Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 12, Number 11—November 2006

Real-time PCR for Francisella tularensis Types A and B

On This Page
Article Metrics
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus

Cite This Article

To the Editor: Francisella tularensis, the etiologic agent of tularemia, is highly infectious and considered a potential bioweapon (13). Although 4 subspecies of F. tularensis are recognized, most cases of tularemia are due to infection by subsp. tularensis (type A) or holarctica (type B). North America is the only region where both type A and type B cause human disease. Subspecies novicida is also found in North America, but it is of reduced virulence. Disease incidence attributable to either type A or type B is essentially unknown because the traditional method for classification of these subspecies is glycerol fermentation, which requires culture recovery (4). F. tularensis is fastidious and slow growing, with isolates recovered in a small percentage of cases.

We developed real-time TaqMan PCR assays for classification of F. tularensis type A and type B after F. tularensis is identified by culture or, in the absence of culture, by a PCR method such as the F. tularensis multitarget TaqMan assay (5). The type A TaqMan assay targets pdpD, which is present in type A, almost entirely absent from type B, and contains a 144-bp insert in novicida (6,7) (F: 5´-GAGACATCAATTAAAAGAAGCAATACCTT-3´; R: 5´-CCAAGAGTACTATTTCCGGTTGGT-3´; probe: 5´-AAAATTCTGC"T"CAGCAGGATTTTGATTTGGTT-3´). The type B assay targets a junction between ISFtu2 and a flanking 3´ region (GenBank AY06) (F: 5´- CTTGTACTTTTATTTGGCTACTGAGAAACT-3´; R: 5´- CTTGCTTGGTTTGTAAATATAGTGGAA-3´; probe: 5´- ACCTAGTTCAACC"T"CAAGACTTTTAGTAATGGGAATGTCA-3´). In type A and novicida, ISFtu2 is absent from this position (8). Oligonucleotides were designed with Primer Express version 2.0 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Probes were synthesized with a 5´ 6-carboxy-fluorescein reporter and an internal quencher (either BHQ1 [type A] or QSY-7[type B]) at the nucleotide position indicated by the quotation marks.

Assays were optimized by using 1 ng of type A (strain SchuS4) or type B (strain LVS) DNA on the LightCycler 1.2 (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Optimized concentrations (20 μL final volume) were 1× LightCycler Fast Start DNA Master Hybridization Probe mix (Roche), 750 nmol/L primers, 200 nmol/L probe, 5 mmol/L MgCl2 and 0.5 U uracil-DNA glycosylase. PCR conditions were 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 10 min, 45 cycles of 95°C for 10 s and 65°C for 30 s, then 45°C for 5 min. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were calculated by using the second derivative maximum method with the y-axis at F1/F3 (LightCycler software version 3.5).

Sensitivity of each assay was assessed by using 10-fold serial dilutions (100,000 to 1 genomic equivalents [GE]) of SchuS4 or LVS DNA. Testing was performed in triplicate, with a reproducible detection limit of 10 GE for both assays. Specificity of each assay was tested with 1 ng of DNA from a panel of 62 Francisella isolates (Table A1) and 22 non-Francisella isolates (Acinetobacter, Bacillus, Brucella, Corynebacterium, Enterobacter, Enterococcus, Escherichia, Haemophilus, Klebsiella, Legionella, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Serratia, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Yersinia species). Isolates were grown, DNA purified, and quantified as previously described (5). Specificity was also evaluated with DNA (2 μL) extracted as previously described from Francisella-like tick endosymbionts of Dermacentor variabilis and Francisella-like soil bacteria (Table A1) (9,10). The type A assay recognized all type A isolates with an average Ct value of 17.9 (n = 19). The type B assay detected all type B strains with an average Ct value of 17.1 (n = 21). Neither assay displayed cross-reactivity with F. tularensis subsp. novicida (n = 7), F. philomiragia (n = 15), Francisella-like tick endosymbionts (n = 3), Francisella-like soil bacteria (n = 7) (Table A1), or non-Francisella spp. (n = 22).

To evaluate the ability of the type A and type B TaqMan assays, in conjunction with the multitarget assay, to identify F. tularensis and classify subspecies in primary specimens, human, animal, and tick samples were tested (Table ). DNA was extracted from 200 μL fluid, 25 mg liver, and 10 mg spleen or lung by using the QIAamp DNA MiniKit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) and 1 μL tested. Multitarget PCR conditions were as described (5).

The multitarget and subspecies-specific PCR assays accurately identified and classified F. tularensis in all specimens positive by standard diagnostic methods (Table). In addition, the type A and type B assays provided subspecies information for positive specimens in which an isolate was not recovered for glycerol fermentation testing (Table ). All specimens negative by standard diagnostic methods tested negative by PCR. These preliminary results suggest that a F. tularensis PCR identification method, in combination with the type A and type B assays, provides the capability to identify F. tularensis and determine subspecies in the absence of culture.

We describe real-time PCR assays capable of classifying F. tularensis type A and type B and distinguishing these subspecies from the less virulent subsp. novicida. These assays are designed for use after F. tularensis has been identified by culture or by PCR. Supplemental use of these assays will allow laboratories to actively subtype F. tularensis isolates and primary specimens, thus providing subspecies information for a higher percentage of tularemia cases. Improved subspecies information will further understanding of the disease incidence and geographic distribution of F. tularensis type A and type B in North America.



We thank Francis Nano for sharing information regarding the pdpD gene; Cheryl Kuske and Susan Barns for sharing DNA from Francisella-like bacteria in soil; and Nikos Gurfield, Jean Creek, and Heidi Goethert for providing Francisella-like tick endosymbiont DNA samples.


Kiersten J. Kugeler*, Ryan Pappert*, Yan Zhou*, and Jeannine M. Petersen*Comments to Author 
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA



  1. Ellis  J, Oyston  PC, Green  M, Titball  RW. Tularemia. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15:63146. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dennis  DT, Inglesby  TV, Henderson  DA, Bartlett  JG, Ascher  MS, Eitzen  E, Tularemia as a biological weapon: medical and public health management. JAMA. 2001;285:276373. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Sjostedt  A. Family XVII. Francisellaceae, genus I. Francisella. In: Brenner DJ, editor. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005.
  4. Olsufjev  NG, Meshcheryakova  IS. Infraspecific taxonomy of tularemia agent Francisella tularensis McCoy et Chapin. J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol. 1982;26:2919.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Versage  JL, Severin  DD, Chu  MC, Petersen  JM. Development of a multitarget real-time TaqMan PCR assay for enhanced detection of Francisella tularensis in complex specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:54929. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Nano  FE, Zhang  N, Cowley  SC, Klose  KE, Cheung  KK, Roberts  MJ, A Francisella tularensis pathogenicity island required for intramacrophage growth. J Bacteriol. 2004;186:64306. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Larsson  P, Oyston  PC, Chain  P, Chu  MC, Duffield  M, Fuxelius  HH, The complete genome sequence of Francisella tularensis, the causative agent of tularemia. Nat Genet. 2005;37:1539. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Petersen  JM, Schriefer  ME, Carter  LG, Zhou  Y, Sealy  T, Bawiec  D, Laboratory analysis of tularemia in wild-trapped, commercially traded prairie dogs, Texas, 2002. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:41925.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Barns  SM, Grow  CC, Okinaka  RT, Keim  P, Kuske  CR. Detection of diverse new Francisella-like bacteria in environmental samples. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:5494500. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kugeler  KJ, Gurfield  N, Creek  JG, Mahoney  KS, Versage  JL, Petersen  JM. Discrimination between Francisella tularensis and Francisella-like endosymbionts when screening ticks by PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:75947. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid1211.060629

Related Links


Table of Contents – Volume 12, Number 11—November 2006

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Jeannine M. Petersen, Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Foothills Campus, PO Box 2087, Fort Collins, CO 80522, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: October 14, 2011
Page updated: October 14, 2011
Page reviewed: October 14, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.