Nematode Symbiont for Photorhabdus asymbiotica, Figure 2 | CDC EID
This is so exciting! It is validating to all I've been going through (and all of us) - The CDC has identified a NEW STRAIN of bacteria - they are having to do a new classification of the taxonomy -
Photorhabdus Asymbiotica is so-named because when the microbiologist (from Australia - thank you Aussies!) found it there was not yet a symbiant nematode associated with it, and that was atypical of this bacterial strain. All forms of Photorhabdus are in partnership with a certain type of nematode, named Heterorhabditis.
The CDC has identified the NEMATODE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMERGING BACTERIAL INFECTION, PHOTORHABDUS ASYMBIOTICA (which they admit now is a misnomer, as it IS identified with a specific nematode, namely Heterorhabditis Indica).
I believe this could be the breakthrough. Of course the connection between Morgellons and this newly emerging bacteria and nematode combination will have to be made.
If only we can get microbiologists to test our wounds for this bacteria, which this link describes how to test for it and why the testing for this bacteria is SO OFTEN MISSED.
Take note where this article says "there is most likely an UNIDENTIFIED INVERTEBRATE VECTOR" - this invertebrate has NOW BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE CDC AS HETERORHABDITIS.
... "if a microbiologist fails to consider morphological
characteristics in addition to commercial gram-negative rod
identification results. Failure of clinical laboratories to identify
Photorhabdus is understandable, as this organism does not
appear in the databases of the MicroScan or Vitek automated
systems or other manual bioMe´rieux products. In this case, a
microbiologist (R. Kern, Katy, TX) questioned why the wound
and blood isolates, which morphologically looked the same,
were identified as two different organisms on the WalkAway
system.
Key reactions for the identification
of this organism include yellow pigment, nitrate not reduced
to nitrite (unlike most other Enterobacteriaceae), annular
hemolysis, swarming, and weak bioluminescence. The
misidentifications in Table 2 point out how important it is for
a competent technologist to critically review data from a rapid
system. Interestingly, the same colonial morphotypes (e.g.,
wound isolate no. 1 and blood isolate no. 1) gave different
results, indicating no consistency in the rapid-system results. It
seems preferable to get no identification (API 20E) or an
unacceptable identification (BBL Crystal) rather than the
wrong answer. It may also be prudent to inoculate triple-sugar
iron agar to determine an isolate’s ability to ferment versus
oxidize glucose. The failure of rapid systems to elucidate this
critical reaction in most cases was a key factor in the misidentification,
as was failure to include an oxidase test. The New
York State Department of Health Clinical Bacteriology Laboratory correctly identified a 100% match of Photorhabdus Asymbiotica by 165 rRNA sequencing using the GenBank Databank.
Photorhabdus (formerly Xenorhabdus) (2) was first described
in the United States by Farmer et al. in 1989 (1). They described
six cases, including four in San Antonio, Texas. Since
our isolate is from Houston, Texas, and since Texas isolates
represent 50% of cases worldwide, it makes sense that infection
due to this species (especially in the Southwest) is probably
underreported due to incorrect laboratory identification.
The two isolates described here are only the 13th and 14th
recovered worldwide. Patients usually present with either localized
soft tissue infection or disseminated bacteremic infection,
sometimes with spread to multiple skin/soft tissue sites (3,
4, 5). Although many patients report an antecedent spider bite,
an actual bite cannot be proven in most cases. Thus, the source
of human infection remains unknown, although it seems likely
that there is an unidentified invertebrate vector, since Photorhabdus
spp. colonize the guts of nematodes pathogenic for insects and human infection with P. asymbiotica is associated
with outdoor activity. Some patients are diabetics, and some
are on steroids; most have a history of working outdoors,
especially during warm, rainy months...
These cases, taken together, point out the importance of
microbiologists who are alert enough to question organism
identification and susceptibility results from commonly used
automated systems. It is incumbent on all manufacturers of
miniaturized or automated gram-negative rod systems to review
their databases frequently to prevent these types of errors.
P. asymbiotica should be added to the respective databases as
soon as possible."
from Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2005.
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/43/8/4152.pdf
Tell me that this pattern doesn't sound like Morgellons? Get bit by something or work outdoors, skin absesses, etc., lab tests always coming back negative for bacteria (or anything else) - why? because of automated tests not considering all vectors, sores that start out in one place and MIGRATE to other sites, fever, fatigue...
Am I the only one that thinks that this IS MORGELLONS??
sar