The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cultivation of the Bacillus of Whipple's Disease
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Whipple's disease is a systemic bacterial infection, but to date no isolate of the bacterium has been established in subculture, and no strain of this bacterium has been available for study. METHODS: Using specimens from the aortic [corrected] valve of a patient with endocarditis due to Whipple's disease, we isolated and propagated a bacterium by inoculation in a human fibroblast cell line (HEL) with the use of a shell-vial assay. We tested serum samples from our patient, other patients with Whipple's disease, and control subjects for the presence of antibodies to this bacterium. RESULTS: The bacterium of Whipple's disease was grown successfully in HEL cells, and we established subcultures of the isolate. Indirect immunofluorescence assays showed that the patient's serum reacted specifically against the bacterium. Seven of 9 serum samples from patients with Whipple's disease had IgM antibody titers of 1:50 or more, as compared with 3 of 40 samples from the control subjects (P<0.001). Polyclonal antibodies against the bacterium were generated by inoculation of the microorganism into mice and were used to detect bacteria in the excised cardiac tissue from our patient on immunohistochemical analysis. The 16S ribosomal RNA gene of the cultured bacterium was identical to the sequence for Tropheryma whippelii identified previously in tissue samples from patients with Whipple's disease. The strain we have grown is available in the French National Collection. CONCLUSIONS: We cultivated the bacterium of Whipple's disease, detected specific antibodies in tissue from the source patient, and generated specific antibodies in mice to be used in the immunodetection of the microorganism in tissues. The development of a serologic test for Whipple's disease may now be possible.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Culturing the human microbiota and culturomics
Lagier, J.-C., Dubourg, G., Million, M., Cadoret, F., Bilen, M., Fenollar, F., Levasseur, A., Rolain, J.-M., Fournier, P.-E., & Raoult, D. (2018) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-018-0041-0 · Cited by 872
Self-citationRolain, J.-M., Colson, P., & Raoult, D. (2007) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.05.015 · Cited by 401
Self-citationWhipple's disease: new aspects of pathogenesis and treatment
Schneider, T., Moos, V., Loddenkemper, C., Marth, T., Fenollar, F., & Raoult, D. (2008) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(08)70042-2 · Cited by 373
Self-citationThe contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species
Bilen, M., Dufour, J.-C., Lagier, J.-C., Cadoret, F., Daoud, Z., Dubourg, G., & Raoult, D. (2018) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0485-5 · Cited by 231
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Raoult, D., Birg, M. L., Scola, B. L., Fournier, P. E., Enea, M., Lepidi, H., Roux, V., Piette, J.-C., Vandenesch, F., Vital-Durand, D., & Marrie, T. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2000-03-02
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 620-625
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2336422260
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cultivation of the Bacillus of Whipple's Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200003023420903
- The paper
- Raoult, D., Birg, M. L., Scola, B. L., Fournier, P. E., Enea, M., Lepidi, H., Roux, V., Piette, J.-C., Vandenesch, F., Vital-Durand, D., & Marrie, T. J. (2000). Cultivation of the Bacillus of Whipple's Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200003023420903
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.