RATIONALE: Quantitation and determination of antigen specificity of systemic and mucosal immune responses to influenza vaccination is beneficial for future vaccine development. Previous methods to acquire this information were costly, time consuming and sample exhaustive. The benefits of suspension microbead array (MBA) analysis are numerous. The multiplex capabilities of the system conserve time, money and sample, while generating statistically powerful data. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the use of the assay by comparing the humoral influenza-specific responses of two cohorts from two countries that differed in circulating influenza strains and rates of influenza vaccination. METHODS: Influenza hemagglutinin (HA) from different strains were coated on microbeads and incubated with serum samples to capture immunoglobulin (Ig) A(1) and IgG(1) host antibodies. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in IgA(1) and IgG(1) exist between the serum samples from Winnipeg (Manitoba) donors and those from Kenyan (Africa) donors. Data were compared using Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests. The Winnipeg donors had higher mean fluorescence intensity values, with significant P values for anti-HA IgA(1) to A/Wyoming/3/2003 (P=0.044), A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (P=0.0179), A/New Caledonia/20/99 (P<0.0001) and B/Tokyo/53/99 (P=0.0002). No differences were seen between the groups in their response to B/Jilin/20/2003. The Winnipeg donors had higher mean fluorescence intensity values, with significant P values for anti-HA IgG(1) to A/Wyoming/3/2003 (P=0.0135), B/Tokyo/53/99 (P=0.006) and B/Jilin20/2003 (P=0.026). CONCLUSION: Influenza-specific IgA(1) and IgG(1) antibodies were successfully detected using MBA technology. A significant difference in antibody response was observed between Winnipeg and Kenyan donor serums. MBA analysis is a relatively quick and cost-effective method for serum antibody analysis. The potential to simultaneously assay small sample volumes for a multitude of antigens makes this method invaluable for future vaccine response monitoring.
RATIONALE: Quantitation and determination of antigen specificity of systemic and mucosal immune responses to influenza vaccination is beneficial for future vaccine development. Previous methods to acquire this information were costly, time consuming and sample exhaustive. The benefits of suspension microbead array (MBA) analysis are numerous. The multiplex capabilities of the system conserve time, money and sample, while generating statistically powerful data. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the use of the assay by comparing the humoral influenza-specific responses of two cohorts from two countries that differed in circulating influenza strains and rates of influenza vaccination. METHODS: Influenza hemagglutinin (HA) from different strains were coated on microbeads and incubated with serum samples to capture immunoglobulin (Ig) A(1) and IgG(1) host antibodies. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in IgA(1) and IgG(1) exist between the serum samples from Winnipeg (Manitoba) donors and those from Kenyan (Africa) donors. Data were compared using Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests. The Winnipeg donors had higher mean fluorescence intensity values, with significant P values for anti-HA IgA(1) to A/Wyoming/3/2003 (P=0.044), A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (P=0.0179), A/New Caledonia/20/99 (P<0.0001) and B/Tokyo/53/99 (P=0.0002). No differences were seen between the groups in their response to B/Jilin/20/2003. The Winnipeg donors had higher mean fluorescence intensity values, with significant P values for anti-HA IgG(1) to A/Wyoming/3/2003 (P=0.0135), B/Tokyo/53/99 (P=0.006) and B/Jilin20/2003 (P=0.026). CONCLUSION: Influenza-specific IgA(1) and IgG(1) antibodies were successfully detected using MBA technology. A significant difference in antibody response was observed between Winnipeg and Kenyan donor serums. MBA analysis is a relatively quick and cost-effective method for serum antibody analysis. The potential to simultaneously assay small sample volumes for a multitude of antigens makes this method invaluable for future vaccine response monitoring.
Authors: Edward Morgan; Rudi Varro; Homero Sepulveda; Julia A Ember; John Apgar; Jerry Wilson; Larry Lowe; Roy Chen; Lalita Shivraj; Anissa Agadir; Roberto Campos; David Ernst; Amitabh Gaur Journal: Clin Immunol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Deborah Kelly; Kimberley Burt; Bayan Missaghi; Lisa Barrett; Yoav Keynan; Keith Fowke; Michael Grant Journal: BMC Immunol Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 3.615
Authors: Jordan V Price; Justin A Jarrell; David Furman; Nicole H Kattah; Evan Newell; Cornelia L Dekker; Mark M Davis; Paul J Utz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 3.240