Next Article in Journal
Echovirus 30 in Bulgaria during the European Upsurge of the Virus, 2017–2018
Next Article in Special Issue
Sodium Metabisulfite Inhibits Acanthamoeba Trophozoite Growth through Thiamine Depletion
Previous Article in Journal
Verification of a Rapid Analytical Method for the Qualitative Detection of Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes by a Real-Time PCR Assay according to EN UNI ISO 16140-3:2021
Previous Article in Special Issue
Epidemiology and Economic Cost Analysis of Microbial Keratitis from a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Australia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/pathogens13020142
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Epidemiology of and Genetic Factors Associated with Acanthamoeba Keratitis

by
Muhammad Ilyas
1,
Fiona Stapleton
2,
Mark D. P. Willcox
2,
Fiona Henriquez
3,
Hari Kumar Peguda
2,
Binod Rayamajhee
2,
Tasbiha Zahid
1,
Constantinos Petsoglou
4 and
Nicole A. Carnt
2,5,*
1
Primary & Secondary Healthcare Department, Punjab 54000, Pakistan
2
School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
3
School of Health and Life Sciences, The University of the West of Scotland, Glasgow G72 0LH, UK
4
Save Sight Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
5
Centre for Vision Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2024, 13(2), 142; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020142
Submission received: 15 December 2023 / Revised: 14 January 2024 / Accepted: 31 January 2024 / Published: 4 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Ocular Surface Infections)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is a severe, rare protozoal infection of the cornea. Acanthamoeba can survive in diverse habitats and at extreme temperatures. AK is mostly seen in contact lens wearers whose lenses have become contaminated or who have a history of water exposure, and in those without contact lens wear who have experienced recent eye trauma involving contaminated soil or water. Infection usually results in severe eye pain, photophobia, inflammation, and corneal epithelial defects. The pathophysiology of this infection is multifactorial, including the production of cytotoxic proteases by Acanthamoeba that degrades the corneal epithelial basement membrane and induces the death of ocular surface cells, resulting in degradation of the collagen-rich corneal stroma. AK can be prevented by avoiding risk factors, which includes avoiding water contact, such as swimming or showering in contact lenses, and wearing protective goggles when working on the land. AK is mostly treated with an antimicrobial therapy of biguanides alone or in combination with diaminidines, although the commercial availability of these medicines is variable. Other than anti-amoeba therapies, targeting host immune pathways in Acanthamoeba disease may lead to the development of vaccines or antibody therapeutics which could transform the management of AK.

1. Introduction

Acanthamoeba spp. are common free-living amoebae that are present in a diverse range of habitats, including seawater, swimming pools, tap water, hot springs, soil, dust, and even the nasal mucosa of asymptomatic individuals [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Pathogenic strains of Acanthamoeba can cause severe, life-threatening infections in immunocompromised individuals [8], and they can also lead to serious blindness arising from Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) [9,10]. AK is a less-known corneal infection first reported in 1974 by Nagington and others [11]. Due to its masquerading symptoms, AK is commonly misdiagnosed as viral or bacterial keratitis, resulting in delayed diagnosis and inappropriate treatment [12,13]. Consequently, AK often results in significant loss of sight even after prolonged treatment. This review article will describe the characteristics of Acanthamoeba keratitis, including aspects of its epidemiology, disease mechanism, risk behaviors, and preventive measures. The review involved intensive research across multiple databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, to gather relevant scientific articles.

2. Epidemiology

The main risk factor for AK is contact lens (CL) wear, especially in high-income countries where more than 90% of AK patients have a history of contact lens wear [14]. Other factors such as eye trauma, exposure to contaminated water, or exposure to foreign agents like dirt or algae also increase the risk of AK [15,16,17,18]. Studies have also reported increasing non-contact-lens-related AK cases, especially in low–middle-income countries where contact lens wear is less prevalent and AK is mostly associated with corneal injury and exposure to contaminated soil or water [19,20]. While AK is usually a unilateral eye infection, it can also infect both eyes [21,22]. The association between the use of contact lenses and the high incidence of AK was initially documented in 1984 [23]. A study observed a low global incidence of AK from 1980 to 1990, at approximately one to two cases per million contact lens wearers [24]. As the number of contact lens wearers increased, the burden of disease similarly rose [25].
In the United States, the incidence of AK is estimated to be 1 to 2 new cases per 1 million contact lens wearers annually [26]; approximately 17% of the U.S. adult population wears contact lenses [27], so with a population of 340 million people, there may be up to 60 cases per year. Epidemiological studies show that the incidence of AK may have increased in recent years in high-income countries [28,29,30]. Recent outbreaks have been linked to the use of multi-purpose solutions among soft contact lens users [13,31]. A study conducted in the state of Iowa reported that the annual average of new AK cases saw a continuous rise, climbing from 2.9 cases between 2002 and 2009 to 6.5 cases from 2010 to 2017 [17]. Another study involving 13 eye centers around the United States found a sharp and sudden surge in AK cases from 2004 to 2007. The yearly diagnosis count escalated from 22 cases in 1999 to 43 cases in 2003, eventually reaching 170 cases per year by 2007. This outbreak was linked to the use of the Complete Moisture Plus contact lens disinfecting solution [32]. Whilst there was an initial decline in the incidence of AK when this contact lens disinfecting solution was withdrawn from the market, outbreaks have continued, and it is evident that the increase in the number of cases of AK has increased by several orders compared with the period before 2004 [33]. The number of cases seen at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London during the period from 2011 to 2014 (36 to 65 cases per year) was approximately two- to three-fold higher than during the years 2004 to 2010 (15 to 23 cases per year) [13]. The increase in cases was primarily attributed to the use of an Oxipol disinfecting solution for contact lenses. This disinfecting solution has also now been removed from sale worldwide. Another study conducted in Australia at a prominent referral center in Sydney found that the average annual case count from 2002 to 2016 was 50% higher in the years following 2007 compared with the years preceding it. Notably, the highest numbers of cases were documented in the years 2007 and 2014 [34].

3. Classification

The classification of Acanthamoeba in 1977 was based on cyst morphology [35]. Using this classification system, at least 31 species of Acanthamoeba were identified, which were broadly divided into three major groups [36]. Group 1 has five species characterized by cysts equal to or larger than 18 µm [37]. Group 2, the most prevalent, has 17 species, including several pathogenic species [36,38]. Group 3 has nine species with smaller cysts with less distinct outer walls [37,39]. However, as the morphology of Acanthamoeba cysts can be influenced by the growth medium [40], there was a clear need for a more scientifically robust classification method [41,42]. Therefore, the taxonomic status of Acanthamoeba has evolved through the use of molecular techniques. DNA sequences have provided new insights into the species designation within Acanthamoeba, shedding light on its pathogenic potential, its evolutionary lineages, and alternative approaches to disease treatment [43].
The work on molecular-based classification began in 1996 when Acanthamoeba was classified using the whole gene sequence of nuclear small subunit 18S ribosomal RNA (Rns) [44]. This system currently classifies Acanthamoeba into 23 genotypes (T1–T23), encompassing all currently known Acanthamoeba isolates to date shown in Table 1. This method was further modified by targeting smaller gene segments, such as 280 base-pair (bp)-long highly variable diagnostic fragment 3 (DF3) in the 464 bp-long Acanthamoeba-specific amplimer (ASA.S1) [45]. This technology has facilitated the subdivision of T2 into two further groups named T2a and T2b [46]. Moreover, T4 has recently been subclassified into eight distinct groups named T4A, T4B, T4C, T4D, T4E, T4F, T4G/T4Neff, and T4H [38]. Whilst the DF3 fragment has helped in epidemiological and phylogenetic studies, more studies are required to examine its limitations. Therefore, the use of full-length sequences of Acanthamoeba 18S rRNA is strongly recommended [47,48].
Different genotypes of Acanthamoeba are associated with different pathogenicity, disease severity, and clinical presentation. Understanding the genotypes may assist in better clinical management of AK [49]. The T4 genotype is the most prevalent Acanthamoeba genotype in nature [50], and it is identified in the majority of human infections, particularly those associated with AK [51,52,53]. Most of the Acanthamoeba isolates identified from patients with the most severe infections are also from the T4 genotype [54], especially the T4A sub-genotype, followed by the T3 genotype [51]. Other less common genotypes, T2, T5, T6, T8, T9, T10, T11, T12, T13, and T15, have also been recovered from AK patients [55,56,57]. One study has argued that genotype T5 is not inherently a human pathogen but has recently become more associated with AK due to increased contact lens usage [53].
Table 1. The traditional classification of Acanthamoeba.
Table 1. The traditional classification of Acanthamoeba.
Morphological GroupSpeciesGenotypeStrain TypeReference
Group-IA. astronyxis T7 ATCC 30137[58]
A. comandoni T9 ATCC 30135[59]
A. echinulate T4 ATCC 50239[35]
A. tubiashi T8 ATCC 30867[60]
A. byersii T18 PRA- 411 [61]
Group-IIA. castellanii T4 ATCC 50374   =   30011 [62]
A. terricola T4 ATCC 30134 [63]
A. gigantean – ATCC 50670 [64]
A. polyphaga T4 ATCC 30871 [65]
A. griffinii T3 ATCC 30731 [66]
A. rhysodes T4 ATCC 30973 [67]
A. diuionensis T4 ATCC 50238 [35]
A. lugdunensis T4 ATCC 50240 [35]
A. quina T4 ATCC 50241 [35]
A. paradiuionensis T4 ATCC 50251 [35]
A. mauritaniensis T4 ATCC 50253 [35]
A. triangularis T4 ATCC 50254 [35]
A. hatchetti T11 ATCC 30730 [68]
A. stevensoni T11 ATCC 50388 [69]
A. pearcei T3 ATCC 50435 [70]
A.micheli T19 BRO2-T19 [47]
A. pyriformis T21 CCAP 1501/19 [71]
Group-IIIA. palestinensis T2 ATCC 30870 [72]
A. culbertsoni T10 ATCC 30171 [67]
A. pustulosa T2 ATCC 50252 [35]
A. royreba T4 ATCC 30884 [73]
A. lenticulata T5 ATCC 30841 [74]
A. healyi T12 ATCC 30866 [75]
A. jacobsi T15 ATCC 30732 [76]
A. sohi – Acanthamoeba YM-4 [77]
A. bangkokensis sp. nov. T23 AcW61 [78]

4. Life Cycle and Morphology

Acanthamoeba species are present almost everywhere, from thermal springs to sub-glacial environments and every conceivable habitat in between [79]. The life cycle of Acanthamoeba species consists of two stages. They exist as either motile, vegetative trophozoites or dormant, highly resistant cysts [16,80]. The trophozoite stage dominates when the environmental conditions are favorable for life, such as an abundant supply of water and food, a neutral pH, an optimum temperature (around 30 °C), and an osmolarity ranging between 50 and 80 mOsmol [80]. Acanthamoeba trophozoites are heterotrophs that primarily consume bacteria, viruses, yeast, algae, or small organic particles through phagocytosis or pinocytosis, forming food vacuoles within the cytoplasm [81,82]. Trophozoites are oval or irregular in shape and are characterized by their typical spine-shaped pseudopods, now known as acanthopodia that extend from the clear ectoplasm [82]. Apart from aiding in movement and feeding, these acanthopodia also help Acanthamoeba trophozoites cause corneal infection by adhering to the surface of a contact lens [83,84].
Under unfavorable environmental conditions, the trophozoites transform into highly resistant, double-walled, quiescent cysts in a process called encystation [85]. This process involves drastic changes in gene expression, which prepares Acanthamoeba to acclimatize to the new environment. Cysts have a rigid, double-layered cell wall which enables Acanthamoeba to survive in remarkably harsh environmental conditions such as hyperosmolarity, glucose starvation, desiccation, extreme pH and temperature, the presence of chemicals and toxins, and high doses of radiation [80,86,87]. Cysts have survived more than 20 years of storage at room temperature with no water or food source and were still able to develop into viable trophozoites when the environmental conditions became favorable [86,88]. The cystic form of Acanthamoeba shows minimal metabolic activity, making it highly resistant to anti-amoebal agents [89]. Due to their resistance to contact lens disinfecting solutions and disinfectants, they can contaminate lens storage cases [15]. Cysts are resistant to fungicides, chlorination, and a range of antimicrobials [90,91]. Cysts can remain dormant within corneal tissues for up to 31 months and then produce a recurrence of keratitis [92].

5. Pathogenesis

The pathogenesis of AK occurs in two distinct phases. In the first phase, Acanthamoeba attaches to and infiltrates the corneal epithelium, followed by the invasion of the underlying stroma in the secondary phase. In contact-lens-associated AK, Acanthamoeba adheres to the back surface of the contact lens, perhaps from contaminated lens disinfecting solutions, lens storage cases, or low-level environmental sources, such as domestic water, and subsequently transfers to the corneal surface. Adhesion is facilitated by acanthopodia in trophozoites [84], but cysts can also adhere to contact lenses [93]. Trophozoites or cysts may be cleared from the ocular surface by tears, the blinking action of the eyes, and the natural immune response of the eyes [94]. However, contact lenses reduce post-lens tear exchange, thereby facilitating attachment to the corneal surface [39]. Additionally, contact lens use may induce microabrasions to the corneal epithelial surface, conceivably making it vulnerable to potential attacks by pathogenic microbes [39].
Acanthamoeba produces adhesive proteins, such as mannose-binding proteins (MBPs) and laminin-binding proteins (LBPs), which bind mannosylated glycoproteins and laminin glycoproteins, respectively, on the corneal epithelium [95,96]. Pathogenic strains of Acanthamoeba exhibit high levels of MBPs and LBPs [97,98]. In contrast, non-pathogenic strains of Acanthamoeba have fewer acanthopodia per cell (<20 acanthopodia/cell compared with >100 acanthopodia/cell in pathogenic strains) and low levels of binding to MBPs and LBPs (Table 2), resulting in a reduced binding capacity to adhere to host cells [24]. Initially, the infection is limited to the epithelium, but Acanthamoeba can penetrate the epithelial barrier by direct killing and inducing apoptosis of cells. After the breakdown of the epithelial layer, the disease progresses to the next phase, in which trophozoites attach to the underlying collagenous stroma. Acanthamoeba can also produce phospholipases that disrupt the host cell plasma membrane. This results in the loss of cellular integrity, followed by lysis [99,100]. Neuraminidase can target sialic acid in the corneal epithelium, causing damage to the epithelial cells and facilitating Acanthamoeba colonization [101,102]. The combined effect of these factors may contribute to the destruction and dissemination of Acanthamoeba, which degrades further into the stromal matrix [103,104].
Acanthamoeba produces three distinct types of proteases: serine proteases, cysteine proteases, and metalloproteases [39]. Serine proteases are the most abundant and can be found in nearly all Acanthamoeba species [105,106]. Serine proteases break down collagen type 1, which is present in the corneal stroma and regulates corneal integrity. Additionally, serine proteases attack and degrade secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA), immunoglobulin G (IgG), fibrinogen, fibronectin, laminin, fibrin, hemoglobin, plasminogen, and bovine serum albumin. Cysteine proteases are implicated in the degradation of host cells [107] and can hydrolyze various proteins including immunoglobulin A (IgA), immunoglobulin G (IgG), hemoglobin, albumin, and fibronectin [108,109]. Metalloproteinases also contribute to the initiation of cytotoxic effects on the host cells. These metalloproteinases can degrade collagen, plasminogen, elastin, casein, and gelatin [110,111]. Trophozoites then feed on keratocytes and organic particles within the stroma, resulting in keratocyte depletion, a robust inflammatory response, and ultimately stromal necrosis [21,22].
AK is often accompanied by exquisite pain. The reason behind the intense pain linked to AK is not fully understood. However, the movement of Acanthamoeba toward chemotactic signals might lead to their association with nerve cells in the cornea. Clinically, the disease is characterized by perineural infiltrates [15], which may indicate neurogenic inflammation. Additionally, enzymes such as MIP133 (mannose-induced protein, a serine protease with high cytolytic activity) could play a role in causing damage to the nerves, ultimately contributing to the pain associated with this infection. Advanced disease stages can potentially kill the corneal nerves by sequential activation of caspase-3 and caspase-10 mediated apoptosis, with potential sight-threatening effects [14].

6. Innate and Adaptive Host Immune Responses

When Acanthamoeba trophozoites attack the ocular surface, they encounter innate immune cells that promptly defend against the initiation of ocular infection [112]. Studies have highlighted the ability of macrophages to kill Acanthamoeba, especially when activated by interferon-γ (IFN-γ) [113,114]. Depleting periocular macrophages through the injection of a subconjunctival macrophage-killing drug, clodronate, resulted in a significant worsening of AK in a Chinese hamster model of the disease [112]. Similarly, studies have shown promising evidence regarding the ability of neutrophils to kill Acanthamoeba cysts and trophozoites in vitro [115]. In a Chinese hamster model, introducing up to a million Acanthamoeba trophozoites into the anterior chamber of the eye resulted in a vigorous neutrophil response that efficiently eradicated the considerable trophozoite inoculum within 15 days following the injection [116]. In a separate animal-based study, the introduction of MIP-2 (an animal homologue of human IL-8), a potent chemotactic attractant for neutrophils, directly into the cornea alleviated AK. Conversely, the injection of anti-MIP-2 inhibited neutrophil migration to the infection site and led to the worsening of the disease [117].
The role of IL-8 is also important in the pathogenesis of AK. In severe cases of AK, IL-8 is expressed at higher concentrations compared with milder cases [118]. This elevated expression is associated with scleritis. IL-8 activates and attracts neutrophils to the sclera, serving as key inflammatory mediators and contributing to the worsening of AK [118]. Unlike most other inflammatory cytokines, IL-8 remains active at the site of inflammation for up to several weeks, leading to sustained inflammation [119]. Additionally, IL-8 is also a part of the Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4) cascade, which initiates the cytokine response in AK [119]. The prolonged persistence of IL-8 and other cytokines in the cornea could significantly contribute to ongoing inflammation in AK, which would explain the severe clinical symptoms in affected individuals. Furthermore, IL-8 also promotes angiogenesis, which may contribute to ocular neovascularization, a late complication associated with AK [118].
Serological surveys indicate that 90 to 100% of the asymptomatic population with no history of Acanthamoeba infections expresses serum IgG antibodies specific for Acanthamoeba [120]. This is not unexpected as cysts are present in air and dust and are inhaled daily. These antibodies, in addition to IgA which is present in the highest concentrations in tears [24], are very crucial in neutralizing cytotoxic effects produced by the amoeba and preventing Acanthamoeba adhesion to the host cell by blocking trophozoite movement. IgG may also resist the trophozoite’s progress during the stromal invasion [121]. Furthermore, secretory IgG antibodies produced in response to mannosylated glycoproteins of Acanthamoeba are thought to activate the complement system by attaching to Fc receptors on the neutrophils. Once activated, these neutrophils attack and kill trophozoites [115,122]. Similarly, most of the asymptomatic population shows robust T-cell responses to Acanthamoeba exposure [14]. The high occurrence of T and B lymphocyte activation in individuals without a history of Acanthamoeba infections emphasizes the ubiquitous nature of environmental exposure to Acanthamoeba. However, it is important to note that AK is believed to be caused by the transfer of Acanthamoeba from a contact lens to the corneal surface. The corneal surface is considered an immune-privileged avascular site, and in this case, Acanthamoeba may not elicit rapid antibodies or T-cell responses on the ocular surface [123]. Both humoral and delayed-type responses are produced by systemic immunization with Acanthamoeba antigens, but these responses cannot provide protection against ocular infection [123].
Since corneal infection caused by Acanthamoeba does not produce immunity, persistence of this infection is frequent. This persistence is due to the capacity of Acanthamoeba to avoid the immune response to the infection, thus being able to persist in host tissue for extended periods.Top of Form

7. Immune Evasion

Acanthamoeba has evolved several mechanisms to evade a host’s immune system and cause persistent infections. This characteristic makes AK a challenging disease to manage with conventional techniques. Whilst the surface antigens of Acanthamoeba can elicit a humoral immune response, leading to the production of secretory IgA and serum IgG antibodies, Acanthamoeba trophozoites suppress this immune response by secreting serine proteases, which can cleave IgA and IgG [124,125]. There are lower levels of Acanthamoeba-specific IgA and IgG antibodies in AK patients than in healthy individuals [120,126]. These decreased levels of antibodies enable Acanthamoeba to adhere to the host corneal epithelium and survive in the host for a longer period.
A pathological examination of an Acanthamoeba-infected cornea revealed the absence of lymphocytes from the AK lesion [127], which suggests that Acanthamoeba trophozoites can change their antigenic appearance by masking their surfacing antigens and escape immune recognition from the host immune system (Figure 1) [128]. This mechanism may explain why some individuals fail to recover from Acanthamoeba infection [129].
The pathogenic strains of Acanthamoeba trophozoites express complement regulatory proteins, which can downgrade complement-mediated lysis, making them less susceptible to the antimicrobial effects of the complement [128]. This resistance to the antimicrobial properties of the complement may explain why animals immunized against Acanthamoeba and expressing complement-fixing antibodies are not protected against AK. A systematic analysis has identified a unique protein secreted by Acanthamoeba isolates, M28 aminopeptidase (M28AP), which can degrade crucial human complement proteins, such as C3b and iC3b [130]. This characteristic disables the innate arm of the complement system, enhancing the pathogenicity of Acanthamoeba. Pathogenic isolates of Acanthamoeba have greater resistance to complement compared with non-pathogenic isolates [131,132]. It is important to note that other pathogenic protozoa, like Naegleria fowleri, also demonstrate a similar pattern to complement-mediated lysis [133].
Acanthamoeba trophozoites undergo encystation within human tissue as a strategy to escape the host immunologic response. This characteristic enables Acanthamoeba to resist immune attacks and survive in a hostile host environment. Studies have shown that cysts are less chemoattractant for macrophages and lymphocytes [134]. This characteristic of cysts is attributed to their inert nature and fewer viable receptors for immune cells. Despite successful treatment, cysts can persist in the corneal stroma for several years, where they are less immunogenic and fewer in number than trophozoites [135]. Additionally, the eye’s immunologically privileged nature provides further protection to these residing cysts, preventing recognition and elimination by the adaptive immune system [126,136]. These cysts are a crucial source for the recurrence of corneal infections [135].

8. Genetic Variations Associated with the Severity of Disease

Several host genetic variations are associated with severe inflammatory complications (SICs) in AK patients. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the CXCL8 gene, which encodes IL-8, were significantly associated with protection from SICs [119]. Conversely, SNPs in the TLR-4 gene have been associated with an increased risk of SICs, and SNPs in Th-17-related genes (IL-23R, IL-1β, and IL-22) were also found to be associated with an increased incidence of SICs in AK patients [119]. A study of non-amoebic microbial keratitis found associations between genetic variations in interleukins and disease severity. SNPs in the IL-6 gene were associated with more severe clinical outcomes [137]. Moreover, variations in beta defensin 1 (DEBF1) gene expression were associated with increased susceptibility to contact-lens-related keratitis [138]. SNPs in IL-17F were also possibly associated with more severe outcomes of microbial keratitis [139].

9. Diagnosis

Acanthamoeba is a rare cause of keratitis, which is why it is often overlooked as a differential diagnosis by clinicians. Early diagnosis of AK is essential to avoid serious damage to the cornea and vision. It is important to have a clinical suspicion of AK in patients with associated risk factors. The different diagnostic techniques have their strengths and limitations. Therefore, multiple diagnostic approaches are used for the diagnosis of AK. In clinical settings, culture is most commonly used along with in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
The culture of Acanthamoeba is considered the gold standard and plays an important role in diagnosing suspected cases of AK. It is usually performed with corneal scrapings and gives 100% specificity [140]. However, the sensitivity of the culture is reported to be below 67% [141,142,143] and is influenced by the culture method used [144]. The technique for obtaining the corneal specimen can also impact the diagnostic sensitivity. Corneal biopsy has the highest sensitivity, followed by spatula methods, while specimens obtained with a cotton swab have the lowest sensitivity [145]. The sensitivity of the culture is improved when combined with a direct smear stained with stains like Calcofluor white, which helps identify Acanthamoeba cysts [146].
IVCM is a non-invasive diagnostic tool recently employed for AK diagnosis. IVCM has a very high specificity (100%) and a high sensitivity, ranging from 85 to 100% [147,148]. The test also provides rapid results, especially when compared with other diagnostic tools. This technique can detect Acanthamoeba cysts only, which makes it limited to detecting AK at later stages of the disease [149]. Moreover, stromal inflammation and edema can cause masking of Acanthamoeba cysts, resulting in false-negative results. Apart from diagnosis, IVCM is also used to assess treatment outcomes and examine for residual disease [150].
PCR of corneal scrapings is becoming increasingly popular for diagnosing AK, providing faster results with a more accessible diagnostic modality than culture. PCR offers high specificity (100%), and the sensitivity of a single PCR assay for AK is reported to be approximately 70%, which is higher than some culture-based methods, with the potential to increase up to 93% or more when multiple gene assays are used [142,143]. However, the sensitivity of PCR is reduced in the initial phase of infection, particularly with small specimen sizes and in cases undergoing anti-Acanthamoebal treatment [151]. The strengths and limitations of these diagnostic tools are summarized in Table 3.

10. Prevention

Increased awareness regarding the associated risks of poor contact lens hygiene practices is important. Key practices include avoiding contact between tap water and contact lenses by not handling lenses with wet hands, and not wearing contact lenses when showering or swimming. Hand hygiene is important, so washing hands with soap and water and drying them thoroughly before handling contact lenses may help to reduce the risk of corneal infection. The use of self-made saline solutions and expired disinfectants is highly discouraged. Only ISO-certified and FDA-approved disinfecting solutions should be used for cleaning and storing contact lenses. Failure to clean or replace contact lens cases is associated with a higher risk of severe infection.

11. Conclusions/Future Directions

AK presents a rare yet serious corneal infection, posing significant challenges in both diagnosis and treatment. The infection is caused by a ubiquitous protozoon Acanthamoeba and particularly affects vulnerable groups, notably contact lens wearers and those who have recent eye trauma. AK is often misdiagnosed, resulting in delayed intervention. The host immune response to the infection is crucial for disease eradication, but it simultaneously poses risks such as scarring and vision loss due to increased corneal inflammation. The genetic similarity between Acanthamoeba and humans poses a challenge in finding an appropriate treatment method that selectively harms the parasite without causing harm to the human host. In this regard, the development of Acanthamoeba-specific IgA vaccine in tears, capable of blocking trophozoite adherence to mannosylated proteins on the corneal epithelium, can be effective in preventing infection.
The ability of Acanthamoeba to produce several proteases during infection can be another potential avenue for therapeutic interventions. Identifying the exact molecular mechanisms of how these proteases work may help in developing proteinase inhibitors. Further research is necessary to explore the potential role of protease inhibitors as treatments. Acanthamoeba trophozoites can transform into cysts in the cornea, resulting in the recurrence of infection after treatment. Developing treatments that can target distinct morphological structures of cysts may offer better clinical management options. Furthermore, genetic screening for specific SNPs associated with severe inflammatory complications in AK patients could help predict the risk of disease severity, allowing for more personalized and targeted management of the disease.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.C. and M.I.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I. and T.Z.; writing—review and editing, F.S., M.D.P.W., F.H., H.K.P., B.R. and C.P.; supervision, N.A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rivera, F.; Lares, F.; Gallegos, E.; Ramirez, E.; Bonilla, P.; Calderon, A.; Martinez, J.J.; Rodriguez, S.; Alcocer, J. Pathogenic amoebae in natural thermal waters of three resorts of Hidalgo, Mexico. Environ. Res. 1989, 50, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rivera, F.; Lares, F.; Ramirez, E.; Bonilla, P.; Rodriguez, S.; Labastida, A.; Ortiz, R.; Hernandez, D. Pathogenic Acanthamoeba isolated during an atmospheric survey in Mexico City. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1991, 13, S388–S389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Michel, R.; Hauröder-Philippczyk, B.; Müller, K.-D.; Weishaar, I. Acanthamoeba from human nasal mucosa infected with an obligate intracellular parasite. Eur. J. Protistol. 1994, 30, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tawfeek, G.M.; Bishara, S.A.-H.; Sarhan, R.M.; ElShabrawi Taher, E.; ElSaady Khayyal, A. Genotypic, physiological, and biochemical characterization of potentially pathogenic Acanthamoeba isolated from the environment in Cairo, Egypt. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 1871–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lass, A.; Guerrero, M.; Li, X.; Karanis, G.; Ma, L.; Karanis, P. Detection of Acanthamoeba spp. in water samples collected from natural water reservoirs, sewages, and pharmaceutical factory drains using LAMP and PCR in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Carnt, N.A.; Subedi, D.; Lim, A.W.; Lee, R.; Mistry, P.; Badenoch, P.R.; Kilvington, S.; Dutta, D.J.C.; Optometry, E. Prevalence and seasonal variation of Acanthamoeba in domestic tap water in greater Sydney, Australia. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2020, 103, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wopereis, D.B.; Bazzo, M.L.; de Macedo, J.P.; Casara, F.; Golfeto, L.; Venancio, E.; de Oliveira, J.G.; Rott, M.B.; Caumo, K.S. Free-living amoebae and their relationship to air quality in hospital environments: Characterization of Acanthamoeba spp. obtained from air-conditioning systems. Parasitology 2020, 147, 782–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sharma, G.; Kalra, S.K.; Tejan, N.; Ghoshal, U. Nanoparticles based therapeutic efficacy against Acanthamoeba: Updates and future prospect. Exp. Parasitol. 2020, 218, 108008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Pacella, E.; La Torre, G.; De Giusti, M.; Brillante, C.; Lombardi, A.M.; Smaldone, G.; Lenzi, T.; Pacella, F. Results of case-control studies support the association between contact lens use and Acanthamoeba keratitis. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2013, 7, 991–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nwachuku, N.; Gerba, C.P. Health effects of Acanthamoeba spp. and its potential for waterborne transmission. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 93–131. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nagington, J.; Watson, P.; Playfair, T.; McGill, J.; Jones, B.; Steele, A. Amoebic infection of the eye. Lancet 1974, 304, 1537–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tu, E.Y.; Joslin, C.E.; Sugar, J.; Shoff, M.E.; Booton, G.C. Prognostic factors affecting visual outcome in Acanthamoeba keratitis. Ophthalmology 2008, 115, 1998–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carnt, N.; Hoffman, J.J.; Verma, S.; Hau, S.; Radford, C.F.; Minassian, D.C.; Dart, J.K.G. Acanthamoeba keratitis: Confirmation of the UK outbreak and a prospective case-control study identifying contributing risk factors. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 102, 1621–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Niederkorn, J.Y.; Alizadeh, H.; Leher, H.; McCulley, J.P. The pathogenesis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Microbes Infect. 1999, 1, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carnt, N.; Stapleton, F. Strategies for the prevention of contact lens-related Acanthamoeba keratitis: A review. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2016, 36, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dos Santos, D.L.; Kwitko, S.; Marinho, D.R.; De Araújo, B.S.; Locatelli, C.I.; Rott, M.B. Acanthamoeba keratitis in Porto Alegre (southern Brazil): 28 cases and risk factors. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 747–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Scruggs, B.A.; Quist, T.S.; Salinas, J.L.; Greiner, M.A. Notes from the field: Acanthamoeba keratitis cases—Iowa, 2002–2017. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2019, 68, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Carnt, N.A.; Subedi, D.; Connor, S.; Kilvington, S. The relationship between environmental sources and the susceptibility of Acanthamoeba keratitis in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Buerano, C.C.; Trinidad, A.D.; Fajardo, L.S.N.; Cua, I.Y.; Baclig, M.O.; Natividad, F.F. Isolation of Acanthamoeba genotype T4 from a non-contact lens wearer from the Philippines. Trop. Med. Health 2014, 42, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Page, M.A.; Mathers, W.D. Acanthamoeba keratitis: A 12-year experience covering a wide spectrum of presentations, diagnoses, and outcomes. J. Ophtalmol. 2013, 2013, 670242. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, W.B.; Gotay, A. Bilateral Acanthamoeba keratitis in Synergeyes contact lens wear: Clinical and confocal microscopy findings. Eye Contact Lens Sci. Clin. Pract. 2010, 36, 164–169. [Google Scholar]
  22. Voyatzis, G.; McElvanney, A. Bilateral Acanthamoeba keratitis in an experienced two-weekly disposable contact lens wearer. Eye Contact Lens Sci. Clin. Pract. 2007, 33, 201–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lindsay, R.G.; Watters, G.; Johnson, R.; Ormonde, S.E.; Snibson, G.R. Acanthamoeba keratitis and contact lens wear. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2007, 90, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lorenzo-Morales, J.; Martín-Navarro, C.M.; López-Arencibia, A.; Arnalich-Montiel, F.; Piñero, J.E.; Valladares, B. Acanthamoeba keratitis: An emerging disease gathering importance worldwide? Trends Parasitol. 2013, 29, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhang, Y.; Xu, X.; Wei, Z.; Cao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, Q. The global epidemiology and clinical diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. J. Infect. Public Health 2023, 16, 841–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Schaumberg, D.A.; Snow, K.K.; Dana, M.R. The epidemic of Acanthamoeba keratitis: Where do we stand? Cornea 1998, 17, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cope, J.R.; Collier, S.A.; Rao, M.M.; Chalmers, R.; Mitchell, G.L.; Richdale, K.; Wagner, H.; Kinoshita, B.T.; Lam, D.Y.; Sorbara, L.; et al. Contact lens wearer demographics and risk behaviors for contact lens-related eye infections—United States, 2014. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2015, 64, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Nielsen, S.E.; Ivarsen, A.; Hjortdal, J. Increasing incidence of Acanthamoeba keratitis in a large tertiary ophthalmology department from year 1994 to 2018. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020, 98, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Randag, A.C.; Van Rooij, J.; Van Goor, A.T.; Verkerk, S.; Wisse, R.P.; Saelens, I.E.; Stoutenbeek, R.; van Dooren, B.T.; Cheng, Y.Y.; Eggink, C.A. The rising incidence of Acanthamoeba keratitis: A 7-year nationwide survey and clinical assessment of risk factors and functional outcomes. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Graffi, S.; Peretz, A.; Jabaly, H.; Koiefman, A.; Naftali, M. Acanthamoeba keratitis: Study of the 5-year incidence in Israel. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 97, 1382–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Joslin, C.E.; Tu, E.Y.; Shoff, M.E.; Booton, G.C.; Fuerst, P.A.; McMahon, T.T.; Anderson, R.J.; Dworkin, M.S.; Sugar, J.; Davis, F.G.; et al. The association of contact lens solution use and Acanthamoeba keratitis. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2007, 144, 169–180. e162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yoder, J.S.; Verani, J.; Heidman, N.; Hoppe-Bauer, J.; Alfonso, E.C.; Miller, D.; Jones, D.B.; Bruckner, D.; Langston, R.; Jeng, B.H.; et al. Acanthamoeba keratitis: The persistence of cases following a multistate outbreak. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2012, 19, 221–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tu, E.Y. Acanthamoeba keratitis: A new normal. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 158, 417–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Höllhumer, R.; Keay, L.; Watson, S.J. Acanthamoeba keratitis in Australia: Demographics, associated factors, presentation and outcomes: A 15-year case review. Eye 2020, 34, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pussard, M. Morphologie de la paroikystique et taxonomie du genre Acanthamoeba (Protozoa, Amoebida). Protistologica 1977, 13, 557–598. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Ju, X.; Wang, L.; Jin, L.; Fine, R.D.; Li, M. Biological characteristics and pathogenicity of Acanthamoeba. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1147077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kong, H.H. Molecular phylogeny of Acanthamoeba. Korean J. Parasitol. 2009, 47, S21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Corsaro, D. Update on Acanthamoeba phylogeny. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 3327–3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. de Lacerda, A.G.; Lira, M. Acanthamoeba keratitis: A review of biology, pathophysiology and epidemiology. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2021, 41, 116–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Fuerst, F.; McAllister, P.; Nanda, A.; Wyatt, P. Does energy efficiency matter to home-buyers? An investigation of EPC ratings and transaction prices in England. Energy Econ. 2015, 48, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Khan, N.A. Acanthamoeba: Biology and increasing importance in human health. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2006, 30, 564–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Castrillón, J.C.; Orozco, L.P. Acanthamoeba spp. como parásitos patógenos y oportunistas. Rev. Chil. Infectol. 2013, 30, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fuerst, P.A.; Booton, G.C. Species, sequence types and alleles: Dissecting genetic variation in Acanthamoeba. Pathogens 2020, 9, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gast, R.J.; Ledee, D.R.; Fuerst, P.A.; Byers, T.J. Subgenus systematics of Acanthamoeba: Four nuclear 18S rDNA sequence types. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1996, 43, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Taher, E.E.; Méabed, E.M.; Abdallah, I.; Wahed, W.Y.A. Acanthamoeba keratitis in noncompliant soft contact lenses users: Genotyping and risk factors, a study from Cairo, Egypt. J. Infect. Public Health 2018, 11, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Maghsood, A.H.; Sissons, J.; Rezaian, M.; Nolder, D.; Warhurst, D.; Khan, N.A. Acanthamoeba genotype T4 from the UK and Iran and isolation of the T2 genotype from clinical isolates. J. Med Microbiol. 2005, 54, 755–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Corsaro, D.; Walochnik, J.; Köhsler, M.; Rott, M.B. Acanthamoeba misidentification and multiple labels: Redefining genotypes T16, T19, and T20 and proposal for Acanthamoeba micheli sp. nov.(genotype T19). Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 2481–2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Fuerst, P.A.; Booton, G.C.; Crary, M. Phylogenetic analysis and the evolution of the 18S rRNA gene typing system of Acanthamoeba. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2015, 62, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Walochnik, J.; Obwaller, A.; Aspöck, H. Correlations between morphological, molecular biological, and physiological characteristics in clinical and nonclinical isolates of Acanthamoeba spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 4408–4413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Gomes, T.d.S.; Magnet, A.; Izquierdo, F.; Vaccaro, L.; Redondo, F.; Bueno, S.; Sánchez, M.L.; Angulo, S.; Fenoy, S.; Hurtado, C.; et al. Acanthamoeba spp. in contact lenses from healthy individuals from Madrid, Spain. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Walochnik, J.; Scheikl, U.; Haller-Schober, E. Twenty years of Acanthamoeba diagnostics in Austria. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2015, 62, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Casero, R.D.; Mongi, F.; Laconte, L.; Rivero, F.; Sastre, D.; Teherán, A.; Herrera, G.; Ramírez, J.D. Molecular and morphological characterization of Acanthamoeba isolated from corneal scrapes and contact lens wearers in Argentina. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 54, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ledee, D.; Iovieno, A.; Miller, D.; Mandal, N.; Diaz, M.; Fell, J.; Fini, M.; Alfonso, E.J. Molecular identification of T4 and T5 genotypes in isolates from Acanthamoeba keratitis patients. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 1458–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maciver, S.K.; Asif, M.; Simmen, M.W.; Lorenzo-Morales, J. A systematic analysis of Acanthamoeba genotype frequency correlated with source and pathogenicity: T4 is confirmed as a pathogen-rich genotype. Eur. J. Protistol. 2013, 49, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Di Cave, D.; Monno, R.; Bottalico, P.; Guerriero, S.; D’amelio, S.; D’orazi, C.; Berrilli, F. Acanthamoeba T4 and T15 genotypes associated with keratitis infections in Italy. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2009, 28, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Roshni Prithiviraj, S.; Rajapandian, S.G.K.; Gnanam, H.; Gunasekaran, R.; Mariappan, P.; Sankalp Singh, S.; Prajna, L. Clinical presentations, genotypic diversity and phylogenetic analysis of Acanthamoeba species causing keratitis. J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 69, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Otero-Ruiz, A.; Gonzalez-Zuñiga, L.D.; Rodriguez-Anaya, L.Z.; Lares-Jiménez, L.F.; Gonzalez-Galaviz, J.R.; Lares-Villa, F. Distribution and current state of molecular genetic characterization in pathogenic free-living amoebae. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ray, D.; Hayes, R.E. Hartmannella astronyxis: A new species of free-living ameba. Cytology and life cycle. J. Morphol. 1954, 95, 159–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pussard, M. Acanthamoeba comandoni n. sp., comparaison avec A. terricola. Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol. 1964, 1, 587–610. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis, E.J.; Sawyer, T.K. Acanthamoeba tubiashi n. sp., a new species of fresh-water Amoebida (Acanthamoebidae). Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 1979, 98, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Qvarnstrom, Y.; Nerad, T.A.; Visvesvara, G.S. Characterization of a new pathogenic Acanthamoeba species, A. byersi n. sp., isolated from a human with fatal amoebic encephalitis. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2013, 60, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Douglas, M. Notes on the classification of the amoeba found by Castellani in cultures of a yeast-like fungus. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1930, 33, 59. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pussard, M. Cytologie d’une Amibe terricola: Acanthamoeba terricola n. sp. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool. 1964, 6, 565–600. [Google Scholar]
  64. Schmoller, H. Beschreibung einiger kulturamöben mariner herkunft. J. Protozool. 1964, 11, 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Page, F.C. Re-definition of the genus Acanthamoeba with descriptions of three species. J. Protozool. 1967, 14, 709–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sawyer, T.K. Acanthamoeba griffini, a new species of marine amoeba. J. Protozool. 1971, 18, 650–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Singh, B.N.; Das, S.R. Studies on pathogenic and non-pathogenic small free-living amoebae and the bearing of nuclear division on the classification of the order Amoebida. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1970, 259, 435–476. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Sawyer, T.K.; Visvesvara, G.S.; Harke, B.A. Pathogenic amoebas from brackish and ocean sediments, with a description of Acanthamoeba hatchetti, n. sp. Science 1977, 196, 1324–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sawyer, T.K.; Nerad, T.A.; Lewis, E.J.; McLaughlin, S.M. Acanthamoeba stevensoni N. Sp.(Protozoa: Amoebida) from Sewage-Contaminated Shellfish Beds in Raritan Bay, New York. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1993, 40, 742–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nerad, T.A.; Sawyer, T.K.; Lewis, E.J.; McLaughlin, S.M. Acanthamoeba pearcei n. sp. (Protozoa: Amoebida) from sewage contaminated sediments. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1995, 42, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Tice, A.K.; Shadwick, L.L.; Fiore-Donno, A.M.; Geisen, S.; Kang, S.; Schuler, G.A.; Spiegel, F.W.; Wilkinson, K.A.; Bonkowski, M.; Dumack, K.; et al. Expansion of the molecular and morphological diversity of Acanthamoebidae (Centramoebida, Amoebozoa) and identification of a novel life cycle type within the group. Biol. Direct 2016, 11, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Reich, K. Studien über die Bodenprotozoen Palästinas; G. Fischer: Schaffhausen, Switzerland, 1933. [Google Scholar]
  73. Willaert, E.; Stevens, A.; Tyndall, R.L. Taxonomy Acanthamoeba royreba sp. n. from a Human Tumor Cell Culture. J. Protozool. 1978, 25, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Molet, B.; Ermolieff-Braun, G. Description d’Une Amibe d’Eau Douce: Acanthamoeba lenticulata, sp. nov. (Amoebida). Protistologica. 1976, 12, 571–576. [Google Scholar]
  75. Moura, H.; Wallace, S.; Visvesvara, G.S. Acanthamoeba healyi n. sp. and the isoenzyme and immunoblot profiles of Acanthamoeba spp., groups 1 and 3. J. Protozool. 1992, 39, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sawyer, T.K.; Nerad, T.A.; Visvesvara, G.S. Acanthamoeba jacobsi sp. n.(Protozoa: Acanthamoebidae) from sewage contaminated ocean sediments. J. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 1992, 59, 223–226. [Google Scholar]
  77. Im, K.; Shin, H.J. Acanthamoeba sohi, n. sp., a pathogenic Korean isolate YM-4 from a freshwater fish. Korean J. Parasitol. 2003, 41, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Putaporntip, C.; Kuamsab, N.; Nuprasert, W.; Rojrung, R.; Pattanawong, U.; Tia, T.; Yanmanee, S.; Jongwutiwes, S. Analysis of Acanthamoeba genotypes from public freshwater sources in Thailand reveals a new genotype, T23 Acanthamoeba bangkokensis sp. nov. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Fanselow, N.; Sirajuddin, N.; Yin, X.-T.; Huang, A.J.; Stuart, P.M. Acanthamoeba keratitis, pathology, diagnosis and treatment. Pathogens 2021, 10, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Siddiqui, R.; Khan, N.A. Biology and pathogenesis of Acanthamoeba. Parasites Vectors 2012, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Bowers, B.; Olszewski, T. Acanthamoeba discriminates internally between digestible and indigestible particles. J. Cell Biol. 1983, 97, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Marciano-Cabral, F.; Cabral, G. Acanthamoeba spp. as agents of disease in humans. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 273–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Tan, E.M.; Starr, M.R.; Henry, M.R.; Pritt, B.S. The brief case: A “fresh” pair of contact lenses. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e00790-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Omaña-Molina, M.A.; González-Robles, A.; Salazar-Villatoro, L.; Bernal-Escobar, A.; Durán-Díaz, Á.; Méndez-Cruz, A.R.; Martínez-Palomo, A.J.E.; Lens, C. Silicone hydrogel contact lenses surface promote Acanthamoeba castellanii trophozoites adherence: Qualitative and quantitative analysis. Eye Contact Lens 2014, 40, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Weisman, R.A. Differentiation in Acanthamoeba castellanii. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1976, 30, 189–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sriram, R.; Shoff, M.; Booton, G.; Fuerst, P.; Visvesvara, G.S. Survival of Acanthamoeba cysts after desiccation for more than 20 years. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 4045–4048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Byers, T.J.; Akins, R.A.; Maynard, B.J.; Lefken, R.A.; Martin, S.M. Rapid growth of Acanthamoeba in defined media; induction of encystment by glucose-acetate starvation. J. Protozool. 1980, 27, 216–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mazur, T.; Hadaś, E.; Iwanicka, I. The duration of the cyst stage and the viability and virulence of Acanthamoeba isolates. Trop. Med. Parasitol. Off. Organ Dtsch. Tropenmedizinische Ges. Dtsch. Ges. Tech. Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) 1995, 46, 106–108. [Google Scholar]
  89. Bouheraoua, N.; Labbé, A.; Chaumeil, C.; Liang, Q.; Laroche, L.; Borderie, V. Acanthamoeba keratitis. J. Fr. Ophtalmol. 2014, 37, 640–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lloyd, D.; Turner, N.; Khunkitti, W.; Hann, A.; Furr, J.; Russell, A.D. Encystation in Acanthamoeba castellanii: Development of Biocide Resistance 1. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2001, 48, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Turner, N.; Harris, J.; Russell, A.; Lloyd, D. Microbial differentiation and changes in susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 89, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kremer, I.; Cohen, E.J.; Eagle, R.C., Jr.; Udell, I.; Laibson, P.R. Histopathologic evaluation of stromal inflammation in Acanthamoeba keratitis. Eye Contact Lens 1994, 20, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  93. Kilvington, S. Acanthamoeba trophozoite and cyst adherence to four types of soft contact lens and removal by cleaning agents. Eye 1993, 7, 535–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. John, T.; Desai, D.; Sahm, D. Adherence of Acanthamoeba castellanii cysts and trophozoites to unworn soft contact lenses. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1989, 108, 658–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Niederkorn, J.Y. The biology of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Exp. Eye Res. 2021, 202, 108365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Omaña-Molina, M.; Hernandez-Martinez, D.; Sanchez-Rocha, R.; Cardenas-Lemus, U.; Salinas-Lara, C.; Mendez-Cruz, A.R.; Colin-Barenque, L.; Aley-Medina, P.; Espinosa-Villanueva, J.; Moreno-Fierros, L.; et al. In vivo CNS infection model of Acanthamoeba genotype T4: The early stages of infection lack presence of host inflammatory response and are a slow and contact-dependent process. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Huth, S.; Reverey, J.F.; Leippe, M.; Selhuber-Unkel, C. Adhesion forces and mechanics in mannose-mediated acanthamoeba interactions. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yoo, K.-T.; Jung, S.-Y. Effects of mannose on pathogenesis of Acanthamoeba castellanii. Korean J. Parasitol. 2012, 50, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sharma, C.; Khurana, S.; Bhatia, A.; Arora, A.; Gupta, A. The gene expression and proteomic profiling of Acanthamoeba isolates. Exp. Parasitol. 2023, 255, 108630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Matin, A.; Jung, S.-Y. Phospholipase activities in clinical and environmental isolates of Acanthamoeba. Korean J. Parasitol. 2011, 49, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Lorenzo-Morales, J.; Khan, N.A.; Walochnik, J. An update on Acanthamoeba keratitis: Diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment. Parasite 2015, 22, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Pellegrin, J.; Ortega-Barria, E.; Barza, M.; Baum, J.; Pereira, M. Neuraminidase activity in acanthamoeba species trophozoites and cysts. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1991, 32, 3061–3066. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  103. Panjwani, N. Pathogenesis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Ocul. Surf. 2010, 8, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Alves, D.d.S.M.M.; Gonçalves, G.S.; Moraes, A.S.; Alves, L.M.; Carmo Neto, J.R.d.; Hecht, M.M.; Nitz, N.; Gurgel-Gonçalves, R.; Bernardes, G.; de Castro, A.M. The first Acanthamoeba keratitis case in the Midwest region of Brazil: Diagnosis, genotyping of the parasite and disease outcome. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2018, 51, 716–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Serrano-Luna, J.d.J.; Cervantes-Sandoval, I.; Calderón, J.; Navarro-García, F.; Tsutsumi, V.; Shibayama, M. Protease activities of Acanthamoeba polyphaga and Acanthamoeba castellanii. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006, 52, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cirelli, C.; Mesquita, E.I.S.; Chagas, I.A.R.; Furst, C.; Possamai, C.O.; Abrahão, J.S.; dos Santos Silva, L.K.; Grossi, M.F.; Tagliati, C.A.; Costa, A.O. Extracellular protease profile of Acanthamoeba after prolonged axenic culture and after interaction with MDCK cells. Parasitol. Res. 2020, 119, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Moon, E.-K.; Hong, Y.; Chung, D.-I.; Kong, H.-H. Cysteine protease involving in autophagosomal degradation of mitochondria during encystation of Acanthamoeba. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 2012, 185, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hong, Y.; Kang, J.-M.; Joo, S.-Y.; Song, S.-M.; Lê, H.G.; Thái, T.L.; Lee, J.; Goo, Y.-K.; Chung, D.-I.; Sohn, W.-M.; et al. Molecular and biochemical properties of a cysteine protease of Acanthamoeba castellanii. Korean J. Parasitol. 2018, 56, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Ramírez-Rico, G.; Martínez-Castillo, M.; De La Garza, M.; Shibayama, M.; Serrano-Luna, J. Acanthamoeba castellanii proteases are capable of degrading iron-binding proteins as a possible mechanism of pathogenicity. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2015, 62, 614–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Łanocha-Arendarczyk, N.; Baranowska-Bosiacka, I.; Gutowska, I.; Kolasa-Wołosiuk, A.; Kot, K.; Łanocha, A.; Metryka, E.; Wiszniewska, B.; Chlubek, D.; Kosik-Bogacka, D. The activity of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-2, MMP-9) and their tissue inhibitors (TIMP-1, TIMP-3) in the cerebral cortex and hippocampus in experimental acanthamoebiasis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 4128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sissons, J.; Alsam, S.; Goldsworthy, G.; Lightfoot, M.; Jarroll, E.L.; Khan, N.A. Identification and properties of proteases from an Acanthamoeba isolate capable of producing granulomatous encephalitis. BMC Microbiol. 2006, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Van Klink, F.; Taylor, W.M.; Alizadeh, H.; Jager, M.J.; Van Rooijen, N.; Niederkorn, J.Y. The role of macrophages in Acanthamoeba keratitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1996, 37, 1271–1281. [Google Scholar]
  113. Marciano-Cabral, F.; Toney, D.M. The interaction of Acanthamoeba spp. with activated macrophages and with macrophage cell lines. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1998, 45, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Hurt, M.; Proy, V.; Niederkorn, J.Y.; Alizadeh, H. The interaction of Acanthamoeba castellanii cysts with macrophages and neutrophils. J. Parasitol. 2003, 89, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Stewart, G.; Shupe, K.; Kim, I.; Silvany, R.; Alizadeh, H.; McCulley, J.P.; Niederkorn, J.Y. Antibody-dependent neutrophil-mediated killing of Acanthamoeba castellanii. Int. J. Parasitol. 1994, 24, 739–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Clarke, D.W.; Alizadeh, H.; Niederkorn, J.Y. Failure of Acanthamoeba castellanii to produce intraocular infections. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005, 46, 2472–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cano, A.; Mattana, A.; Woods, S.; Henriquez, F.L.; Alexander, J.; Roberts, C.W. Acanthamoeba activates macrophages predominantly through Toll-like receptor 4-and MyD88-dependent mechanisms to induce interleukin-12 (IL-12) and IL-6. Infect. Immun. 2017, 85, e01054-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Carnt, N.; Montanez, V.M.; Galatowicz, G.; Veli, N.; Calder, V. Tear cytokine levels in contact lens wearers with acanthamoeba keratitis. Cornea 2017, 36, 791–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Carnt, N.A.; Pang, I.; Burdon, K.P.; Calder, V.; Dart, J.K.; Subedi, D.; Hardcastle, A.J. Innate and adaptive gene single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with susceptibility of severe inflammatory complications in Acanthamoeba keratitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021, 62, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Alizadeh, H.; Apte, S.; El-Agha, M.-S.H.; Li, L.; Hurt, M.; Howard, K.; Cavanagh, H.D.; McCulley, J.P.; Niederkorn, J. Tear IgA and serum IgG antibodies against Acanthamoeba in patients with Acanthamoeba keratitis. Cornea 2001, 20, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Feng, X.; Zheng, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, D.; Jiang, X.; Lv, S. A rabbit model of Acanthamoeba keratitis that better reflects the natural human infection. Anat. Rec. Adv. Integr. Anat. Evol. Biol. 2015, 298, 1509–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Pumidonming, W.; Walochnik, J.; Dauber, E.; Petry, F. Binding to complement factors and activation of the alternative pathway by Acanthamoeba. Immunobiology 2011, 216, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Alizadeh, H.; He, Y.; McCulley, J.P.; Ma, D.; Stewart, G.L.; Via, M.; Haehling, E.; Niederkorn, J.Y. Successful immunization against Acanthamoeba keratitis in a pig model. Cornea 1995, 14, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kong, H.-H.; Kim, T.-H.; Chung, D.-I. Purification and characterization of a secretory serine proteinase of Acanthamoeba healyi isolated from GAE. J. Parasitol. 2000, 86, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Foulks, G.N. Acanthamoeba keratitis and contact lens wear: Static or increasing problem? Eye Contact Lens. 2007, 33, 412–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Neelam, S.; Niederkorn, J.Y. Focus: Infectious diseases: Pathobiology and immunobiology of Acanthamoeba keratitis: Insights from animal models. Yale J. Biol. Med. 2017, 90, 261. [Google Scholar]
  127. Mathers, W.; Stevens, G., Jr.; Rodrigues, M.; Chan, C.C.; Gold, J.; Visvesvara, G.S.; Lemp, M.A.; Zimmerman, L.E. Immunopathology and electron microscopy of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1987, 103, 626–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Clarke, D.W.; Niederkorn, J.Y. The immunobiology of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Microbes Infect. 2006, 8, 1400–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Klink, F.V.; Leher, H.; Jager, M.; Alizadeh, H.; Taylor, W.; Niederkorn, J.Y. Systemic immune response to Acanthamoeba keratitis in the Chinese hamster. Ocul. Immunol. Inflamm. 1997, 5, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Huang, J.-M.; Chang, Y.-T.; Shih, M.-H.; Lin, W.-C.; Huang, F.-C. Identification and characterization of a secreted M28 aminopeptidase protein in Acanthamoeba. Parasitol. Res. 2019, 118, 1865–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Betanzos, A.; Bañuelos, C.; Orozco, E. Host invasion by pathogenic amoebae: Epithelial disruption by parasite proteins. Genes 2019, 10, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Willcox, M.D.P. Tear film, contact lenses and tear biomarkers. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2019, 102, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Ismail, N.N.; Yusof, H. Occurrence of The Pathogenic Amoeba Naegleria fowleri, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options. Malays. J. Med. Health Sci. 2021, 17, 285–295. [Google Scholar]
  134. Knickelbein, J.E.; Kovarik, J.; Dhaliwal, D.K.; Chu, C.T. Acanthamoeba keratitis: A clinicopathologic case report and review of the literature. Hum. Pathol. 2013, 44, 918–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Niederkorn, J.Y. Innate and adaptive immune responses to ocular Acanthamoeba infections. Expert Rev. Ophthalmol. 2008, 3, 665–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. McClellan, K.; Howard, K.; Mayhew, E.; Niederkorn, J.Y.; Alizadeh, H. Adaptive immune responses to Acanthamoeba cysts. Exp. Eye Res. 2002, 75, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Carnt, N.A.; Willcox, M.D.; Hau, S.; Garthwaite, L.L.; Evans, V.E.; Radford, C.F.; Dart, J.K.; Chakrabarti, S.; Stapleton, F. Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms of interleukins-1β,-6, and-12B with contact lens keratitis susceptibility and severity. Ophthalmology 2012, 119, 1320–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Carnt, N.A.; Willcox, M.D.; Hau, S.; Keay, L.; Dart, J.K.; Chakrabarti, S.; Stapleton, F. Immune defense single nucleotide polymorphisms and recruitment strategies associated with contact lens keratitis. Ophthalmology 2012, 119, 1997–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Carnt, N.A.; Cipriani, V.; Stapleton, F.J.; Calder, V.; Willcox, M.D. Association study of single nucleotide polymorphisms in IL-10 and IL-17 genes with the severity of microbial keratitis. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2019, 42, 658–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Megha, K.; Sharma, M.; Gupta, A.; Sehgal, R.; Khurana, S. Microbiological diagnosis of Acanthamoebic keratitis: Experience from tertiary care center of North India. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 100, 115339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Szentmáry, N.; Daas, L.; Shi, L.; Laurik, K.L.; Lepper, S.; Milioti, G.; Seitz, B. Acanthamoeba keratitis—Clinical signs, differential diagnosis and treatment. J. Curr. Ophthalmol. 2019, 31, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Yera, H.; Ok, V.; Kuet, F.L.K.; Dahane, N.; Ariey, F.; Hasseine, L.; Delaunay, P.; Martiano, D.; Marty, P.; Bourges, J.L. PCR and culture for diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 105, 1302–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Goh, J.W.; Harrison, R.; Hau, S.; Alexander, C.L.; Tole, D.M.; Avadhanam, V.S.M. Comparison of in vivo confocal microscopy, PCR and culture of corneal scrapes in the diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Cornea 2018, 37, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Penland, R.L.; Wilhelmus, K.R. Comparison of axenic and monoxenic media for isolation of Acanthamoeba. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997, 35, 915–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Muiño, L.; Rodrigo, D.; Villegas, R.; Romero, P.; Peredo, D.E.; Vargas, R.A.; Liempi, D.; Osuna, A.; Jercic, M.I. Effectiveness of sampling methods employed for Acanthamoeba keratitis diagnosis by culture. Int. Ophthalmol. 2019, 39, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Grossniklaus, H.E.; Waring IV, G.O.; Akor, C.; Castellano-Sanchez, A.A.; Bennett, K. Evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin and special stains for the detection of acanthamoeba keratitis in penetrating keratoplasties. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 136, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Kheirkhah, A.; Satitpitakul, V.; Syed, Z.A.; Müller, R.; Goyal, S.; Tu, E.Y.; Dana, R. Factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of laser-scanning in vivo confocal microscopy for Acanthamoeba keratitis. Cornea 2018, 37, 818–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. De Craene, S.; Knoeri, J.; Georgeon, C.; Kestelyn, P.; Borderie, V.M. Assessment of confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of polymerase chain reaction–positive Acanthamoeba keratitis: A case-control study. Ophthalmology 2018, 125, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Alkatan, H.M.; Al-Essa, R.S. Challenges in the diagnosis of microbial keratitis: A detailed review with update and general guidelines. Saudi J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 33, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Li, S.; Bian, J.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, X.; Shi, W. Clinical features and serial changes of Acanthamoeba keratitis: An in vivo confocal microscopy study. Eye 2020, 34, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Lehmann, O.J.; Green, S.M.; Morlet, N.; Kilvington, S.; Keys, M.F.; Matheson, M.M.; Dart, J.; McGill, J.I.; Watt, P.J. Polymerase chain reaction analysis of corneal epithelial and tear samples in the diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1998, 39, 1261–1265. [Google Scholar]
Pathogens 13 00142 g001
Figure 1. Immune evasion strategies used by Acanthamoeba.
Figure 1. Immune evasion strategies used by Acanthamoeba.
Pathogens 13 00142 g001
Table 2. Morphological differences between pathogenic and non-pathogenic Acanthamoeba.
Table 2. Morphological differences between pathogenic and non-pathogenic Acanthamoeba.
CharacteristicsPathogenic AmoebaNon-Pathogenic Amoeba
AcanthopodiaHigher number of complex Acanthopodia.Lower number of less-complex Acanthopodia.
Adherence to host cellsHigher number of MBPs and LBPs results in higher affinity for adherence to host cells.Smaller number of MBPs and LBPs results in lower affinity for adherence to host cells.
Cyst formationFormation of highly resistant cysts with complex outer layers.Formation of cysts with simpler outer layers, potentially less resistant.
MotilityMay display increased motility and faster movement.Generally slower and less dynamic motility.
Surface featuresPresence of distinctive surface structures, such as ridges or spines.Surface features are typically smoother and less pronounced.
Table 3. Comparison between different methods in the diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis.
Table 3. Comparison between different methods in the diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis.
MethodStrengthsLimitations
Culture1. Gold standard for AK diagnosis.
2. Easy to perform.		1. Requires 1–2 weeks for a positive result.
2. Influenced by specimen type.
IVCM1. High specificity and sensitivity.
2. Non-invasive.
3. Instant results.		1. Recognizes cysts only.
2. Expensive and not widely available.
3. User-dependent.
PCR1. High specificity and sensitivity.
2. Rapid results.
3. Allows genotyping, which helps in disease management and epidemiological studies.		1. False-positive results in presence of dead amoeba.
2. False-negative results during treatment.
3. Reduced sensitivity in the initial phase of infection.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ilyas, M.; Stapleton, F.; Willcox, M.D.P.; Henriquez, F.; Peguda, H.K.; Rayamajhee, B.; Zahid, T.; Petsoglou, C.; Carnt, N.A. Epidemiology of and Genetic Factors Associated with Acanthamoeba Keratitis. Pathogens 2024, 13, 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020142

AMA Style

Ilyas M, Stapleton F, Willcox MDP, Henriquez F, Peguda HK, Rayamajhee B, Zahid T, Petsoglou C, Carnt NA. Epidemiology of and Genetic Factors Associated with Acanthamoeba Keratitis. Pathogens. 2024; 13(2):142. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020142

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ilyas, Muhammad, Fiona Stapleton, Mark D. P. Willcox, Fiona Henriquez, Hari Kumar Peguda, Binod Rayamajhee, Tasbiha Zahid, Constantinos Petsoglou, and Nicole A. Carnt. 2024. "Epidemiology of and Genetic Factors Associated with Acanthamoeba Keratitis" Pathogens 13, no. 2: 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020142

APA Style

Ilyas, M., Stapleton, F., Willcox, M. D. P., Henriquez, F., Peguda, H. K., Rayamajhee, B., Zahid, T., Petsoglou, C., & Carnt, N. A. (2024). Epidemiology of and Genetic Factors Associated with Acanthamoeba Keratitis. Pathogens, 13(2), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13020142

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop