| Literature DB >> 30768135 |
Josh M Colston1, Ruthly Francois2, Nora Pisanic3, Pablo Peñataro Yori4, Benjamin J J McCormick5, Maribel Paredes Olortegui6, Md Amran Gazi7, Erling Svensen8, Mondar Maruf Moin Ahmed7, Esto Mduma9, Jie Liu4, Eric R Houpt4, Robert Klapheke10, Julia W Schwarz11, Robert L Atmar12, Robert E Black2, Margaret N Kosek4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Histo-blood group antigens (HBGAs) such as fucosyltransferase (FUT)2 and 3 may act as innate host factors that differentially influence susceptibility of individuals and their offspring to pediatric enteric infections.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Escherichia coli infections; antibodies, bacterial; bacterial vaccines; colonization factor antigens; controlled human infection model; diarrhea, prevention and control; fimbriae proteins; immunization, passive; milk proteins, immunology; randomized controlled clinical trial
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30768135 PMCID: PMC6548901 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Infect Dis ISSN: 0022-1899 Impact factor: 5.226
Figure 1.Hypothesized pathways through which maternal and child fucosyltransferase (FUT)2 and FUT3 expression alter susceptibility to enteric infection. 2’-FL, 2’-fucosyllactose; LDFT, lactodifucotetraose; LNDFH I, lacto-N-difucohexaose I; LNFP I, lacto-N-fucopentaose I [38, 43–45].
Figure 2.Pathway of histo-blood group antigen synthesis with assignment of phenotype (Lewis and secretor status) in accordance with the presence of a functional phenotype or allele for the FUT2 gene (encoding α (1,2) fucosyltransferase) and FUT3 gene (encoding enzyme with α(1,3) and α(1,4) fucosyltransferase activities).
Distribution of Child and Maternal FUT Status Combinations in 3 Birth Cohorts
| Country | Child’s Status | Mother’s Status | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FUT2+ | FUT2− | FUT3+ | FUT3− | FUT2+ | FUT2− | FUT3+ | FUT3− | ||||
| Bangladesh | Child’s Status | FUT3+ | Number | 120 | 38 | ||||||
| Percentage | (65.2) | (20.7) | |||||||||
| FUT3− | Number | 23 | 3 | ||||||||
| Percentage | (12.5) | (1.6) | |||||||||
| Mother’s Status | FUT2+ | Number | 119 | 28 | 123 | 22 | |||||
| Percentage | (69.2) | (16.3) | (72.4) | (12.9) | |||||||
| FUT2− | Number | 13 | 12 | 24 | 1 | ||||||
| Percentage | (7.6) | (7.0) | (14.1) | (0.6) | |||||||
| FUT3+ | Number | 119 | 37 | 137 | 18 | 131 | 25 | ||||
| Percentage | (69.2) | (21.5) | (80.6) | (10.6) | (76.2) | (14.5) | |||||
| FUT3− | Number | 13 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 16 | 0 | ||||
| Percentage | (7.6) | (1.7) | (5.9) | (2.9) | (9.3) | (0.0) | |||||
| Total | Number | 145 | 42 | 158 | 26 | 147 | 25 | 156 | 16 | ||
| Percentage | (77.5) | (22.5) | (85.9) | (14.1) | (85.5) | (14.5) | (90.1) | (9.9) | |||
| Peru | Child’s status | FUT3+ | Number | 152 | 0 | ||||||
| Percentage | (78.8) | (0.0) | |||||||||
| FUT3− | Number | 41 | 0 | ||||||||
| Percentage | (21.2) | (0.0) | |||||||||
| Mother’s Status | FUT2+ | Number | 189 | 0 | 148 | 39 | |||||
| Percentage | (99.5) | (0.0) | (78.7) | (20.7) | |||||||
| FUT2− | Number | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Percentage | (0.5) | (0.0) | (0.5) | (0.0) | |||||||
| FUT3+ | Number | 142 | 0 | 124 | 18 | 143 | 1 | ||||
| Percentage | (75.1) | (0.0) | (66.3) | (9.6) | (74.5) | (0.5) | |||||
| FUT3− | Number | 47 | 0 | 24 | 21 | 48 | 0 | ||||
| Percentage | (24.9) | (0.0) | (12.8) | (11.2) | (25.0) | (0.0) | |||||
| Total | Number | 195 | 0 | 152 | 41 | 192 | 1 | 144 | 48 | ||
| Percentage | (100.0) | (0.0) | (78.8) | (21.2) | (99.5) | (0.5) | (75.0) | (25.0) | |||
| Tanzania | Child’s Status | FUT3+ | Number | 101 | 22 | ||||||
| Percentage | (71.6) | (15.6) | |||||||||
| FUT3− | Number | 13 | 5 | ||||||||
| Percentage | (9.2) | (3.5) | |||||||||
| Mother’s Status | FUT2+ | Number | 98 | 19 | 95 | 14 | |||||
| Percentage | (64.9) | (12.6) | (66.9) | (9.9) | |||||||
| FUT2− | Number | 24 | 10 | 29 | 4 | ||||||
| Percentage | (15.9) | (6.6) | (20.4) | (2.8) | |||||||
| FUT3+ | Number | 114 | 27 | 118 | 16 | 115 | 31 | ||||
| Percentage | (76.0) | (18.0) | (83.7) | (11.3) | (74.2) | (20.0) | |||||
| FUT3− | Number | 7 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | ||||
| Percentage | (4.7) | (1.3) | (3.5) | (1.4) | (3.2) | (2.6) | |||||
| Total | Number | 123 | 29 | 125 | 18 | 121 | 35 | 146 | 9 | ||
| Percentage | (80.1) | (19.9) | (87.4) | (12.6) | (77.6) | (22.4) | (94.2) | (5.8) | |||
| Total | 463 | 71 | 435 | 85 | 460 | 61 | 446 | 73 | |||
| Not ascertained | 293 | 307 | 306 | 308 | |||||||
Abbreviations: FUT, fucosyltransferase.
Numbers and Percentages of Stool Samples That Were Positive for Enteropathogens in 3 MAL-ED Study Sites and Overall
| Enteropathogen | BGD | PEL | TZH | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | |
| Adenovirus 40/41 | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 927 | (16.2) | 1140 | (16.6) | 462 | (8.3) | 2529 | (13.9) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 651 | (40.9) | 458 | (23.3) | 14 | (13.0) | 1123 | (30.7) |
| Astrovirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 926 | (16.1) | 827 | (12.0) | 334 | (6.0) | 2087 | (11.5) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 420 | (26.4) | 449 | (22.8) | 8 | (7.4) | 877 | (23.9) |
| Norovirus—Either Genogroup | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 871 | (15.2) | 945 | (13.8) | 806 | (14.5) | 2622 | (14.4) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 356 | (22.4) | 607 | (30.9) | 23 | (21.3) | 986 | (26.9) |
| GI Norovirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 302 | (5.3) | 281 | (4.1) | 216 | (3.9) | 799 | (4.4) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 122 | (7.7) | 181 | (9.2) | 5 | (4.6) | 308 | (8.4) |
| GII.4 Norovirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 70 | (1.2) | 125 | (1.8) | 129 | (2.3) | 324 | (1.8) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 35 | (2.2) | 64 | (3.3) | 2 | (1.9) | 101 | (2.8) |
| Other GII Norovirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 564 | (9.8) | 519 | (7.6) | 465 | (8.4) | 1548 | (8.5) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 169 | (10.6) | 219 | (11.1) | 12 | (11.1) | 400 | (10.9) |
| Rotavirus—Any Genotype | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 270 | (4.7) | 180 | (2.6) | 246 | (4.4) | 696 | (3.8) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 351 | (22.1) | 105 | (5.3) | 17 | (15.7) | 473 | (12.9) |
| G1 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 29 | (0.5) | 27 | (0.4) | 70 | (1.3) | 126 | (0.7) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 15 | (0.9) | 4 | (0.2) | 6 | (5.6) | 25 | (0.7) |
| G2 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 5 | (0.1) | 23 | (0.3) | 7 | (0.1) | 35 | (0.2) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 11 | (0.7) | 25 | (1.3) | 0 | (0.0) | 36 | (1.0) |
| G3 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 0 | (0.0) | 20 | (0.3) | 2 | (0.0) | 22 | (0.1) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 0 | (0.0) | 20 | (1.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 20 | (0.5) |
| G4 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 2 | (0.0) | 2 | (0.0) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) |
| G8 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 0 | (0.0) | 1 | (0.0) | 5 | (0.1) | 6 | (0.0) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) |
| G9 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 44 | (0.8) | 7 | (0.1) | 1 | (0.0) | 52 | (0.3) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 67 | (4.2) | 10 | (0.5) | 0 | (0.0) | 77 | (2.1) |
| G12 Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 30 | (0.5) | 2 | (0.0) | 16 | (0.3) | 48 | (0.3) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 64 | (4.0) | 4 | (0.2) | 0 | (0.0) | 68 | (1.9) |
| P[4] Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 21 | (0.4) | 26 | (0.4) | 5 | (0.1) | 52 | (0.3) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 47 | (3.0) | 31 | (1.6) | 0 | (0.0) | 78 | (2.1) |
| P[6] Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 13 | (0.2) | 9 | (0.1) | 8 | (0.1) | 30 | (0.2) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 15 | (0.9) | 10 | (0.5) | 0 | (0.0) | 25 | (0.7) |
| P[8] Rotavirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 45 | (0.8) | 30 | (0.4) | 64 | (1.2) | 139 | (0.8) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 92 | (5.8) | 22 | (1.1) | 5 | (4.6) | 119 | (3.2) |
| Sapovirus | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 798 | (13.9) | 737 | (10.7) | 470 | (8.5) | 2005 | (11.0) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 358 | (22.5) | 350 | (17.8) | 16 | (14.8) | 724 | (19.8) |
|
| ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 1763 | (30.7) | 1287 | (18.7) | 2130 | (38.4) | 5180 | (28.5) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 597 | (37.5) | 552 | (28.1) | 41 | (38.0) | 1190 | (32.5) |
| EAEC | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 3326 | (58.0) | 3361 | (48.9) | 3546 | (64.0) | 10233 | (56.4) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 837 | (52.6) | 1005 | (51.1) | 71 | (65.7) | 1913 | (52.2) |
| Atypical EPEC | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 1178 | (20.5) | 1419 | (20.7) | 1404 | (25.3) | 4001 | (22.0) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 301 | (18.9) | 404 | (20.6) | 30 | (27.8) | 735 | (20.1) |
| Typical EPEC | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 966 | (16.8) | 664 | (9.7) | 848 | (15.3) | 2478 | (13.7) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 285 | (17.9) | 235 | (12.0) | 19 | (17.6) | 539 | (14.7) |
| LT-ETEC | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 803 | (14.0) | 1009 | (14.7) | 1336 | (24.1) | 3148 | (17.3) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 235 | (14.8) | 384 | (19.5) | 29 | (26.9) | 648 | (17.7) |
| ST-ETEC | ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 1477 | (25.7) | 595 | (8.7) | 1275 | (23.0) | 3347 | (18.4) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 589 | (37.0) | 233 | (11.9) | 29 | (26.9) | 851 | (23.2) |
|
| ||||||||
| Asymptomatic infections | 587 | (10.2) | 596 | (8.7) | 797 | (14.4) | 1980 | (10.9) |
| Diarrheal episodes | 318 | (20.0) | 243 | (12.4) | 15 | (13.9) | 576 | (15.7) |
| Total stool samples | ||||||||
| Surveillance collections | 5736 | (31.6) | 6871 | (37.9) | 5541 | (30.5) | 18148 | (100.0) |
| Diarrheal collections | 1590 | (43.4) | 1965 | (53.6) | 108 | (2.9) | 3663 | (100.0) |
Abbreviations: BGD, Bangladesh; E coli, Escherichia coli; EAEC, enteroaggregative E coli; EIEC, enteroinvasive E coli; EPEC, enteropathogenic E coli; LT-ETEC, heat-labile enterotoxigenic E coli; MAL-ED, Malnutrition and the Consequences for Child Health and Development; PEL, Peru; ST-ETEC, heat-stable ETEC; TZH, Tanzania.
Figure 3.Kaplan-Meier plot of cumulative incidence of diarrhea of any etiology by age for phenotype positive and negative subjects by fucosyltransferase (FUT) gene and for child’s and mother’s status with hazard ratios (HRs) comparing phenotype positive to negative status from univariate Cox regression models (with 95% confidence interval [CI] [***, P < .001, **, P = .001–.01, and *, P = .01–.05] and significance level). Maternal FUT2 status consistently had the largest association with the risk of all-cause diarrhea, with risk ratios greatest between 3 and 12 months of age but significant until 24 months of age.
Figure 4.Hazard ratios for diarrhea and for infection with common enteric pathogens comparing phenotype positive to negative status from multivariate Cox models that adjusted for mothers’ fucosyltransferase (FUT)2 and FUT3 status (for child estimates) and child’s FUT2 and FUT3 (for maternal estimates) and covariates stratified by diarrheal (green) and surveillance (purple) stool samples. Statistically significant estimates (P ≤ .05) are represented by solid markers and labeled with the hazard ratio (with 95% confidence interval; ***, P < .001, **, P = .001–.01, and *, P = .01–.05) and significance level.
Figure 5.Hazard ratios (HRs) for infection with common virus strains comparing phenotype positive to negative status from multivariate Cox models that adjusted for child and mothers’ fucosyltransferase (FUT)2 and FUT3 status and covariates stratified by diarrheal (green) and surveillance (purple) stool samples. Statistically significant estimates (P ≤ .05) are represented by solid markers and labeled with the HR (with 95% confidence interval; ***, P < .001, **, P = .001–.01, and *, P = .01–.05) and significance level. Diarrhea was not noted in children who were Lewis positive with G1 rotavirus infections, thus a HR was undefined. (Just 1 case each of G1 and G2 rotavirus diarrhea was observed in nonsecretor infants, and no cases of G1 rotavirus diarrhea were observed in Lewis null infants, so it was not possible to calculate HRs for those associations.)