LAUSR

Dr.Takemoto et al. recently published the report of Intrabdominal actinomycosis resulting in a difficult-to-diagnose ntraperitoneal mass: A case study report [1]. The genus actinomyces is one of the actinomycete families (actiomycetaceae) that was described in 1887 by Bollinger from the umpy jaw of cattle [2]. These microorganisms are gram-positive, lamentous, fastidious and anaerobic bacteria, which are not cid-fast and non-motile, causing granulomatous infection in the ervicofacial, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic region of the human ody [3,4]. Detection of actinomyces spp. is necessary and important for he final diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and epidemiological tudies. Identification of actinomyces using phenotypic tests (such s gram-staining and microscopic evaluation, colony morphology, elatin, urea, starch and aesculin hydrolysis, acetoin production, itrate reduction, pyrazinamidase activity, hydrolysis of hippurate nd API system) are laborious, time-consuming, expensive, diffiult for standardization, and needs expert technicians; whereas olecular methods such as sequencing of 16S rRNA, atpA (ATP ynthase F1, alpha subunit), rpoB (RNA polymerase beta subunit), gi (glucose-6-phosphate isomerase), metG (methionyl-tRNA synhase), gltA (citrate synthase I) and gyrA (DNA gyrase subunit A) are apid, reliable and accurate ways in identification of actinomyces pecies, especially in urgent cases [3]. Prescribing high dose of penicillin G and surgery are traditional reatments for actinomycosis. However, antibiotic therapy cannot e standardized for actinomycosis, since it depends on the actiomyces species that are the causative agents of the infection, as ell as clinical and radiological responses; although based on the iteratures, short term treatment consists of penicillin and amoxi-