B. burgdorferi refers to the species responsible for Lyme disease, comprising multiple closely related Borrelia species such as B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, B. afzelii, B. garinii, and others.
B. burgdorferi DNA specifically refers to the DNA from the single species Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.). B. burgdorferi is just one member species within the broader B. burgdorferi sl (sensu lato) group.
These bacteria are spirochetes, characterized by their helical shape, which enables efficient movement through host tissues and evasion of immune responses. The complex life cycle of B. burgdorferi involves transmission between ticks and vertebrate hosts, such as mammals and birds, facilitating chronic infections.
Diagnostic tests for B. burgdorferi DNA, including PCR and serological assays, play a crucial role in identifying and managing Lyme disease by detecting the bacterium in blood, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, or synovial fluid.
Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are essential to prevent the progression to severe, late-stage symptoms.
B. burgdorferi (sensu lato) refers to the Borrelia burgdorferi species complex or group. It encompasses multiple closely related bacterial species or genospecies that cause Lyme disease, including:
So B. burgdorferi sl DNA refers to the DNA from any of these Borrelia species that belong to the B. burgdorferi complex.
On the other hand, B. burgdorferi DNA specifically refers to the DNA from the single species Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.). This is just one member species within the broader B. burgdorferi group.
In summary, B. burgdorferi sl is the overarching species complex containing multiple distinct but closely related Borrelia species that cause Lyme disease, while B. burgdorferi (without the sl) refers specifically to just the B. burgdorferi sensu stricto species within that group.
So B. burgdorferi sl DNA encompasses DNA from the entire species complex, whereas B. burgdorferi DNA is limited only to the sensu stricto species.
Borrelia Burgdorferi sl is a spirochete bacterium characterized by its helical shape, allowing it to move efficiently through various tissues and evade the host immune response.
It possesses a complex life cycle, involving transmission between ticks and vertebrate hosts such as mammals and birds.
B. burgdorferi is equipped with mechanisms to adhere to host tissues and evade immune detection, enabling it to establish chronic infections in its hosts.
Lyme disease, caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, is transmitted through the bite of infected black-legged ticks, commonly known as deer ticks.
The disease manifests in three stages: early, mid, and late.
Early-stage symptoms, appearing 3-30 days post-infection, include the characteristic bull's-eye rash (erythema migrans), fatigue, fever, and muscle aches.
Mid-stage symptoms, occurring 3-12 weeks after infection, involve more systemic manifestations such as joint pain, cranial neuropathy, and cardiac issues.
Late-stage Lyme disease, which can develop months to years after the initial infection, presents with severe arthritis, neurological complications, and cognitive impairments.
Diagnosis typically involves initial quantitative ELISA testing followed by a confirmatory Western blot test. The disease is prevalent in areas where deer ticks thrive, particularly in the Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and North-Central regions of the United States.
Laboratory testing for Borrelia Burgdorferi sensu lato (sl) DNA is integral to the diagnosis of Lyme disease, providing clinicians with a reliable method for confirming infection.
Assessing for the presence of B. Burgdorferi DNA may be done in whole blood or in urine. It may also be done in samples of cerebrospinal fluid or synovial joint fluid, in specialized clinical settings.
Blood tests typically require a blood draw, performed as a venipuncture.
Urine samples may be collected from the comfort of a patient’s home.
Interpreting PCR results for B. burgdorferi DNA requires clinical correlation and consideration of the patient's history, symptoms, and exposure to tick bites. A positive PCR result confirms the presence of B. burgdorferi DNA and supports the diagnosis of Lyme disease, particularly when coupled with compatible clinical findings.
However, a positive result does not necessarily confirm active infection, as the bacterium may persist in tissues despite successful antibiotic treatment.
Conversely, a negative PCR result does not definitively rule out Lyme disease. This is especially true in patients with early-stage infection or those receiving antibiotic therapy, as bacterial loads may be below the detection limit of the assay, or when sampling from tissues with minimal spirochetal burden.
Therefore, PCR results should be interpreted in conjunction with clinical evaluation, patient history, and serological testing to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate management of Lyme disease.
In addition to B. burgdorferi DNA, other testing methods play significant roles in the diagnosis and management of Lyme disease.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and Western blot assays are commonly used to detect the presence of B. burgdorferi-specific antibodies in patient serum, providing evidence of exposure to the bacterium.
These serological tests are essential for confirming the diagnosis of Lyme disease and monitoring the immune response to infection.
The Western blot test is a laboratory technique used to detect specific antibodies produced by the immune system in response to an infection or exposure to an antigen.
In the case of Lyme disease, the Western blot test is utilized to detect antibodies directed against proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease.
This test is considered a confirmatory test and is typically performed after an initial screening test, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), yields positive or equivocal results. [14]
For a positive result in the immunoblot test for Lyme disease, the presence of antibodies against at least either 2 proteins (for IgM) or 5 proteins (for IgG) of B. burgdorferi is required.
The Western blot test provides more detailed information by identifying specific bands of proteins that react with antibodies in the patient's blood, helping healthcare providers confirm a diagnosis of Lyme disease.
The clinical implications of B. burgdorferi DNA testing are profound, significantly influencing the diagnosis, treatment, and management of Lyme disease.
B. burgdorferi DNA testing facilitates the early diagnosis of Lyme disease. By detecting the presence of the bacterium in clinical specimens such as blood or urine, PCR assays can confirm active infection even in the absence of characteristic clinical manifestations.
Early diagnosis enables prompt initiation of antibiotic therapy, preventing the progression of Lyme disease to more severe stages and reducing the risk of long-term complications.
B. burgdorferi DNA testing is also valuable for monitoring treatment response in Lyme disease patients. Following antibiotic therapy, PCR assays can be used to assess the clearance of the bacterium from the patient's bloodstream or tissues.
Persistent detection of B. burgdorferi DNA may indicate treatment failure or the presence of antibiotic-resistant strains, prompting the need for alternative therapeutic approaches.
However, results should always be interpreted within a patient’s unique clinical context, as positive results following treatment may not indicate an active infection.
Conversely, clearance of B. burgdorferi DNA from clinical specimens confirms successful treatment and provides reassurance to both patients and clinicians.
In addition to diagnosis and treatment monitoring, B. burgdorferi DNA testing can inform therapeutic decisions in Lyme disease management. Patients with persistent infection or recurrent symptoms despite appropriate antibiotic therapy may benefit from prolonged or alternative treatment regimens guided by PCR results.
Similarly, patients with evidence of B. burgdorferi DNA clearance may be candidates for treatment discontinuation or transition to a maintenance therapy regimen.
By providing actionable information about the patient's infection status, B. burgdorferi DNA testing empowers clinicians to tailor treatment strategies to individual patient needs, optimizing therapeutic outcomes in Lyme disease.
Click here to compare testing options and order tests for B. burgdorferi DNA testing.
[1.] Alverson J. Environmental gene r onmental gene regulation b egulation by DNA super A supercoiling in Borr coiling in Borrelia burgdorferi . ScholarWorks at University of Montana. Published online May 16, 2024. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11621&context=etd
[2.] Branda JA, Steere AC. Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2021 Jan 27;34(2):e00018-19. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00018-19. PMID: 33504503; PMCID: PMC7849240.
[3.] Blazejak, K., Raulf, MK., Janecek, E. et al. Shifts in Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) geno-species infections in Ixodes ricinus over a 10-year surveillance period in the city of Hanover (Germany) and Borrelia miyamotoi-specific Reverse Line Blot detection. Parasites Vectors 11, 304 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2882-9
[4.] Corona A, Schwartz I. Borrelia burgdorferi: Carbon Metabolism and the Tick-Mammal Enzootic Cycle. Microbiol Spectr. 2015 Jun;3(3):10.1128/microbiolspec.MBP-0011-2014. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MBP-0011-2014. PMID: 26185064; PMCID: PMC7942402.
[5.] Gern L. Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato, the agent of lyme borreliosis: life in the wilds. Parasite. 2008 Sep;15(3):244-7. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2008153244. PMID: 18814688.
[6.] John TM, Taege AJ. Appropriate laboratory testing in Lyme disease. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 2019;86(11):751-759. doi:https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.86a.19029
[7.] Marques AR. Laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease: advances and challenges. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015 Jun;29(2):295-307. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.005. PMID: 25999225; PMCID: PMC4441761.
[8.] Moniuszko A, Dunaj J, Zajkowska J, Czupryna P, Świerzbińska R, Guziejko K, Aleksiejczuk P, Barry G, Kondrusik M, Pancewicz S. Comparison of detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA and anti-Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies in patients with erythema migrans in north-eastern Poland. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2015 Feb;32(1):11-4. doi: 10.5114/pdia.2014.40940. Epub 2015 Feb 1. PMID: 25821421; PMCID: PMC4360001.
[9.] Mouritsen CL, Wittwer CT, Litwin CM, Yang L, Weis JJ, Martins TB, Jaskowski TD, Hill HR. Polymerase chain reaction detection of Lyme disease: correlation with clinical manifestations and serologic responses. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 May;105(5):647-54. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/105.5.647. PMID: 8623775.
[10.] Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys P, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by Polymerase Chain Reaction in Synovial Fluid from Patients with Lyme Arthritis. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199401273300401
[11.] Qiu WG, Martin CL. Evolutionary genomics of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato: findings, hypotheses, and the rise of hybrids. Infect Genet Evol. 2014 Oct;27:576-93. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.03.025. Epub 2014 Apr 3. PMID: 24704760; PMCID: PMC4299872.
[12.] Rudenko, N., Golovchenko, M., Kybicova, K. et al. Metamorphoses of Lyme disease spirochetes: phenomenon of Borrelia persisters. Parasites Vectors 12, 237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3495-7
[13.] Santino I, Berlutti F, Pantanella F, Sessa R, Del Piano M. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato DNA by PCR in serum of patients with clinical symptoms of Lyme borreliosis. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2008;283(1):30-35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01134.x
[14.] Shapiro ED. Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease). Pediatr Rev. 2014 Dec;35(12):500-9. doi: 10.1542/pir.35-12-500. PMID: 25452659; PMCID: PMC5029759.