![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) is the most commonly diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide. The advancement of molecular techniques has made chlamydia diagnostics infinitely easier. However, molecular techniques lack the information on chlamydia viability. Where in routine diagnostics the detection of chlamydia DNA or RNA might suffice, in other patient scenarios, information on the viability of chlamydia might be essential.
Areas covered: In this review, the authors discuss the specific strengths and limitations of currently available methods to evaluate chlamydia viability: conventional cell culture, messenger RNA (mRNA) detection and viability-PCR (V-PCR).
PubMed and Google Scholar were searched with the following terms: Chlamydia trachomatis, Treatment failure, Anal chlamydia, Microbial viability, Culture, Viability-PCR, Messenger RNA, and Molecular diagnostics
Expert commentary: Several techniques are currently available to determine chlamydia viability and thus the clinical relevance of a positive test result in clinical samples. Depending on the underlying research question, all three discussed techniques have their merits when testing for viability. However, mRNA methods show the most promise in determining the presence of a true infection, in case the chlamydia reticulate body can be specifically detected. Further research is needed to understand how to best apply viability testing in current chlamydia diagnostics.
Declaration of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.