| Literature DB >> 22559298 |
Adam D Irwin1, Fiona Marriage, Limangeni A Mankhambo, Graham Jeffers, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona, Malcolm Guiver, Brigitte Denis, Elizabeth M Molyneux, Malcolm E Molyneux, Philip J Day, Enitan D Carrol.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High throughput technologies offer insight into disease processes and heightens opportunities for improved diagnostics. Using transcriptomic analyses, we aimed to discover and to evaluate the clinical validity of a combination of reliable and functionally important biomarkers of serious bacterial infection (SBI).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22559298 PMCID: PMC3528639 DOI: 10.1186/1755-8794-5-13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genomics ISSN: 1755-8794 Impact factor: 3.063
Characteristics of children with confirmed serious bacterial infection (SBI), those with no detectable bacterial infection (NBI) and controls
| 2.0 (0.6 – 6.9) | 2.5 (1.0 – 5.7) | 10.0 (6.0-13.0) | <0.0005 | |
| 154 (55%) | 61 (63%) | 13/21 (62%) | <0.0005 | |
| 3 (2 – 5) | 3 (2 – 5) | NR | 0.76 | |
| 123 (44%) | 37 (38%) | NR | 0.32 | |
| 235 (84%) | 47 (49%) | NR | <0.0005 | |
| 68 (24%) | 15 (15%) | NR | 0.02 | |
| 145 (52%) | 45 (47%) | 0 (0%) | <0.0005 | |
| 42/272 (15%) | 16/91 (18%) | ND | 0.63 | |
| 37/218 (17%) | 11/82 (13%) | ND | 0.45 | |
| 12.6 (7.8 – 20.0) | 13.8 (10.0 – 20.4) | ND | 0.09 | |
| 10.6 (4.6 – 16.3) | 8.9 (5.5 – 15.5) | ND | 0.78 |
Numeric values are median and interquartile range (IQR). (ND = not done, NR = not relevant in a healthy control). Statistical comparison is between three groups, SBI, NBI and controls, using the Kruskal = Wallis test.
Figure 1Flow diagram showing the number of patients undergoing index tests and the number of patients with SBI and NBI. The numbers of patients that had each measurement of are shown, according to STARD guidelines [27]. All available samples were tested for all four biomarkers in the following order, procalcitonin, granulysin, NGAL, resistin, as long as there was remaining sample. A total of 181 samples were tested across all four assays.
Figure 2Bar chart showing relative NGAL, granulysin and resistin expression in survivors and non-survivors. A total of 176 samples were analysed using RT PCR. The ++ Ct method was used to calculate normalised data [28]. There was over-expression of NGAL and resistin and under-expression of granulysin in cases compared to controls (data not shown). Relative gene expression of NGAL granulysin and resistin were increased in non-survivors compared to survivors Error bars = mean+/−2SE NS = not significant.
Figure 3Bar chart showing NGAL, granulysin and resistin concentrations in a) controls, NBI and SBI and b) in survivors and non-survivors. A total of 181 samples were tested across all 4 assays. Plasma concentrations of NGAL and resistin were significantly increased in children with SBI compared to NBI, compared to controls. Plasma concentrations of NGAL and resistin were significantly increased in non-survivors compared to survivors. Error bars = mean+/−2SE NS = not significant, *** = p < 0.0005, * = p < 0.05.
Performance characteristics of NGAL and resistin as biomarkers of SBI, singly, and in combination with procalcitonin
| NGAL | 100 | 86.7 (83.2-90.2) | 50.0 (44.8-55.1) | 78.7 (74.4-82.9) | 63.9 (58.9-68.9) | 1.735 | 0.265 |
| Resistin | 80 | 91.4 (88.4-94.3) | 51.9 (46.6-57.0) | 84.1 (80.4-87.9) | 68.3 (63.5-73.1) | 1.898 | 0.166 |
| PCTNGALResistin | 2 | 82.7 (76.6-88.8) | 76.7 (69.9-83.5) | 89.6 (84.6-94.5) | 64.7 (57.0-72.4) | 3.556 | 0.226 |
| PCTNGALResistin | 1 | 86.6 (78.8-90.4) | 72.1 (64.8-79.3) | 88.0 (82.7-93.2) | 66.0 (58.3-73.6) | 3.032 | 0.213 |
PPV = positive predictive value, NPV = negative predictive value, LR + = likelihood ratio for a positive result, LR- = likelihood ratio for a negative result.
Figure 4Receiver operator characteristic curves (ROC) of markers of SBI. a) procalcitonin (PCT), granulysin, resistin and NGAL as markers of SBI and b) combination of biomarkers (procalcitonin (PCT), resistin and NGAL) as markers of SBI.
Reclassification improvement in new prediction models versus current PCT alone model
| 0.50 (0.17, 0.83), 0.0032 | −0.04 (−0.22, 0.12), 0.6015 | 0.54 (0.26, 0.82), 0.0002 | |
| 0.58 (0.29, 0.86), 0.0001 | 0.01 (−0.15, 0.18), 0.8690 | 0.56 (0.32, 0.79), <0.0001 | |
| 0.81 (0.45, 1.16), <0.0001 | 0.14 (−0.06, 0.33), 0.1700 | 0.67 (0.38, 0.97), <0.0001 |
Event = SBI, non-event = not SBI.
Primer sequences and probe numbers for each assay
| AGGGTGACCTGTTGACCAAA | CAGCATTGGAAACACTTCTCTG | 17 | |
| TCACCTCCGTCCTGTTTAGG | AGGTAACTCGTTAATCCAGGGTAA | 61 | |
| TGCAGGATGAAAGCTCTCTG | CATGGAGCACAGGGTCTTG | 45 | |
| ATTGGCAATGAGCGGTTC | GGATGCCACAGGACTCCAT | 11 | |
| TTCTGGCCTGGAGGCTATC | TCAGGAAATTTGACTTTCCATTC | 42 | |
| AGCCACATCGCTCAGACAC | GCCCAATACGACCAAATCC | 60 | |
| GCTACTACCCCGCAGTTCC | CAGTTTCCACATGATGATGGTC | 55 | |
| AGCTATGAAGGATGGGCAAC | TTGTATGCTATCTGAGCCGTCTA | 25 | |
| TGACCTTGATTTATTTTGCATACC | CGAGCAAGACGTTCAGTCCT | 73 | |
| CTGTGGCTTCTGGCATACCT | CTTGCTGCTTTCAGGACCA | 42 | |
| GAGGCCCCTACCACTTCC | TGTGGGGCAGCATACCTC | 28 | |
| GAAGTTCCTGGTCCACAACG | GCGATCTCGGCACAGTAAG | 17 | |
| AGAAGCCCTTTGAGGAGCA | CGATTACGGGTCTATATTCCAGA | 69 | |
| GCTGGCCCATAGTGATCTTT | CTTCACACGCCAAGAAACAGT | 3 | |
| CGTTACTTGGCTGAGGTTGC | TGCTTGTTGTGACTGATCGAC | 9 |
12 endogenous transcripts (ACTB, B2M, GAPDH, GNB2L1, HMBS, HPRT1, PGK-1, RPL13A, RPL32, SDHA, TBP and YWHAZ) were screened and analysed using the GeNORM algorithm [28].