| Literature DB >> 28851925 |
Harry Pickering1, Andy Teng2, Nkoyo Faal3, Hassan Joof3, Pateh Makalo3, Eunice Cassama4, Meno Nabicassa4, Anna R Last5, Sarah E Burr5,3, Sarah L Rowland-Jones3, Nicholas R Thomson6,7, Chrissy H Roberts5, David C W Mabey5, Robin L Bailey5, Richard D Hayward8, Luis M de la Maza9, Martin J Holland5,3.
Abstract
The frequency and duration of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) ocular infections decrease with age, suggesting development of partial immunity. However, there is a lack of clear correlates of immunity to Ct infection in humans. We screened sera from a cohort of Gambian children followed for six-months against a Ct-proteome microarray. At genome sequence level, we detected signatures of selection from a population of ocular Ct isolates from Guinea-Bissau. Together these approaches allowed us to highlight the focus of humoral responses and hypothesise new modes of pathogen immune evasion. Children who were susceptible to frequent and/or prolonged Ct infection had a less focussed antibody response, including preferential recognition of forty-two antigens. There was evidence of positive and purifying selection across the genome, but little balancing selection. In contrast, most antigens that were associated with susceptibility were under neutral selection. These data suggest an evasion strategy in which Ct presents a large panel of irrelevant antigens to the immune system to block or misdirect protective responses. Development of a focused immune response, possibly induced through vaccination, may be an effective strategy to promote protection to Ct infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28851925 PMCID: PMC5575166 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09193-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Age, gender and village membership in resistant and susceptible groups screened on the micro-array.
| Resistant | Susceptible | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 60 | 30 | NA |
|
| 9.00 (2.00–11.53) | 8.00 (1.73–12.00) | 0.413 |
|
| 24 (40.00) | 13 (43.33) | 0.762 |
|
| <0.001 | ||
|
| 7 (11.67) | 19 (63.33) | |
|
| 2 (3.33) | 0 (0.00) | |
|
| 5 (8.33) | 1 (3.33) | |
|
| 11 (18.33) | 3 (10.00) | |
|
| 27 (45.00) | 7 (23.33) | |
|
| 8 (13.33) | 0 (0.00) |
Association with resistance or susceptibility to infection was determined using a generalised linear model. For age, numbers in parentheses are the 95% confidence intervals around the median. For gender and village, numbers in parentheses are the percentage. No individuals from villages 3 and 9 were screened on the micro-array.
Figure 1Breadth and diversity of responses in resistant and susceptible individuals. Notched boxplots of breadth/diversity of responses (x-axis) in resistant and susceptible individuals (y-axis). (A) Breadth measured as the number positive responses within individuals (p = 0.088). Diversity measured using (B) Shannon’s diversity index (p = 0.024) and (C) Simpson’s diversity index (p = 0.080). Median (red lines) and notches were calculated as the median +/− 1.57 × IQR/sqrt of n, where IQR is the interquartile range and n is the number of samples. The IQR times 1.5 was added to the 75th percentile and subtracted from the 25th percentile to determine the whiskers. Dots are outliers.
Forty-two differentially recognised antigens between resistant and susceptible individuals.
| Antigen | p-value | p* | t | SE(t) | OR* | 95% CI* | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.001 | < 0.001 | 8.38 | 2.63 | 9.05 | 2.57–39.71 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.003 | 0.002 | 6.40 | 2.18 | 8.18 | 2.19–37.48 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.004 | 0.001 | 6.43 | 2.21 | 8.7 | 2.23–43.16 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.006 | 0.004 | 6.09 | 2.21 | 6.74 | 1.85–28.71 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.009 | 0.008 | 5.76 | 2.20 | 6.36 | 1.71–28.27 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.009 | 0.007 | 5.19 | 1.98 | 4.35 | 1.51–14.00 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.010 | 0.009 | 5.03 | 1.96 | 4.56 | 1.48–15.49 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.012 | 0.010 | 6.90 | 2.75 | 6.3 | 1.62–29.64 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.012 | 0.009 | 6.34 | 2.53 | 4.83 | 1.51–18.22 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.014 | 0.012 | 6.46 | 2.62 | 5 | 1.50–19.93 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.017 | 0.015 | 5.06 | 2.11 | 5.44 | 1.47–24.26 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.019 | 0.018 | 4.14 | 1.77 | 3.6 | 1.28–11.23 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.020 | 0.017 | 6.01 | 2.58 | 6.91 | 1.47–39.52 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.020 | 0.018 | 6.07 | 2.61 | 4.88 | 1.38–20.58 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.022 | 0.019 | 6.60 | 2.88 | 7.61 | 1.56–51.76 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.022 | 0.020 | 5.93 | 2.59 | 4.11 | 1.31–15.14 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.024 | 0.018 | 3.91 | 1.73 | 3.67 | 1.23–11.93 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.028 | 0.030 | 5.14 | 2.34 | 4.21 | 1.22–16.47 | 0.73 |
|
| 0.030 | 0.024 | 4.32 | 1.99 | 4.05 | 1.20–15.42 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.031 | 0.031 | 3.91 | 1.81 | 3.68 | 1.17–12.78 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.034 | 0.033 | 5.45 | 2.57 | 4.72 | 1.19–21.77 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.035 | 0.033 | 3.50 | 1.66 | 3.13 | 1.12–9.57 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.036 | 0.035 | 3.77 | 1.80 | 3.15 | 1.12–9.78 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.036 | 0.039 | 3.77 | 1.80 | 4.37 | 1.16–18.92 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.036 | 0.037 | 4.24 | 2.03 | 3.41 | 1.12–11.48 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.037 | 0.034 | 5.74 | 2.75 | 4.5 | 1.18–20.92 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.039 | 0.040 | 4.86 | 2.35 | 3.97 | 1.14–16.23 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.039 | 0.037 | 5.54 | 2.69 | 4.34 | 1.16–19.64 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.040 | 0.042 | 4.82 | 2.34 | 5.76 | 1.20–34.90 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.040 | 0.037 | 5.63 | 2.74 | 5.62 | 1.19–32.96 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.041 | 0.039 | 5.87 | 2.87 | 3.45 | 1.11–12.30 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.041 | 0.040 | 5.50 | 2.70 | 3.6 | 1.10–13.26 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.043 | 0.049 | 6.00 | 2.96 | 3.66 | 1.10–14.02 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.044 | 0.041 | 3.73 | 1.85 | 3.55 | 1.09–13.26 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.044 | 0.044 | 6.32 | 3.14 | 5.37 | 1.19–32.48 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.044 | 0.045 | 4.54 | 2.26 | 3.34 | 1.07–11.61 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.045 | 0.043 | 5.79 | 2.88 | 4.53 | 1.13–22.39 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.046 | 0.046 | 4.89 | 2.45 | 3.49 | 1.08–12.84 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.048 | 0.049 | 5.68 | 2.87 | 3.45 | 1.07–12.91 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.048 | 0.047 | 5.80 | 2.93 | 3.39 | 1.08–12.52 | 0.76 |
|
| 0.049 | 0.053 | 3.73 | 1.90 | 3.44 | 1.06–12.84 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.050 | 0.049 | 5.92 | 3.02 | 4.29 | 1.08–20.48 | 0.76 |
Univariate associations were determined using a generalised linear model. Variables were resampled 10,000 times and remodelled to determine permuted p-values (P*). Odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for an increase of half the range per antigen, rather than one unit. The predictive value of the univariate generalised linear models was calculated and presented as area under the curve (AUC).
Figure 2Correlation between Tajima’s D and Fay and Wu’s H. Genome-wide correlation of D and H values at (A) gene-level and (B) epitope-level (sliding windows of 42 bp). Values significantly different from zero are indicated for each measure (dashed red lines). Genes with evidence of positive (blue), purifying (red) and balancing selection (green) are highlighted.
Genes under selection identified by Tajima’s D and Fay and Wu’s H.
| ID | Name | Number of SNPs | Fay and Wu’s H | Tajima’s D | Windows under selection | Type of Selection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 15 | −5.41 | −2.29 | 0 | Positive |
|
|
| 33 | 1.00 | −1.33 | 2 | Purifying |
|
| 12 | −9.32 | −2.12 | 1 | Positive | |
|
| 45 | 2.40 | −2.27 | 13 | Purifying | |
|
| 32 | −12.23 | −1.33 | 24 | Positive | |
|
| 19 | −3.23 | −2.28 | 4 | Positive | |
|
|
| 15 | 0.91 | −1.87 | 0 | Purifying |
|
| 5 | −5.67 | −1.78 | 1 | Positive | |
|
| 12 | −12.55 | −1.88 | 0 | Positive | |
|
| 8 | −5.55 | −1.83 | 1 | Positive | |
|
| 7 | −7.75 | −2.07 | 0 | Positive | |
|
|
| 15 | 0.73 | −2.01 | 0 | Purifying |
|
|
| 41 | −2.88 | −1.52 | 16 | Purifying |
|
|
| 28 | −0.86 | −2.52 | 17 | Purifying |
|
|
| 32 | −6.84 | −1.62 | 8 | Positive |
|
|
| 4 | −3.87 | −1.76 | 2 | Positive |
|
| 16 | 0.90 | −1.93 | 0 | Purifying | |
|
| 47 | −48.13 | −1.66 | 4 | Positive | |
|
|
| 17 | 0.91 | −2.00 | 0 | Purifying |
|
|
| 15 | 0.73 | −2.07 | 0 | Purifying |
|
|
| 42 | 1.13 | −2.38 | 0 | Purifying |
|
| 51 | 0.32 | −2.63 | 0 | Purifying | |
|
|
| 51 | 1.30 | −2.85 | 0 | Purifying |
|
|
| 25 | −0.46 | −2.20 | 13 | Purifying |
|
|
| 20 | −19.50 | −1.78 | 21 | Positive |
|
|
| 7 | −5.71 | −1.96 | 3 | Positive |
|
| 14 | −6.89 | −2.21 | 6 | Positive | |
|
|
| 19 | −9.36 | −2.48 | 0 | Positive |
|
|
| 68 | 1.99 | −2.85 | 0 | Purifying |
Number of SNPs per gene and the gene-level Tajima’s D and Fay and Wu’s H values are indicated. The number of sliding windows with significant evidence of selection by both Fay and Wu’s H and Tajima’s D are indicated (‘Windows under selection’). Type of selection is indicated.
Figure 3Evidence of positive selection using the integrated haplotype score. Genes in the top 1% of values (dashed red line) had the strongest evidence of positive selection. Regions (blue lines) and individual SNPs (blue shading) under positive selection are indicated.
Figure 4Evidence of selection in antibody targets associated with susceptibility to infection. Evidence of selection was determined at the gene-level (A) and the epitope-level (B) by Tajima’s D and Fay and Wu’s H. Evidence of positive selection on SNPs and larger genomic regions was independently determined by iHS (C). Association with susceptibility to infection is indicated (red). Thresholds for genes considered under selection, values significantly different from zero, is indicated for each measure (dashed red lines). Genes or SNPs (C) with evidence of positive (blue), purifying (red) and balancing selection (green) are highlighted.