Chlamydia trachomatis antigens in enteroendocrine cells and macrophages of the small bowel in patients with severe irritable bowel syndrome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Inflammation and immune activation have repeatedly been suggested as pathogentic factors in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The driving force for immune activation in IBS remains unknown. The aim of our study was to find out if the obligate intracellular pathogen <it>Chlamydia </it>could be involved in the pathogenesis of IBS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied 65 patients (61 females) with IBS and 42 (29 females) healthy controls in which IBS had been excluded. Full thickness biopsies from the jejunum and mucosa biopsies from the duodenum and the jejunum were stained with a monoclonal antibody to <it>Chlamydia </it>lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and species-specific monoclonal antibodies to <it>C. trachomatis </it>and <it>C. pneumoniae</it>. We used polyclonal antibodies to chromogranin A, CD68, CD11c, and CD117 to identify enteroendocrine cells, macrophages, dendritic, and mast cells, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p><it>Chlamydia </it>LPS was present in 89% of patients with IBS, but in only 14% of healthy controls (p < 0.001) and 79% of LPS-positive biopsies were also positive for <it>C. trachomatis </it>major outer membrane protein (MOMP). Staining for <it>C. pneumoniae </it>was negative in both patients and controls. <it>Chlamydia </it>LPS was detected in enteroendocrine cells of the mucosa in 90% of positive biopsies and in subepithelial macrophages in 69% of biopsies. Biopsies taken at different time points in 19 patients revealed persistence of <it>Chlamydia </it>LPS up to 11 years. The odds ratio for the association of <it>Chlamydia </it>LPS with presence of IBS (43.1; 95% CI: 13.2-140.7) is much higher than any previously described pathogenetic marker in IBS.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found <it>C. trachomatis </it>antigens in enteroendocrine cells and macrophages in the small bowel mucosa of patients with IBS. Further studies are required to clarify if the presence of such antigens has a role in the pathogenesis of IBS.</p

Beyond the Insider—Outsider Perspective: The Study of Religion as a Study of Discourse Construction

This essay reflects on contemporary theorizing of religion which embodies an explicit critique of the imperial project, seeing that by most common consent the scholarly disciplinary field of religious studies (history of religion, phenomenology of religion, Religionswissenschaft) is a late nineteenth century invention that coincides with the emergence of anthropology and ethnography as epiphenomena of the colonial project (whether as Orientalism or as exoticism the Other is rendered manageable subjects). The scholarly study of religion is, therefore, simultaneously a study of the history of theory and concept formation, and the social, cultural, and political work performed by such study and theorizing. The metatheory of the study of religion is a main focus of the essay. Alongside that, the essay focuses more pointedly on the concept of discourse, and considers the extraordinary situation where the same methodological vocabulary that functions in religious studies also functions in critical theological studies, which relativizes the division of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ perspectives. Yet both are conventionally practised either in isolation from each other as distinct theoretical and disciplinary bounded/defined study fields, or—the other and almost direct opposite—religious studies being performed in the context of theological study, situated in and offered by theological faculties. An overview of recent debates in the field of religious studies serves to highlight the continued struggle to demarcate the boundaries between the study of religion and the study of theology—in some of the recent, very strident debates mainstream religious studies is labelled as nothing more than theology. This contribution, then, aims at a kind of metatheoretical reflection on the study of religion and theology both as discourses that serve mythmaking, identity formation, culturally strategic purposes. That is, from the discourse perspective that is proposed here, it is possible to move beyond the definitional divide between religious studies and theology—even beyond ‘religion’ itself—to focus on the mundanely material practices that constitute that which is called religion. In the way in which the terms are used it is clear that the terminologies themselves bear the imprint of historical social discourses that occasioned the rise of their use. This essay, then, is something of a metacritique of the language of the study of religion—beyond religion, and beyond the study of religion and theology