Sirs, We read with interest the study by Bell et al., who failed to detect DNA of the Helicobacter genus in colon biopsies from subjects with or without inflammatory bowel disease.1 At the XVIth International Workshop on Gastrointestinal Pathology and Helicobacter (Stockholm, September 3–6, 2003), we presented a similar study that came to a partly different conclusion.2 Twenty patients undergoing colonoscopy at Lund University Hospital for clinical reasons were enrolled in our study (15 females and five males; age range, 17–66 years; mean age, 43 years). Of the 20 patients, five had ulcerative colitis, four had Crohn's disease and 11 had other ailments. The study was approved by the Lund University Ethical Committee (permit: LU 345-02) and signed informed consent was obtained from all patients. Biopsies from the proximal and distal colon were collected from each patient in a transport medium (tryptone soy broth, 10% horse serum, 20% glycerol) and transported to the laboratory, where DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) within 1–2 h. Detection of the Helicobacter genus was performed by a nested 16S rDNA Helicobacter genus-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay using primers C97, C05 for step one3 and N16S 1F, N16S 2R for step two.4 Positive products, as determined by visualization in gel electrophoresis, were analysed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing as described elsewhere.5 Positive samples were re-amplified to obtain ∼ 400-bp or ∼ 800-bp amplicons for sequencing, followed by comparison with known DNA sequences using BLASTN 2.2.1.6 PCR displayed a Helicobacter-specific product in five patients (Table 1). One 771-bp sequence clustered with Helicobacter cholecystus (two mismatches, both ‘n’ in Genbank U46129), Helicobacter pametensis (eight mismatches) and Helicobacter sp. B9A Seymour (12 mismatches). One sequence clustered with Helicobacter muridarum (784- of 784-bp, Genbank AF302104) and the closest other sequence was Helicobacter typhlonius (16 mismatches). At least three different species of Helicobacter were detected in our study, two of which (H. cholecystus and H. muridarum), to our knowledge, have not been described previously in humans. Our investigation has so far not found any differences in Helicobacter detection in the two studied groups (inflammatory bowel disease vs. other ailments). Culture showed no growth of Helicobacter spp.; however, culture from biopsies from one patient displayed massive growth of Campylobacter concisus. This isolate came from a male patient (46 years of age) with abdominal pain, bloody stool but normal colonoscopy; that is, no inflammatory bowel disease. Thus, we were able to detect Helicobacter spp. in a few subjects (five of 20 patients), in contrast with the results of Bell et al.,1 but could not demonstrate a difference in Helicobacter spp. detection in colon biopsies in inflammatory bowel disease vs. other ailments, in concordance with the results of Bell et al.1 We find it intriguing, however, that Bell et al. did not detect any Helicobacter spp. in their samples. We believe that this difference between the studies may be explained by the fact that we used a nested PCR, whereas Bell et al. used a single-step PCR.1 Other studies have demonstrated difficulties in detecting Helicobacter spp. DNA in tissue samples (other than gastric biopsy specimens) not using a nested or semi-nested PCR.7, 8 At the XVIth International Workshop on Gastrointestinal Pathology and Helicobacter (Stockholm, September 3–6, 2003), there were several reports on PCR detection of Helicobacter spp. in colon biopsies, supporting the existence of this genus in the human colon.2, 9, 10 Whether gastric or enterohepatic Helicobacter spp. have a role in human enteric disease is still an open question and will surely be addressed by various research groups. This study was supported by grants from the Hedda and John Forssman Foundation, the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund, the Golje Foundation and the Swedish Research Council (16x-04723).