[Leish-l] paleopathology and leishmaniasis

[Ali Khamesipour]

Dear Kelly,
In our region cutaneous form of leishmaniasis remains in dermis, epidermis, subdermal soft tissues and lymph nodes, and in case of systemic form also as far as I know skeleton is not attacked, I agree with Christopher but the in Inca pottery or in Pyramid might be leishmaniasis or possibly leprosy.
All the best Ali  
 

--- On Fri, 1/27/12, Christopher Peacock <christopher.peacock at uwa.edu.au> wrote:


From: Christopher Peacock <christopher.peacock at uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [Leish-l] paleopathology and leishmaniasis
To: "Kelly Harkins" <kelly.harkins at gmail.com>
Cc: "leish-l at lineu.icb.usp.br" <leish-l at lineu.icb.usp.br>
Date: Friday, January 27, 2012, 8:18 AM


Hi Kelly,
I would imagine that it will be very difficult to identify leishmaniasis in archeological remains. Leishmaniasis predates man in the Americas by a long margin. Visceral disease was only introduced after 16 th century with the slave trade, cutaneous only causes damage to the dermis epidermis and subdermal soft tissue. That leaves mucosal caused by the Viannia species but although that destroys the naso pharyngeal region I thought it was mainly cartilaginous and soft tissue damage. I recall pictures if Inca pottery portraying ML so it was certainly present.

Sent from my iPad

On 27/01/2012, at 19:52, "Kelly Harkins" <kelly.harkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I'm new to the mailing list and new to the leishmanisis community. I
> am a doctoral student in bioarchaeology at Arizona State University,
> focusing on the evolutionary history of leishmaniasis, specifically in
> the New World, with modern (next-generation sequencing) and ancient
> molecular approaches, as well as archaeological approach. I am also
> interested in the differential human immune response, as it seems
> there is no absolute predictable association between species of
> Leishmania and clinical outcome? As you all know, this parasite is
> fascinating!
> 
> I have located some potential cases of leishmaniasis in human remains
> that have affected the underlying bone and facial structure. But in
> paleopathology, there is no standard differential diagnosis for
> determining these cases, and without the clinical background and
> without x-rays, I cannot fully understand the
> timing/nature/pattern/variability of the potential bone destruction
> that can be associated with chronic lesions, especially of the
> mucucutaneous type (more likely to show up in archaeological remains).
> I want other archaeologists to be able to add leishmaniasis to the
> list of conditions they consider when viewing skeletons in
> prehistorically endemic areas, but in my opinion, it's not quite there
> yet...
> 
> So my question to the group is whether anyone knows of potential
> resources I could access to develop a better differential diagnosis in
> skeletal remains, for example, research groups with collections of
> radiographs from patients? clinics in endemic areas that would allow
> me to visit? Any ideas are appreciated.
> 
> Thank you for your time,
> 
> Kelly Harkins
> 
> -- 
> Kelly M. Harkins, PhD student
> Center for Bioarchaeological Research
> School of Human Evolution and Social Change
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, AZ, 85281
> _______________________________________________
> Leish-l mailing list
> Leish-l at lineu.icb.usp.br
> http://lineu.icb.usp.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/leish-l
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
_______________________________________________
Leish-l mailing list
Leish-l at lineu.icb.usp.br
http://lineu.icb.usp.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/leish-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lineu.icb.usp.br/pipermail/leish-l/attachments/20120127/73f35f68/attachment.htm>