The Discovery of Nephrouroameba: Was It Real or Not?

• Published in: American journal of nephrology Vol. 22; no. 2-3; pp. 266 - 270
• Main Authors: Bellinghieri, G., Santoro, D., Mallamace, A., Ioli, A., LoGiudice, L., Venniro, G., Savica, V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel, Switzerland S. Karger AG 01.07.2002
• Subjects: Amebiasis - diagnosis; Amebiasis - history; Amoeba - isolation & purification; Animals; Antigens, Helminth; Female; History of Diseases of the Kidney; History, 20th Century; Humans; Kidney Diseases - diagnosis; Kidney Diseases - history; Kidney Diseases - parasitology; Male; Trichomonas; Trichomonas - isolation & purification; Nephrouroameba; Schistosomiasis; Parasitology; Nephrotic syndrome
• ISBN: 9783805574242; 380557424X
• ISSN: 0250-8095; 1421-9670
• DOI: 10.1159/000063772

In 1938 Procaccini showed scientific interest in a new kind of ameba, and called it ‘nephrouroameba’ from which the disease ‘nephrouroamebiasis’ is derived. He wrote a paper titled ‘La Nefrouroamoebiasi’ thus describing its history, the biopathogenetic evolutionary cycle of the protozoon, its therapeutic, epidemiological, anatomo-biological, diagnostic, cultural, biological and morphological features. Between 1934 and 1939, Procaccini had the opportunity to follow many patients belonging to a group of Italian soldiers serving in the Eastern Italian Army in Ethiopia. At that time he was responsible for the biopathological laboratory. After a short preclinical stage of fatigue, patients suffering from nephrouroamebiasis showed a nephrotic syndrome with gross hematuria. The symptoms ceased within a few days but residual microhematuria, albuminuria and urine casts persisted for many months. After microscopic observation, he reproduced some protozoons and classified them as a kind of ameba. Critical analysis of his report leads to the morphological identification of Trichomonas, thus excluding his classification as nephrouroamebas.