| Literature DB >> 31776453 |
Xinzhu Wang1, Ruud Nijman1, Stephane Camuzeaux2, Caroline Sands2, Heather Jackson1, Myrsini Kaforou1, Marieke Emonts3,4,5, Jethro A Herberg1, Ian Maconochie6, Enitan D Carrol7,8,9, Stephane C Paulus8,9, Werner Zenz10, Michiel Van der Flier11,12, Ronald de Groot12, Federico Martinon-Torres13,14, Luregn J Schlapbach15, Andrew J Pollard16, Colin Fink17, Taco T Kuijpers18, Suzanne Anderson19, Matthew R Lewis2, Michael Levin1, Myra McClure20.
Abstract
Fever is the most common reason that children present to Emergency Departments. Clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of bacterial infection are often non-specific, and there is no definitive test for the accurate diagnosis of infection. The 'omics' approaches to identifying biomarkers from the host-response to bacterial infection are promising. In this study, lipidomic analysis was carried out with plasma samples obtained from febrile children with confirmed bacterial infection (n = 20) and confirmed viral infection (n = 20). We show for the first time that bacterial and viral infection produces distinct profile in the host lipidome. Some species of glycerophosphoinositol, sphingomyelin, lysophosphatidylcholine and cholesterol sulfate were higher in the confirmed virus infected group, while some species of fatty acids, glycerophosphocholine, glycerophosphoserine, lactosylceramide and bilirubin were lower in the confirmed virus infected group when compared with confirmed bacterial infected group. A combination of three lipids achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.911 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.98). This pilot study demonstrates the potential of metabolic biomarkers to assist clinicians in distinguishing bacterial from viral infection in febrile children, to facilitate effective clinical management and to the limit inappropriate use of antibiotics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31776453 PMCID: PMC6881435 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53721-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Metabolic features changed in bacterial and viral group.
| m/z | Retention time | Annotation | Annotation level | Ion type | Neutral formula | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipids/metabolites increased in bacterial infected group | 279.231 | 2.52 | FA(18:2) | 2 | [M − H]- | C18H32O2 |
| 255.232 | 2.82 | FA(16:0) | 2 | [M − H]- | C16H32O2 | |
| 281.247 | 2.96 | FA(18:1) | 2 | [M − H]- | C18H34O2 | |
| 788.545 | 6.22 | PS(18:0/18:1) | 2 | [M − H]- | C39H74NO8P | |
| 253.216 | 2.35 | FA(16:1) | 2 | [M − H]- | C16H30O2 | |
| 742.54 | 6.06 | PC(16:0/18:2) | 2 | [M − CH3]- | C42H80NO8P | |
| 716.524 | 6.75 | PE(16:0/18:1) | 2 | [M − H]- | C39H76NO8P | |
| 583.256 | 1.18 | Bilirubin | 2 | [M − H]- | C33H36N4O6 | |
| 810.53 | 5.76 | PS(18:0/20:4) | 2 | [M − H]- | C44H78NO10P | |
| 846.624 | 7.23 | PC(18:0/18:1) | 2 | [M + PO4H2]- | C44H86NO8P | |
| 1068.7 | 7.80 | LacCer(d18:1/24:1) | 2 | [M + PO4H2]- | C54H101NO13 | |
| 770.571 | 6.78 | PC(18:0/18:2) | 2 | [M − CH3]- | C44H84NO8P | |
| 744.556 | 6.60 | PC(16:0/18:1) | 2 | [M − CH3]- | C42H82NO8P | |
| 958.589 | 5.78 | LacCer(d18:1/16:0) | 2 | [M + PO4H2]- | C46H87NO13 | |
| 718.54 | 6.41 | PC(16:0/16:0) | 2 | [M − CH3]- | C40H80NO8P | |
| 742.54 | 6.90 | PE(18:0/18:2) | 2 | [M − H]- | C41H78NO8P | |
| Lipids/metabolites increased in viral infected group | 465.303 | 2.55 | Cholesterol sulfate | 2 | [M − H]- | C27H46O4S |
| 465.303 | 2.61 | Cholesterol sulfate | 2 | [M − H]- | C27H46O4S | |
| 909.551 | 5.56 | PI(18:0/22:6) | 2 | [M − H]- | C49H83O13P | |
| 861.55 | 5.75 | PI(18:0/18:2) | 2 | [M − H]- | C45H83O13P | |
| 797.655 | 7.78 | SM(d18:1/24:1) | 2 | [M − CH3]- | C47H93N2O6P | |
| 339.231 | 2.66 | UNKNOWN1 | 4 | |||
| 772.529 | 6.49 | PE1 | 3 | [M − H]- | C45H76NO7P | |
| 897.648 | 8.12 | SM(d18:1/23:0) | 2 | [M + PO4H2]- | C46H93N2O6P | |
| 239.157 | 0.87 | UNKNOWN2 | 4 | |||
| 886.609 | 6.31 | SHexCer(d42:3) | 2 | [M − H]- | C48H89NO11S | |
| 554.346 | 1.86 | LPC(16:0/0:0) | 2 | [M + CH3COO]- | C24H50NO7P | |
| 799.671 | 8.41 | SM(d18:1/24:0) | 2 | [M − CH3]- | C47H95N2O6P | |
| 750.545 | 7.24 | PE2 | 3 | [M − H]- | C41H78NO7P |
FA: fatty acid; PE: glycerophosphotidy-lethanolamine; PC: glycerophosphocholine; PS: glycerophosphoserine; LacCer: lactosylceramide; PI: glycerophosphoinositol; SM: sphingomyelin; LPC: Lysophosphatidylcholine; SHexCer: Sulfatides.
Demographic and clinical patient characteristic.
| Patients with confirmed | Bacterial infection (N = 20) | Viral infection (N = 20) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (range), month | 9 (1–102) | 8 (1–93) | p = 0.48 |
| Male, No. (%) | 11 (55) | 10 (50) | — |
| White race, No./total (%) | 14/19 (74) | 11/20 (55) | — |
| Time from symptoms to blood sampling, median (range), day | 2 (0–9) | 3 (0–15) | p = 0.16 |
| Intensive care, No. (%) | 7 (35) | 6 (30) | — |
| Fatalities, No. | 1 | 0 | — |
| Pathogen* (#cases) | Coliform (1) | Enterovirus (3) Influenza A (2) Parechovirus (1) Respiratory syncytial virus (5) Rhinovirus (3) Adenovirus (4) Human Metapneumovirus (1) Parainfluenza virus (1) Human herpesvirus 6 (1) Herpes simplex virus (1) Rotavirus (1) | |
| Source of the samples | St. Mary’s Hospital (2) Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation (3) Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2) Nottingham University Hospitals (2) Medical University of Graz (1) General Hospital of Leoben (1) Hospital Clinico Univeritario de Santiago (5) Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre (2) Complejo Hospitalario de Jaen (1) Erasms MC (1) | St Mary’s Hopsital (11) Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS (1) Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2) Great Ormond Street Hospital (1) Nottingham University Hospitals (2) Hospital Clinico Univeritario de Santiago (2) Erasmus MC (1) |
*Some patients are co-infected with more than one pathogen.
**The patient with Group A streptococcus was excluded from the subsequent data analysis as being an outlier.
Figure 1Principal components analysis (PCA) of lipidomics dataset. (A) Scatter plot of PCA model from data acquired in negative polarity mode. (B) Scatter plot of PCA model from data acquired in positive polarity mode. Quality control samples are shown in red, bacterial infected samples are shown in blue and viral infected samples shown in green.
Figure 2The scatter plot of the cross-validated score vectors showing the clustering of definitive bacterial infected samples (green dots) from definitive viral infected samples (blue dots).
Figure 3Manhattan-style plot of the 3891 lipid features detected by lipid-positive mode UPLC-MS with 40 features showing a significant association with infection type (as determined by model S-plot) highlighted and annotated. Y axis Sign(p) x P is the loadings of the OPLS-DA (i.e. modelled covariance p[1]). *Cholesterol sulfate – isomers due to different position of the sulfate.
Figure 4Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis based on single lipids. ROC curve analysis of top 3 lipids PC (16:0/16:0) (A), unknown feature (m/z 239.157) (B) and PE (16:0/18:2) (C) which gave with highest Area Under the Curve (AUC) values.
Figure 5Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis based on 3-lipid signature. A combination of SHexCer(d42:3), PC (16:0/16:0) and LacCer(d18:1/24:1) achieved AUC of 0.911 (CI 95% 0.81–0.98).
Figure 6Boxplots comparing the Disease Risk Score (DRS) for definitive bacterial and definitive viral samples. The DRS was calculated using abundance values from the 3-metabolite signature identified by FS-PLS. Plot A shows points coloured according to the sex of the sample and plot B shows points coloured according to whether the sample was above or below the median age (9 months).