involves half of naturally-occurring infections, and unless a very low inoculum is involved, melioidosis and glanders in the context of deliberate release may thus be indistinguishable from one another (22).

	CLINICAL LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS

   Initial work-up

   The genus Burkholderia contains more than 20 valid species, most of which are environmental bacteria isolated from soil or water. Three main human pathogens recognized in this group are B. mallei, B. pseudomallei and B. cepacia. Uncommonly, infection may occur with rare taxons such as B. fungorum, B. gladioli (previously B. cocovenenans) and B. thailandensis. Burkholderia species are aerobic, non-spore-forming, gram-negative bacilli. All species except B. mallei are motile due to the presence of polar flagella. All grow on MacConkey agar and appear as non-fermenters. (23). Owing to their ability to survive in hostile environments, standard specimen collection and transport principles are sufficient for recovering Burkholderia species in clinical practice. Methods for isolating and identifying Burkholderia may include culture-based, antibody/antigen-based and molecular-based techniques.

   On gram-stain all species may appear similar; however, B. pseudomallei may show a typical bipolar staining and a safety-pin appearance (23) while B. mallei may appear as coccobacilli (24). All organisms grow well on MacConkey, blood and chocolate agars, although B. mallei are somewhat more fastidious and may not grow easily on MacConkey. Moreover, growth in standard blood culture bottles occurs within less than 5 days and therefore extended incubation is not required. With the BacT/Alert system, 90% of B. pseudomallei strains grew within 48 hours (25). It has been shown that bacterial count in blood correlates with outcome in melioidosis (26). B. mallei on the other hand is rarely isolated from blood during the initial presentation (22).

   Improved isolation of B. pseudomallei can be achieved by using the Ashdown agar medium which contains tryptic soy agar with glycerol, crystal violet, neutral red and gentamicin. Ashdown medium may be especially useful for specimens from non-sterile sites such as throat or rectum as well as sputum (27). Newer modified agar media (e.g. with colistin) are now available (28). An enrichment broth containing Ashdown medium can also be used for bedside sample inoculation (29). A recent study evaluating the utility of throat cultures in melioidosis has found a sensitivity of 36% (24% for sputum-negative and 79% for sputum-positive patients) (30) for diagnosing melioidosis. Recovery rate was higher with selective broth than selective agar.

   Newer proposed media for B. pseudomallei isolation include the B. pseudomallei selective agar and B. cepacia medium. The selective agar is thought to promote growth of mucoid B. pseudomallei colonies as compared to the Ashdown medium (31). Neither is routinely used in laboratories outside endemic areas. A comparative study of the three selective media, showed an equal sensitivity for all media, except that at 24 hours, colonies on Ashdown agar were much smaller. Colony counts were maximal with B. cepacia medium. B. pseudomallei selective agar was the least selective of all media. Of note is that B. cepacia medium is also suitable for isolating B. mallei and therefore may be most appropriate for diagnosis in a deliberate release incident.

   Growth of B. pseudomallei in the first two days reveals smooth colonies, sometimes yellow to orange-pigmented with a putrid odor, that after several days form dry wrinkled colonies that resemble Pseudomonas stutzeri. Growing organisms produce a distinctive earthy and musty odor. On Ashdown medium colonies are colored deep pink. If B. pseudomallei are suspected, key phenotypic features include the ability to grow in 42ºC, motility, oxidase activity and nitrate reduction. On the other hand, B. mallei is non-motile, non-flagellated, does not grow in 42ºC and has variable oxidase activity. B. mallei colonies are smooth, grey and translucent, without any distinctive pigment or odor. B. pseudomallei can be differentiated from P. stutzeri by number of flagella (the latter has only one) and arginine dihydrolase activity that is positive only with B. pseudomallei (32).

   Isolates suspected as B. mallei or B. pseudomallei should immediately be referred to a specialized laboratory and not further investigated at the level of the sentinel laboratory. However, if not initially suspected, the possibility for B. mallei or B. pseudomallei should be raised if several practical key criteria are met during the routine identification process of gram-negative clinical isolates (Table 1). At such instance, isolates should be immediately referred after proper arrangements are made to a reference laboratory.

   Organism identification

   Identification of B. mallei and B. pseudomallei using commercial systems has been reported, including the API 20NE (bioMerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), Microbact 24E (Oxoid, Hampshire, United Kingdom), VITEK-1 or VITEK-2 (bioMerieux) and MicroScan WalkAway (Dade Behring, Sacramento, CA). Good results for B. pseudomallei identification were reported in two studies with the API20NE system (33, 34) but misidentification of almost 10% of B. pseudomallei isolates was reported in another (B. pseudomallei was mostly misidentified as Chromobacterium violaceum)(35). The API20NE system, however, is not designed to identify B. mallei. A more recent evaluation of API20NE as well as RapID NF Plus (Remel Inc, Lenexa, KS) has been carried out with different sets of human, animal and environmental B. pseudomallei and B. mallei isolates (27). B. pseudomallei was correctly identified in only 60% by API20NE and in the remaining cases was mainly misidentified as other non-fermenters. With the Remel system, none of the B. pseudomallei isolates were correctly identified. Both systems failed to identify B. mallei in 100% of cases. These results, along with the risks of laboratory processing of these agents in open systems such as API20NE, suggest that such systems cannot be currently recommended for B. mallei or B. pseudomallei identification in sentinel laboratories.

   The earlier version of VITEK-2 gave disappointing results with correct identification of only 19% of tested isolates as B. pseudomallei (34). The remaining isolates were misidentified as other non-fermenters, but VITEK-1 had good results of 99% identification. A similar problem has been encountered with another automated system (Phoenix NMIC-ID4, Becton Dickinson, and Sparks, MD) (37). The introduction of colorimetric identification cards to VITEK-2 instead of the fluorometric cards used originally, has improved the identification performance for non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli. Indeed, a recent evaluation of the colorimetric method has shown improved identification to a level of up to 75-80% (38). Interestingly, identification rates were dependent on the culture media used and were worse for MacConkey as compared to various blood agars. A newer version of the VITEK-2 identification system's software is expected to increase identification rates to 97-99% (38). Of note is that in the recent case of occupational glanders described among a laboratory worker in the United States (20), an automated system misidentified B. mallei as Pseudomonas fluorescens or Pseudomonas putida.

   Serological diagnosis

   For B. pseudomallei, various techniques have been used to detect specific antibodies. Antibody detection is important mainly for epidemiologic purposes and serological surveys since during clinical illness B. pseudomallei recovery rate are very high. The most used method is indirect hemagglutination or ELISA but this technique has many limitations, especially in endemic areas. Usually a cutoff of 1:160 or 1:80 is set in most endemic areas and 1:40 in less endemic ones. (39). Conversely, during acute infection, antibodies are usually not detected, until seroconvertion occurs at a later stage.

   It has been claimed that seropositivity to B. pseudomallei may be a result of environmental exposure to B. thailandensis, but a recent study did not found universal cross-reactivity between these two species. Nevertheless, marked cross-reactivity has been found between B. mallei and B. pseudomallei and therefore, serological testing cannot be used to differentiate between Melioidosis and Glanders (40). Serological testing for B. mallei is even more problematic. Seroconversion occurs rather late and unexplained high background titers in normal sera make interpretation difficult. A complement-fixation assay has been in use, and is considered more specific but less sensitive. Moreover, this method may not detect antibodies as late as 40 days from disease onset (22).

   Antigen testing

   An alternative (although less accurate) to molecular detection of Burkholderiaceae is direct antigen testing using immunofluorescence or agglutination. Rapid immunofluorescent tests have been devised for detecting B. mallei or B. pseudomallei in clinical samples prior to culture. One-step immunofluorescence has been shown to be highly specific for detecting B. pseudomallei in clinical samples (>99%). However, sensitivity has been disappointing (66%) (41). Co-agglutination and latex agglutination with polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies against B. pseudomallei have also been utilized. Co-agglutination showed a 100% sensitivity and specificity when tested with blood culture supernatants whereas the respective figures for latex agglutination were 100% and 90% respectively (42). Previous studies of latex agglutination applied on cultured isolates have yielded similar results (43, 44). In addition, latex agglutination tests using monoclonal antibodies against lipopolysaccharide and exopolysaccharide have been shown to accurately differentiate B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis in environmental specimens (45).

   Molecular methods

   In recent years, molecular methods for identification of B. mallei and B. pseudomallei in clinical samples have gained much interest, due to the difficulties in identifying these organisms, especially in non-endemic areas and the biosafety level requirements for processing B. mallei and B. pseudomallei samples in classical methods (34, 35, and 46). Molecular tools may be applied directly on clinical specimens for diagnosing (or ruling out) the presence of B. mallei or B. pseudomallei, or alternatively, for final identification of isolates purified from clinical samples.

   Many studied have used such molecular tools but a few have clinical applications. The 16S rRNA of both B. mallei and B. pseudomallei clinical isolates were recently cloned and sequenced so that by using appropriate primers, B. mallei or B. pseudomallei may now be detected using real-time PCR in less than 12 hours (47). Other molecular protocols for differentiating B. mallei and B. pseudomallei have been recently established, relying on 23S rDNA (46), real-time PCR of type III secretion system genes (48) and TaqMan allelic-discrimination assay (49). A multiplex real-time PCR with molecular beacons for diagnosing anthrax, tularemia, plague and glanders has been recently described (50).

   Most studies however, have not used B. mallei -specific primers but relied on the phenomenon of loss of B. pseudomallei -specific sequences in B.mallei. Recently, a fliP-based PCR assay has been used successfully for specifically detecting B. mallei infection in clinical samples from diseased horses and appears to be a promising method for diagnosing human infection as well (51). Interestingly, 16S rRNA PCR which is widely used for molecular diagnosis of bacterial infections, is of less value in the case of B. pseudomallei due to >99% sequence homology between B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis and thus additional genes such as groEL should be subject to PCR (52). Primers that target specific nucleotide sequences in B. mallei have been recently shown to accurately differentiate B. mallei from B. pseudomallei and related Burkholderiaceae (53).

   Inglis et al. have recently compared several methods for identification of B. pseudomallei, including API20NE, latex agglutination, cell-wall fatty acid analysis and PCR (54). PCR had 100% sensitivity and specificity while the API20NE had an unacceptable sensitivity (37%) and specificity was only 92%. The authors recommended using a rapid agglutination test in the initial work-up (94% sensitivity and 83% specificity) and confirmation using PCR. A noted drawback of the agglutination assay is difficulty in reading the test in a biosafety cabinet.

	ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING

   Antibiotic susceptibility of Burkholderiaceae has been evaluated in the past according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints for Pseudomonas species. Recently, CLSI recommendations for potential bioterrorism agents have included B. mallei and B. pseudomallei. In general, disk-diffusion is not recommended for Burkholderiaceae (55) and the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) should be determined. E-test is generally considered a reliable alternative to broth dilution (23), but at least for B. mallei, differences in MIC between E-test and dilution methods have been observed (56). Like with other non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli, in vitro susceptibility and in vivo outcome do not always correlate.

   Therapy of Melioidosis requires an intensive-phase of bactericidal agents (mainly ceftazidime-based or carbapenem-based regimens) and maintenance therapy with a combination of oral agents, usually including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline and chloramphenicol (57). No firm data exists regarding treatment of Glanders but current consensus recommends a similar protocol to that of Melioidosis (22).  Per CLSI (55), susceptibility should be determined after inoculation to cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton agar or broth medium. Quality Control is achieved with a control strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Available MIC breakpoints (expressed in µg/ml) for the susceptible, intermediate-resistance and resistant categories, are presented in Table 2.

   Primary resistance to ceftazidime and amoxicillin-clavulanate has not been observed with B. pseudomallei, and emergence of resistance during therapy is rare (58). Seven genes encoding for extended-spectrum beta-lactamases have been detected to date (59), the most important of which is BPS-1 which inactivates cephalosporins but is inhibited by clavulanate (60, 61). Ceftazidime resistance may be acquired through a class D enzyme, such as OXA-42 or OXA-43 (62) or reduced sensitivity to beta-lactamase inhibitors (63). Resistance to other antimicrobials used for treating B. pseudomallei, such as doxycycline, chloramphenicol, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is thought to be uncommon (<10%) (64) and natural resistance to carbapenems also remains uncommon in B. pseudomallei (65). Fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides show poor activity against B. pseudomallei (66). A recent study has also shown universal susceptibility to the new broad-spectrum agent tigecycline (67). A post-antibiotic effect which is especially important in eradication of intra-cellular organisms has been shown to exist only with carbapenems and fluoroquinolones but not ceftazidime and amoxicillin-clavulanate (68).

   The antibiotic susceptibility pattern of B. mallei is generally similar to B. pseudomallei. A recent survey of 15 B. mallei isolates has shown 100% susceptibility of B. mallei to cefotaxime, ceftazidime, amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, chloramphenicol, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and tetracyclines (66). MIC values in general were lower than those of B. pseudomallei, within the susceptible breakpoint range. Another study of 11 strains also found notable susceptibility of B. mallei to fluoroquinolones (69). Frequent susceptibility to aminoglycosides has also been reported (69, 70) but the intra-cellular nature of B. mallei may render aminoglycoside therapy ineffective.

	CONCLUSIONS

   B. mallei and B. pseudomallei are now included in formal emergency preparedness plans and guidelines issued by various authorities in the United States and Europe (1, 22, 24, 71). The actual risk for deliberate release B. mallei or B. pseudomallei is unknown, at least publicly, and therefore most efforts are concentrated on efficiency and safety of laboratory-based diagnosis of Melioidosis and Glanders.

   Currently, the diagnosis of B. mallei and B. pseudomallei in the clinical laboratory is highly problematic, given the low awareness of physicians to the clinical manifestations of Melioidosis and Glanders, lack of experience among microbiologists outside endemic areas, lack of appropriate media and identification systems in the average sentinel laboratory and the biosafety conditions necessary to process these organisms (Level 2 for processing of clinical samples and Level 3 for processing of clinical isolates) (1).

   Until new or improved diagnostic modalities become available at the level of the sentinel laboratory, isolates compatible with B. mallei or B. pseudomallei should be referred immediately to a reference laboratory. Sentinel laboratory work-up should consist of the minimal phenotypic and biochemical tests that suggest this diagnosis. In cases where a high clinical index of suspicion exists, direct referral of clinical samples to a specialized setting may be most appropriate.

	REFERENCES

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Strategic Plan for Preparedness and Response. MMWR 2000; 49:1-26.
2. Cheng AC, Currie BJ. Melioidosis: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18: 383– 416.
3. Currie BJ, Jacups SP. Intensity of rainfall and severity of melioidosis, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9: 1538–1542.
4. Suputtamongkol Y, Hall AJ, Dance DA, Chaowagul W, Rajchanuvong A, Smith MD, White NJ. The epidemiology of melioidosis in Ubon Ratchatani, northeast Thailand. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 1082–1090.
5. Strauss JM, Groves MG, Mariappan M, Ellison DW. Melioidosis in Malaysia. II. Distribution of Pseudomonas pseudomallei in soil and surface water. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1969; 18:698– 702.
6. Wuthiekanun V, Smith MD, Dance DA, White NJ. Isolation of Pseudomonas pseudomallei from soil in north-eastern Thailand. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1995; 89: 41–43.
7. White N J. Melioidosis. Lancet. 2003; 361: 1715–1722.
8. Currie BJ. Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei: Melioidosis and Glanders. In: Mandell G, Bennet JE, Dolin R (eds.). Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. New York City: Churchill Livingstone, 6th ed., 2005, pp. 2622-2632.
9. Chierakul W, Winothai W, Wattanawaitunechai C, Wuthiekanun V, Rugtaengan T, Rattanalertnavee J, Jitpratoom P, Chaowagul W, Singhasivanon P, White NJ, Day NP, Peacock SJ. Melioidosis in 6 Tsunami survivors in Southern Thailand. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:982–90.
10. Currie BJ, Fisher DA, Howard DM, Burrow JN, Lo D, Selva-Nayagam S, Anstey NM, Huffam SE, Snelling PL, Marks PJ, Stephens DP, Lum GD, Jacups SP, Krause VL. Endemic melioidosis in tropical northern Australia: a 10-year prospective study and review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 981–986.
11. Suputtamongkol Y, Chaowagul W, Chetchotisakd P, et al. Risk factors for melioidosis and bacteremic melioidosis. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 408-413.
12. Heng BH, Goh KT, Yap EH, Loh H, Yeo M. Epidemiological surveillance of melioidosis in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1998; 27: 478–484.
13. Punyagupta, S. Melioidosis. Review of 686 cases and presentation of a new clinical classification, In: Punyagupta S, Sirisanthana T, Stapatayavong B (ed.). Melioidosis. Bangkok: Bangkok Medical Publisher, 1989, p. 217–229.
14. Berger SA. Meliodosis. In: Marrie TJ (Ed.). Community-acquired pneumonia. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, 2001, pp. 811-819.
15. Chodimella U, Hoppes WL, Whalen S, Ognibene AJ, Rutecki GW. Septicemia and suppuration in a Vietnam veteran. Hosp Pract. 1997; 32: 219-221.
16. Dance DA, Davis TM, Wattanagoon Y, Chaowagul W, Saiphan P, Looareesuwan S, Wuthiekanun V, White NJ. Acute suppurative parotitis caused by Pseudomonas pseudomallei in children. J Infect Dis 1989; 159:654–660.
17. Leelarasamee A. Recent development in melioidosis. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2004; 17:131–136.
18. Wheelis M. First shots fired in biological warfare. Nature. 1998; 395:213
19. Wilson GS, Miles A. Topley and Wilson's Principles of bacteriology, virology and immunity. London: Edward Arnold, 6^th Ed., 1975, pp.1855-1863.
20. Srinivasan A, Kraus CN, DeShazer D, Becker PM, Dick JD, Spacek L, Bartlett JG, Byrne WR, Thomas DL. Glanders in a military research microbiologist. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 256-258.
21. Godoy D, Randle G, Simpson AJ, et al. Multilocus sequence typing and evolutionary relationships among the causative agents of melioidosis and glanders, Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 2068–2079.
22. United States Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. USAMRIID’s medical management of biological casualties. 5th Ed. Fort Detrick, MD: USAMRIID, August 2004.
23. Gilligan PH, Lum G, Vandamme PAR, Whittier S. Burkholderia, Stenotrophomonas, Ralstonia, Brevundimonas, comamonas, Delftia, Pandoraea, and Acidovorax. In: Murray P, et al. (eds.). Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 8th Edition, Washington DC: ASM Press, 2003, 729-748.
24. American Society for Microbiology. Sentinel laboratory guidelines for suspected agents of bioterrorism. Clinical Laboratory Bioterrorism Readiness Plan, 21 November 2005.
25. Tiangpitayakorn C, Songsivilai S, Piyasangthong N, Dharakul T. Speed of detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in blood cultures and its correlation with the clinical outcome. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1997; 57:96–99.
26. Walsh AL, Smith MD, Wuthiekanun V, Suputtamongkol Y, Chaowagul Y, Dance DA, Angus B, White NJ. Prognostic significance of quantitative bacteremia in septicemic melioidosis. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21:1498–1500.
27. Ashdown LR. An improved screening technique for isolation of Pseudomonas pseudomallei from clinical specimens. Pathology 1979; 11: 293-97.
28. Francis A, Aiyar S, Yean CY, Naing L, Ravichandran M. An improved selective and differential medium for the isolation of Pseudomonas pseudomallei from clinical specimens. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 55:95–99.
29. Walsh AL, Wuthiekanun V, Smith MD, Suputtamongkol Y, White NJ. Selective broths for the isolation of Pseudomonas pseudomallei from clinical samples. Trans R Soc Trop Med 1995; 89:124.
30. Wuthiekanun V, Suputtamongkol Y, Simpson JH, Kanaphun P, White NJ. Value of Throat Swab in Diagnosis of Melioidosis. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: 3801–3802.
31. Howard K, Inglis TJ. Novel selective medium for isolation of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:3312–3316.
32. Weyant RS, Moss CW, Weaver RE, Hollis DG, Jordan JG, Cook EC, Daneshvar MI. Identification of unusual pathogenic gram negative aerobic and facultatively anaerobic bacteria. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2^nd ed. 1996
33. Dance DA, Wuthiekanun V, Naigowit P, White NJ. Identification of Pseudomonas pseudomallei in clinical practice: use of simple screening tests and API 20NE. J Clin Pathol 1989; 42:645–648.
34. Lowe P, Engler C, Norton R. Comparison of automated and nonautomated systems for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 4625-7.
35. Inglis TJ, Chiang D, Lee GS, Chor-Kiang L. Potential misidentification of Burkholderia pseudomallei by API 20NE. Pathology 1998;30:62–64.
36. Glass MB, Popovic T. Preliminary evaluation of the API 20NE and RapID NF Plus systems for rapid identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 479–483.
37. Koh TH, Yong Ng LS, Foon Ho JL, Sng LH, Wang GC, Tzer Pin Lin RV. Automated identification systems and Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:1809.
38. Lowe P, Haswell H, Lewis K. Use of various common isolation media to evaluate the new VITEK 2 colorimetric GN card for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:854–856.
39. Leelarasamee A. Diagnostic value of indirect hemagglutination method for melioidosis in Thailand. J Infect Dis1985; 2: 213–214.
40. Tiyawisutsri T, Peacock SJ, Langa S, Limmathurotsakul D, Cheng AC, Chierakul W, Chaowagul W, Day NPJ, Wuthiekanun V. Antibodies from patients with melioidosis recognize Burkholderia mallei but not Burkholderia thailandensis antigens in the indirect hemagglutination assay. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 4872–4874.
41. Wuthiekanun V, Desakorn V, Wongsuvan G, Amornchai P, Cheng AC, Maharjan B, Limmathurotsakul D, Chierakul W, White NJ, Day NPJ, Peacock SJ. Rapid immunofluorescence microscopy for diagnosis of melioidosis. Clin Diag Lab Immunol 2005; 12: 555–556.
42. Jesudason MV, Balaji V, Sirisinha S, Sridharan G. Rapid identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei in blood culture supernatants by a coagglutination assay. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11: 925–936.
43. Pongsunk S, Thirawattanasuk N, Piyasangthong N, Ekpo P. Rapid identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei in blood cultures by a monoclonal antibody assay. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37: 3662–3667.
44. Steinmetz I, Reganzerowski A, Brenneke B, Haussler S, Simpson A, White NJ. Rapid identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei by latex agglutination based on an exopolysaccharide-specific monoclonal antibody. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37: 225–228.
45. Wuthiekanun V, Anutagool N, White NJ, Sirisinha S. A Rapid method for the differentiation of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002; 66: 759–761.
46. Bauernfeind A., Roller C, Meyer D, Jungwirth R, Schneider I. Molecular procedure for rapid detection of Burkholderia mallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 1998; 36: 2737–2741.
47. Gee JE, Sacchi CT, Glass MB, De BK, Weyant RS, Levett PN, Whitney AM, Hoffmaster AR, Popovic T. Use of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for rapid identification and differentiation of Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 4647–4654.
48. Thibault FM, Valade E, Vidal DR. Identification and discrimination of Burkholderia pseudomallei, B. mallei, and B. thailandensis by real-time PCR targeting type III secretion system genes. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 5871–5874.
49. U'Ren JM, Van Ert MN, Schupp JM, Easterday WR, Simonson TS, Okinaka RT, Pearson T, Keim P. Use of a real-time PCR TaqMan assay for rapid identification and differentiation of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 5771–5774.
50. Varma-Basil M, El-Hajj H, Marras SAE, Hazbo´n MH, Mann JM, Connell ND, Kramer FR, Alland D. Molecular beacons for multiplex detection of four bacterial bioterrorism agents. Clin Chem 2004; 50: 1060-1062.
51. Scholz C, Al Dahouk S, Eickhoff M, Treu TM, Wernery R, Wernery U, Neubauer H. Development of a 5'-nuclease real-time PCR assay targeting fliP for the rapid identification of Burkholderia mallei in clinical samples. Clin Chem 2006; 52:307-310.
52. Woo PC, Lau SK, Woo GK, Fung AM, Ngan AH, Hui WT, Yuen KY. Seronegative bacteremic melioidosis caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei with ambiguous biochemical profile: Clinical importance of accurate identification by 16S rRNA gene and groEL gene sequencing. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 3973–3977.
53. Ulrich RL, Ulrich MP, Schell MA, Stanley Kim H, DeShazer D. Development of a polymerase chain reaction assay for the specific identification of Burkholderia mallei and differentiation from Burkholderia pseudomallei and other closely related Burkholderiaceae. Diag Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 55: 37–45.
54. Inglis TJJ, Merritt A, Chidlow G, Aravena-Roman M, Harnett G. Comparison of Diagnostic Laboratory Methods for Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 2201–2206.
55. Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 16th Informational Supplement M100–S16. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2006.
56. Heine HS, England MJ, Waag DM, Byrne WR. In vitro antibiotic susceptibilities of Burkholderia mallei (causative agent of glanders) determined by broth microdilution and E-test. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2119–2121.
57. Samuel M, Ti TY. Interventions for treating melioidosis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 4. Art.No. : CD001263. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD001263.
58.  Jenney AW, Lum G, Fisher DA, Currie BJ. Antibiotic susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei from tropical northern Australia and implications for therapy of melioidosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001; 17: 109–113.
59. Holden MT, Titball RW, Peacock SJ, Cerdeno-Tarraga AM, Atkins T, Crossman LC, Pitt T, Churcher C, Mungall K, Bentley SD, Sebaihia M, Thomson NR, Bason N, Beacham IR, Brooks K, Brown KA, Brown NF, Challis GL, Cherevach I, Chillingworth T, Cronin A, Crossett B, Davis P, DeShazer D, Feltwell T, Fraser A, Hance Z, Hauser H, Holroyd S, Jagels K, Keith KE, Maddison M, Moule S, Price C, Quail MA, Rabbinowitsch E, Rutherford K, Sanders M, Simmonds M, Songsivilai S, Stevens K, Tumapa S, Vesaratchavest M, Whitehead S, Yeats C, Barrell BG, Oyston PC, Parkhill J. Genomic plasticity of the causative agent of melioidosis, Burkholderia pseudomallei. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101: 14240–14245.
60. Cheung TK, Ho PL, Woo PC, Yuen KY, Chau PY. Cloning and expression of class A beta-lactamase gene blaA (BPS) in Burkholderia pseudomallei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 1132–1135.
61. Livermore DM, Chau PY, Wong AI, Leung YK. Beta-lactamase of Pseudomonas pseudomallei and its contribution to antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20: 313–321.
62. Niumsup P, Wuthiekanun V. Cloning of the class D beta-lactamase gene from Burkholderia pseudomallei and studies on its expression in ceftazidime-susceptible and -resistant strains. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 445–455.
63. Godfrey AJ, Wong S, Dance DA, Chaowagul W, Bryan LE. Pseudomonas pseudomallei resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics due to alterations in the chromosomally encoded beta-lactamase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1635–1640.
64. Yamamoto T, Naigowit P, Dejsirilert S, Chiewsilp D, Kondo E, Yokota T, Kanai K. In vitro susceptibilities of Pseudomonas pseudomallei to 27 antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 2027–2029.
65. Smith MD, Wuthiekanun V, Walsh AL, White NJ. In-vitro activity of carbapenem antibiotics against beta-lactam susceptible and resistant strains of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 611–615.
66. Thibault FM, Hernandez E, Vidal DR, Girardet M, Cavallo JD. Antibiotic susceptibility of 65 isolates of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia mallei to 35 antimicrobial agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 1134-1138.
67. Thamlikitkul V, Trakulsomboon S. In vitro activity of tigecycline against Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis. Antimicorb Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 1555–1557.
68. Walsh AL, Smith MD, Wuthiekanun V, White NJ. Postantibiotic effects and Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) pseudomallei: Evaluation of current treatment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 2356–2358.
69. Heine HS, England MJ, Waag DM, Byrne WR. In vitro antibiotic susceptibilities of Burkholderia mallei (causative agent of glanders) determined by broth microdilution and E-test. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:2119–2121.
70. Kenny DJ, Russell P, Rogers D, Eley M, Titball RW. In vitro susceptibilities of Burkholderia mallei in comparison to those of other pathogenic Burkholderia spp. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2773–2775.
71. Health Protection Agency (HPA) Centre for Infection. Interim Guidelines for Action in the Event of a Deliberate Release: Glanders & Melioidosis, January 2006.

The exquisite patterns on the luxury replica watches dial, the date display window at replica watches six o'clock, and the black sculpted Arabic numerals demonstrate the replica rolex exquisite craftsmanship of rolex watches uk the fine watchmaking style.