| Literature DB >> 29490627 |
Jinjing Tan1, Xiaoguang Wu2, Suting Chen3, Meng Gu1, Hairong Huang4, Wentao Yue5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serological antibodies tests for tuberculosis (TB) are widely used in developing countries. They appear to have some advantages- faster, simple and could be used for extrapulmonary TB. However, most of current commercial TB serological tests are failed to provide sufficient sensitivity and specificity. Improved serological biomarkers were essential. In this study, we present an approach using peptide array to discover new immunodiagnostic biomarkers based on immunodominant epitopes of TB antigens.Entities:
Keywords: LppZ; Serologic test; Tuberculosis peptide arrays
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29490627 PMCID: PMC5831716 DOI: 10.1186/s12865-018-0243-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Immunol ISSN: 1471-2172 Impact factor: 3.615
Fig. 1Screening for LppZ dominated epitopes. a Second round peptide array screen of 16 candidate epitope peptides selected from first round screening. J091 to J140 stands for serum sample name; CT represents positive control. b Scattergram of peptide arrays signals. Data were normalized by CT signal on each array. Full-length blots are presented in Additional file 1: Figure S1
Fig. 2Identify the core sequence of candidate peptides during serum antibody reaction. A: Truncation assay on pep-LppZ-1 and pep-Lppz-13 peptides. N➡ indicates the truncation starts at the N terminal; C ➡ indicates the truncation starts at the C terminal. WT stands for wide type. Each letter means the amino acid was removed. Full-length blots are presented in Additional file 1: Figure S2
Statistic characteristics of pep-LppZ-1 and pep-LppZ-13 based ELISA
| Peptide name | TB patients ( | Health Controls ( | AUC2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Sensitivity | Mean ± SD | Specificity | |||
| LppZ-1 | 27.03 ± 55.04 | 49.2% | 9.49 ± 11.28 | 83.3% | < 0.001 | 0.738 |
| LppZ-13 | 22.14 ± 22.11 | 43.4% | 10.55 ± 21.77 | 88.5% | < 0.001 | 0.757 |
| Combine | 39.3% | 91.0% | ||||
1P value: comparison of difference between TB group and health control group using Mann-Whiney U test
2AUC: area under the curve according to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) indicating the discriminatory ability for TB detection from test
Fig. 3Validate and evaluate the reactivity of dominated epitopes by ELISA. a Histogram of relative concentration of antibodies toward dominated epitopes. b & c: ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve of pep-LppZ-1 and pep-LppZ-13 on detecting TB infection based on ELISA data
Relationship between BCG vaccination and peptide diagnose
| pep-LppZ-1 | pep-LppZ-13 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subgroups | N | Positive N (Cutoff > 13.5) | Positive rate | Positive N (Cutoff > 16.3) | Positive rate |
| Health control (IGRA-)1 | |||||
| BCG+ | 11 | 3 | 27.3% | 1 | 9.1% |
| BCG- | 20 | 4 | 20.0% | 2 | 10.0% |
| TB patient | |||||
| BCG+ | 93 | 45 | 48.4% | 39 | 37.5% |
| BCG- | 8 | 4 | 50.0% | 3 | 41.9% |
1IGRA: IFN-γ release assay (T-SPOT.TB); 2BCG: Bacillus Calmette- Guerin vaccine
Diagnose consistency of peptides and traditional methods
| N | pep-LppZ-1 (cutoff > 13.5) | pep-LppZ-13 (cutoff > 16.3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pep-LppZ-1 vs. pep-LppZ-13 | 122 | 87.5% | – |
| IGRA test vs. | 171 | 60.8% | 60.8% |
| Sputum smear vs. | 56 | 46.4% | 44.6% |
| Bacteria Culture vs. | 99 | 51.5% | 50.5% |
Comparison of using peptides based ELISA and traditional methods in TB diagnose
| pep-LppZ-1 | pep-LppZ-13 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB Subgroups | N | Positive N (Cutoff > 13.5) | Sensitive | Positive N (Cutoff > 16.3) | Sensitive |
| Smear1 + | 48 | 22 | 45.8% | 20 | 41.7% |
| Smear - | 8 | 4 | 50.0% | 3 | 37.5% |
| Culture2 + | 88 | 46 | 52.3% | 43 | 48.9% |
| Culture - | 11 | 6 | 54.5% | 4 | 36.4% |
| IGRA3 + | 80 | 38 | 47.5% | 32 | 40.0% |
| IGRA - | 13 | 8 | 61.5% | 6 | 46.2% |
1Smear: sputum smear detection for TB bacteria
2Culture: bacteria culture
3IGRA: IFN-γ release assay (T-SPOT.TB)
Improvement of detection rate by using pep-LppZ-1 and pep-LppZ-13
| Diagnose method | N | Positive N | Detection rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sputum smear | 122 | 48 | 39.3% |
| Smear + pep-LppZ-11 | 86 | 70.5% | |
| Smear + pep-LppZ-132 | 81 | 66.4% | |
| Smear + pep-LppZ-1/13 | 89 | 73.0% | |
| Bacteria culture | 88 | 72.1% | |
| Culture + pep-LppZ-1 | 102 | 83.6% | |
| Culture + pep-LppZ-13 | 98 | 80.3% | |
| Culture + pep-LppZ-1/13 | 102 | 83.6% | |
| IGRA test | 93(29 missing) | 80 | 86.0% |
| IGRA test + pep-LppZ-1 | 88 | 94.6% | |
| IGRA test + pep-LppZ-13 | 86 | 92.5% | |
| IGRA test + pep-LppZ-1/13 | 89 | 95.7% |
1the threshold of pep-LppZ-1 detection is > 13.5
2the threshold of pep-LppZ-13 detection is > 16.3