| Literature DB >> 30209044 |
Saki Takahashi1, C Jessica E Metcalf2,3, Yuzo Arima4, Tsuguto Fujimoto4, Hiroyuki Shimizu5, H Rogier van Doorn6,7, Tan Le Van6, Yoke-Fun Chan8, Jeremy J Farrar6,7, Kazunori Oishi4, Bryan T Grenfell9,10.
Abstract
Outbreaks of hand, foot and mouth disease have been documented in Japan since 1963. This disease is primarily caused by the two closely related serotypes of Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) and Coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16). Here, we analyse Japanese virologic and syndromic surveillance time-series data from 1982 to 2015. As in some other countries in the Asia Pacific region, EV-A71 in Japan has a 3 year cyclical component, whereas CV-A16 is predominantly annual. We observe empirical signatures of an inhibitory interaction between the serotypes; virologic lines of evidence suggest they may indeed interact immunologically. We fit the time series to mechanistic epidemiological models: as a first-order effect, we find the data consistent with single-serotype susceptible-infected-recovered dynamics. We then extend the modelling to incorporate an inhibitory interaction between serotypes. Our results suggest the existence of a transient cross-protection and possible asymmetry in its strength such that CV-A16 serves as a stronger forcing on EV-A71. Allowing for asymmetry yields accurate out-of-sample predictions and the directionality of this effect is consistent with the virologic literature. Confirmation of these hypothesized interactions would have important implications for understanding enterovirus epidemiology and informing vaccine development. Our results highlight the general implication that even subtle interactions could have qualitative impacts on epidemic dynamics and predictability.Entities:
Keywords: epidemiological modelling; hand–foot–mouth disease; multi-strain dynamics; non-polio enteroviruses
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30209044 PMCID: PMC6170776 DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J R Soc Interface ISSN: 1742-5662 Impact factor: 4.118
Figure 1.Weekly time-series data and wavelet analysis, 1982–2015. (a) Raw virologic counts of EV-A71. (b) Wavelet power spectrum of square-root-transformed EV-A71 (x-axis is time (year), y-axis is the period (in years), colour is the power spectrum, strong to weak (yellow–red gradient)). (c) Raw counts of virologic CV-A16. (d) Wavelet power spectrum of square-root-transformed CV-A16. (e) Raw counts of syndromic HFMD. (f) Raw counts of virologic CV-A6 (available from 2000).
Figure 2.Two-serotype TSIR model compartments. (a) Each individual starts out susceptible ( class) to both serotypes i and j, and becomes infected at a seasonal rate proportional to the transmission rate . (b) Upon infection ( class) with serotype i, the individual immediately becomes cross-protected ( class) against infection with serotype j. (c) The individual permanently recovers ( class) from infection with serotype i during the next time step (here, one week), and remains cross-protected against infection with serotype j for duration . (d) Cross-protection is lost after time steps, and the individual is once again susceptible to infection with serotype j (but is permanently immune against serotype ).
Epidemiological parameters from the one- and two-serotype models, 1997–2015. Reporting rate, mean proportion susceptible, mean transmission rate and coefficient of variation in transmission rate, by model and by serotype. CV, coefficient of variation.
| serotype | model | CV of | optimal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV-A71 | 1 | 0.0349 | 0.0935 | 13.9054 | 0.3886 | 0.975 | n.a. |
| CV-A16 | 1 | 0.0525 | 0.1056 | 12.2532 | 0.2719 | 0.975 | n.a. |
| EV-A71 | 2 | 0.0349 | 0.0838 | 15.3655 | 0.3814 | 0.975 | 8 |
| CV-A16 | 2 | 0.0524 | 0.1001 | 12.9143 | 0.2690 | 0.975 | 39 |
Figure 3.Deterministic one-serotype TSIR output for EV-A71 and CV-A16, 1997–2015. (a) values for EV-A71 (x-axis is week of year). (b) Observed time series (black) against predicted model fit (green) for EV-A71 (x-axis is time (year), y-axis is weekly number of cases). (c) values for CV-A16. (d) Observed time series (black) against predicted model fit (red) for CV-A16. Parameter values in table 1.
Figure 4.Empirical signatures of (asymmetric) interactions between EV-A71 and CV-A16, 1982–2015. (a) Annual detections of raw EV-A71 (y-axis) against raw CV-A16 (x-axis). (b) Centre of gravity (COG, in weeks) of yearly EV-A71 epidemics stratified by size of yearly CV-A16 epidemics. (c) COG of yearly CV-A16 epidemics stratified by size of yearly EV-A71 epidemics. (d) Skewness of yearly EV-A71 epidemics stratified by size of yearly CV-A16 epidemics. (e) Skewness of yearly CV-A16 epidemics stratified by size of yearly EV-A71 epidemics.
Figure 5.Deterministic two-serotype TSIR output for EV-A71 and CV-A16, 1997–2015. (a) values for EV-A71 (x-axis is week of year). (b) Observed time series (black) against predicted model fit (green) for EV-A71 (x-axis is time (year), y-axis is weekly number of cases). (c) values for CV-A16. (d) Observed time series (black) against predicted model fit (red) for CV-A16. (e) Observed data (x-axis) against model-predicted time series (y-axis) for EV-A71, aggregated to four-week bins. Fitted line from simple linear regression without an intercept and 95% confidence interval is shown in green, and the line is shown in black. (f) Observed time series (black) against predicted out-of-sample model fit (blue) for EV-A71, 2007–2015, fitted to training data from 1997 to 2006. (g) Observed data (x-axis) against model-predicted time series (y-axis) for CV-A16, aggregated to four-week bins. Fitted line from simple linear regression without an intercept and 95% confidence interval is shown in red, and the line is shown in black. (h) Observed time series (black) against predicted out-of-sample model fit (purple) for CV-A16, 2007–2015, fitted to training data from 1997 to 2006. Parameter values in table 1.
Figure 6.Spectral densities of simulated time series from the two-serotype TSIR model, under varying levels of cross-protection after CV-A16 infection. (a) Spectral density of log-transformed EV-A71 time series (fill colour), as a function of the duration of cross-protection after CV-A16 infection (x-axis, in weeks) and the period of EV-A71 (y-axis, in years). (b) Spectral density of log-transformed CV-A16 time series (fill colour), as a function of the duration of cross-protection after CV-A16 infection (x-axis, in weeks) and the period of CV-A16 (y-axis, in years). Pink grid cells indicate spectral densities that are not significant, at a threshold defined by the 2.5th quantile of the white noise spectrum. The duration of cross-protection after EV-A71 infection was fixed at the estimated value of = 8 weeks. The estimated values of cross-protection from table 1 are marked by diamonds along the x-axis: EV-A71 in green, CV-A16 in red.
Summary of experimental studies suggesting a potential asymmetric immune interaction between the EV-A71 and CV-A16 serotypes. VLP, virus-like particle; GMT, geometric mean titre; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
| experimental system | serotypes involved | test performed and measured outcome | finding: CV-A16 on EV-A71 | finding: EV-A71 on CV-A16 | reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sera from immunized cynomolgus monkeys and albino rabbits | EV-A71, CV-A16 (prototype) | direct immuno-fluorescence: staining titres | homotypic titre was 1 : 8; heterotypic titre was 1 : 4 | homotypic titre was 1 : 8; heterotypic titre was 1 : 1 | Hagiwara |
| sera from mice immunized with monovalent or bivalent VLP vaccine | EV-A71, CV-A16 | sera from mice vaccinated with CV-A16 VLP weakly cross-neutralized EV-A71 (range: 1 : 8 to 1 : 64) | sera from mice vaccinated with EV-A71 VLP did not cross-neutralize CV-A16 | Cai | |
| sera from naive and immunized rhesus monkeys, challenged with infection | EV-A71, CV-A16 | neutralization assay: neutralization titres | the GMT of neutralizing antibodies against EV-A71 was shown to gradually increase after CV-A16 infection, among naive monkeys and those immunized against EV-A71 | EV-A71 infection did not lead to an increase in CV-A16 antibodies | Wang |
| sera from acute HFMD patients | EV-A71, other HFMD enteroviruses (CV-A4, CV-A6, CV-A16, Echovirus 7, untyped enteroviruses) | IgM ELISA: EV-A71-specific linear epitopes | antibodies from patients with other HFMD enteroviruses (including CV-A16) cross-reacted with EV-A71 IgM epitopes | — | Aw-Yong |
| sera from mice immunized with avirulent EV-A71 or CV-A16 | EV-A71, CV-A16 | ELISA; neutralization test; passive immunization | CV-A16 immune serum reacted with EV-A71 antigens and weakly neutralized EV-A71; passive immunization of CV-A16 immune serum protected 10–20% mice against EV-A71 lethal challenge | — | Wu |
| sera from naive and immunized mice | EV-A71, CV-A16 | neutralization assay: neutralization titres | — | EV-A71 sera did not cross-neutralize CV-A16 | Mao |