One of the main features of the immune response toM. Tuberculosisis the formation of an organized structure called granuloma. It consists mainly in the recruitment at the infectious stage of macrophages, highly differentiated cells such as multinucleated giant cells, epithelioid cells and Foamy cells, all these cells being surrounded by a rim of lymphocytes. Although in the first instance the granuloma acts to constrain the infection, some bacilli can actually survive inside these structures for a long time in a dormant state. For some reasons, which are still unclear, the bacilli will reactivate in 10% of the latently infected individuals, escape the granuloma and spread throughout the body, thus giving rise to clinical disease, and are finally disseminated throughout the environment. In this review we examine the process leading to the formation of the granulomatous structures and the different cell types that have been shown to be part of this inflammatory reaction. We also discuss the differentin vivoandin vitromodels available to study this fascinating immune structure.

Background Mycobacterium leprae was thought to be the exclusive causative agent of leprosy until Mycobacterium lepromatosis was identified in a rare form of leprosy known as diffuse lepromatous leprosy (DLL). Methods We isolated M. lepromatosis from a patient with DLL and propagated it in athymic nude mouse footpads. Genomic analysis of this strain (NHDP-385) identified a unique repetitive element, RLPM, on which a specific real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay was developed. The RLPM assay, and a previously developed RLEP quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for M. leprae, were validated as clinical diagnostic assays according to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments guidelines. We tested DNA from archived histological sections, patient specimens from the United States, Philippines, and Mexico, and US wild armadillos. Results The limit of detection for the RLEP and RLPM assays is 30 M. leprae per specimen (0.76 bacilli per reaction; coefficient of variation, 0.65%–2.44%) and 122 M. lepromatosis per specimen (3.05 bacilli per reaction; 0.84%–2.9%), respectively. In histological sections (n = 10), 1 lepromatous leprosy (LL), 1 DLL, and 3 Lucio reactions contained M. lepromatosis; 2 LL and 2 Lucio reactions contained M. leprae; and 1 LL reaction contained both species. M. lepromatosis was detected in 3 of 218 US biopsy specimens (1.38%). All Philippines specimens (n = 180) were M. lepromatosis negative and M. leprae positive. Conversely, 15 of 47 Mexican specimens (31.91%) were positive for M. lepromatosis, 19 of 47 (40.43%) were positive for M. leprae, and 2 of 47 (4.26%) contained both organisms. All armadillos were M. lepromatosis negative. Conclusions The RLPM and RLEP assays will aid healthcare providers in the clinical diagnosis and surveillance of leprosy.