| Literature DB >> 29754884 |
Nyo Min1, Previtha Dawn Sakthi Vale2, Anng Anng Wong3, Natalie Woon Hui Tan4, Chia Yin Chong5, Chih-Jung Chen6, Robert Y L Wang7, Justin Jang Hann Chu8.
Abstract
Enhancements in the diagnostic capabilities using host biomarkers are currently much needed where sensitivity and specificity issues plague the diagnosis of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) in pediatrics clinical samples. We investigated miRNome profiles of HFMD saliva samples against healthy children and developed miRNA-based diagnosis models. Our 6-miRNA scoring model predicted HFMD with an overall accuracy of 85.11% in the training set and 92.86% in the blinded test set of Singapore cohort. Blinded evaluation of the model in Taiwan HFMD cases resulted in 77.08% accuracy with the 6-miRNA model and 68.75% with the 4-miRNA model. The strongest predictor of HFMD in all of the panels, hsa-miR-221 was found to be consistently and significantly downregulated in all of our HFMD cohorts. This is the first study to prove that HFMD infection could be diagnosed by circulating miRNAs in patient's saliva. Moreover, this study also serves as a stepping stone towards the future development of other infectious disease diagnosis workflows using novel biomarkers.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; HFMD; Machine learning; Saliva; miRNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29754884 PMCID: PMC6014581 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.05.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Overall study design and patient cohorts involved in model development and validations. Screening of potential miRNA biomarkers for HFMD infection was performed on 3 EV71, 3 CA6 and 3 healthy pooled saliva samples. The 8 putative miRNA predictors from primary screen was subsequently used to form diagnostic models using the training set which includes 75% of the “Singapore Cohort” with support vector machines. Cross validation was carried out using k-fold validation method for 10 folds and respective performances of the two models were determined. Blinded validation of the two models was carried out using the test set which includes 25% of the “Singapore Cohort’ and the whole “Taiwan Cohort”.
Pathological findings of HFMD patients in “Singapore and Taiwan Cohort”.
| Categories | Singapore cohort ( | Taiwan Cohort (n = 24) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (<1 year old) | 8/35 | 7/24 |
| Age (1–5 years old) | 24/35 | 13/24 |
| Age (>5 years) | 3/35 | 4/24 |
| Duration of hospitalization | 6/35 | 3/24 |
| Duration of hospitalization | 24/35 | 18/24 |
| Duration of hospitalization | 5/35 | 3/24 |
| Fever | 30/35 | 22/24 |
| Breathlessness | 1/35 | 0/24 |
| Vomiting | 15/35 | 3/24 |
| Rash | 24/35 | 15/24 |
| Oral ulcer | 5/35 | 19/24 |
Fig. 2Salivary miRNA expression of HFMD in the salivary miRnome screen. (A) PCA plot based on miRNA expression values across pools (n = 3 each). (B) Heat map showing differentially expressed miRNA gene expression pattern across different samples (n = 3). Volcano plot was used to illustrate distribution of significant and non-significant miRNA in Singapore HFMD Cohort 1 screen in C. Healthy Vs EV71 (n = 6) and D. Healthy Vs CA6 (n = 6). Red colour represent population with absolute 4-fold change while significant miRNAs were represented in yellow or green while red is non-significant. Student t-test (non-parametric) was performed and HITs were determined using absolute fold change of >4-fold and p-value < 0.05.
Fig. 3miRNA selection and performance tuning. A. Logistic regression of hit miRNAs. ROC curve was used to display sensitivity and specificity of individual miRNA in HFMD diagnosis with the entire “Singapore Cohort”. B. Overall accuracy of the diagnosis model resolved with increasing number of miRNA classifiers using support vector machine model in the training set of the “Singapore Cohort”. C. Importance of individual miRNA in the 6-miRNA model. Accuracy for each model was calculated using “caret” package in R software. “ggplot2” library was used for illustration using R software.
Performance of predictive models in HFMD discrimination. 4 and 6 miRNA predictor models were constructed with miRNA expressions on the training set of the “Singapore Cohort”. The two models were evaluated on the test set of the “Singapore Cohort” and the “Taiwan Cohort”. The overall accuracy (ACC) is shown together with sensitivity (SEN, the probability to accurately predict HFMD patient as “HFMD”) and specificity (SPE, the probability to predict healthy individuals as “Healthy”). Respective accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated using package “crossval” implemented in R. k-fold cross-validation was carried out using package “caret” and was repeated for 10 folds.
| Set | ACC % | SEN % | SPE % |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Singapore Cohort” (6 miRNA predictors with the training set) | 85.11 | 88.89 | 82.76 |
| “Singapore Cohort” (6 miRNA predictors with the test set) | 92.86 | 100.00 | 88.89 |
| “Singapore Cohort” (4 miRNA predictors with the training set) | 80.85 | 83.33 | 79.31 |
| “Singapore Cohort” (4 miRNA predictors with the test set) | 91.67 | 100.00 | 87.50 |
| “Taiwan Cohort” (6 miRNA predictors) | 77.08 | 78.26 | 76.00 |
| “Taiwan Cohort” (4 miRNA predictors) | 68.75 | 68.00 | 69.57 |
Fig. 4Risk score of healthy and HFMD patients in blinded validation. Risk index of HFMD was obtained for (A) the 6-miRNA model and (B) the 4-miRNA model in testing set of “Singapore Cohort”. The two models were also validated in the “Taiwan Cohort” using (C) the 6-miRNA model and (D) the 4-miRNA model. Circles denote data points with triplicate readings. Box plot was constructed using ggplot2 library in R software.
Fig. 5Differential expression of hit miRNAs in the Singapore and Taiwan cohorts. Boxplots of miRNA expressions in healthy (orange), “Singapore HFMD” (green) and “Taiwan HFMD” (blue) cohorts. Stars indicate significance between HFMD and healthy. (***P < 10−3, **P < 10−2, **P < 0.05, FDR-adjusted non-parametric ANOVA with Dunnett's multiple comparison test using 95% CI).