| Literature DB >> 30020426 |
Jason R Andrews1, Farhana Khanam2, Nazia Rahman2, Motaher Hossain2, Isaac I Bogoch3, Krista Vaidya4, Meagan Kelly5, Stephen B Calderwood5,6,7, Taufiqur Rahman Bhuiyan2, Edward T Ryan5,6,8, Firdausi Qadri2, Richelle C Charles5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for a reliable, simple diagnostic assay for typhoid fever. Available commercial serologic assays for typhoid fever have limited sensitivity and specificity. Using high-throughput immunoscreening technologies, we previously identified several immunoreactive Salmonella Typhi antigens that seem promising for possible inclusion in a new diagnostic assay: hemolysin E (HlyE), cytolethal distending toxin, S. Typhi lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and S. Typhi membrane preparation.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Salmonella Typhi; HlyE; LPS; enteric fever; typhoid fever
Year: 2019 PMID: 30020426 PMCID: PMC6399438 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Infect Dis ISSN: 1058-4838 Impact factor: 9.079
Characteristics of Participants from Study Cohorts in Bangladesh and Nepal
| Characteristic | Bangladesh (n = 127) | Nepal (n = 126) |
|---|---|---|
| Age, median (IQR), y | 13 (5–27) | 22.5 (16–36) |
| Female sex, No. (%) | 68 (54) | 65 (52) |
| Suspected enteric fever, No. | 92 | 126 |
|
| 28 | 77 |
|
| 64 | 0 |
| Healthy endemic zone controls, No. | 20 | 0 |
| Other febrile disease, No. | 15 | 49 |
|
| 5 | 0 |
|
| 7 | 0 |
|
| 3 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 19 |
|
| 0 | 15 |
|
| 0 | 7 |
|
| 0 | 5 |
|
| 0 | 3 |
Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.
Figure 1.Distribution of anti–Salmonella Typhi plasma responses in Bangladeshis by group. Violin plots of log-normalized immunoglobulin (Ig) M, IgA, and IgG plasma responses against hemolysin E (HlyE), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), cytolethal distending toxin (CdtB), and membrane preparation (MP) in patients with positive blood cultures, healthy controls, and those with other febrile illnesses. Abbreviation: ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Figure 2.Optimal biomarker selection by probabilistic classification and machine learning methods. A, First, 1000 sets were generated in which samples were probabilistically assigned to typhoid or control status according to the results of 5 tests (ie, blood culture, Widal assay, Typhidot and Tubex tests, and typhoid/paratyphoid test [TPTest]) and clinical status (known healthy controls or confirmed alternative diagnoses).B, Machine learning algorithms were then performed on each set (from top to bottom: random forest, support vector machines, and partial least squares regression) to identify the most predictive antigen-antibody isotypes and assessed by means of variable importance ranking. Abbreviations: CdtB, cytolethal distending toxin; HlyE, hemolysin E; Ig, immunoglobulin; LPS, lipopolysaccharide, MP, membrane preparation.
Figure 3.Distribution of anti–Salmonella Typhi plasma responses in the Nepal cohort. A, Violin plots of immunoglobulin (Ig) A plasma responses against hemolysin E (HlyE), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and membrane preparation (MP) and IgG plasma responses to MP in Nepalese study participants by cohort. Differences between groups were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. B, Density histograms for patients with culture-confirmed typhoid (red) and controls with other bacterial infections (teal) for each antigen, along with scatterplots and Pearson correlation of antibody responses between 2 selected antigens (column-row combinations). Abbreviation: ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Figure 4.Assessment of sensitivity and specificity of immunoglobulin (Ig) A responses to hemolysin E (HlyE) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated from log-normalized Nepal data. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is plotted for a model using 2 antigens (HlyE and LPS) and each antigen alone.
Diagnostic Performance of Immunoglobulin A Responses as Assessed by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve, Sensitivity, and Specificity in Out-of-Sample Validation
| Antigen(s) | AUC (95% CI) | Specificity (at 90% Sensitivity), % | Sensitivity (at 90% Specificity), % |
|---|---|---|---|
| HlyE | 0.93 (.88–.98) | 87 | 78 |
| MP | 0.83 (.76–.90) | 48 | 61 |
| LPS | 0.92 (.87–.97) | 77 | 68 |
| HlyE and LPS | 0.95 (.90–1.00) | 92 | 91 |
| HlyE, LPS, and MP | 0.95 (.90–.99) | 90 | 87 |
Abbreviations: AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval; HlyE, hemolysin E; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; MP, membrane preparation.