| Literature DB >> 31801556 |
Eric Rogier1, Lotus van den Hoogen2, Camelia Herman3,4, Kevin Gurrala5, Vena Joseph6, Gillian Stresman2, Jacquelin Presume7, Ithamare Romilus7, Gina Mondelus7, Tamara Elisme7, Ruth Ashton6, Michelle Chang3, Jean F Lemoine8, Thomas Druetz6,9, Thomas P Eisele6, Alexandre Existe7, Jacques Boncy7, Chris Drakeley2, Venkatachalam Udhayakumar3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serological data indicating the presence and level of antibodies against infectious disease antigens provides indicators of exposure and transmission patterns in a population. Laboratory testing for large-scale serosurveys is often hindered by time-consuming immunoassays that employ multiple tandem steps. Some nations have recently begun using malaria serosurveillance data to make inferences about the malaria exposure in their populations, and serosurveys have grown increasingly larger as more accurate estimates are desired. Presented here is a novel approach of antibody detection using bead-based immunoassay that involves incubating all assay reagents concurrently overnight.Entities:
Keywords: Malaria; Multiplex immunoassay; Protocol; Seroprevalence
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31801556 PMCID: PMC6894145 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-019-3027-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Antigens used in the study multiplex panel
| Antigen alias | Organism | Tag | Source | Antigen coupling concentration (per 1.25 × 107 beads) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PfMSP1-19 | GST | Recombinant, CDC | 30 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PvMSP1-19 | GST | Recombinant, CDC | 30 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PmMSP1-19 | GST | Recombinant, CDC | 30 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PfCSP | GST | Peptide, CDC | 30 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PfAMA1 | GST | Recombinant, CDC | 20 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PfLSA1 | – | Peptide, CDC | 60 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PfGLURP-R0 | – | Peptide, CDC | 30 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| PfHRP2 | GST | Recombinant, MicroCoat | 25 µg in MES pH 5 | |
| glutathione- | – | Recombinant, CDC | 15 µg in MES pH 5 |
Fig. 1Protocols for standard and OneStep MBA. Each step of assay protocols is outlined with incubation time between steps indicated in the arrows
Fig. 2Comparison of assay median fluorescence intensity minus background (MFI-bg) signal by both assay protocols and sample types. Relationship in MFI-bg values for the eight malaria antigens between two protocols and two sample types visualized as LOESS curves with cubic interpolation and 95% confidence limits in shading, with y = x reference as a hashed line
Fig. 3Fittings to two-component finite mixture models for antigen data collected by both assay protocols and sample types. Histograms are displayed for log-transformed MFI-bg values for the four most immunogenic malaria antigens as fit to a two-component finite mixture model. On each panel, estimates for lognormal mean and variance are displayed for the two components, and this information is included in Additional file 2. Plots for the remaining four antigens shown in Additional file 1
Fig. 4Change in MFI-bg means for first and second components of finite mixture model. Estimated means for each component were compared between the two assay protocols and the two sample types for all eight malaria antigens. Outputs for modeled lognormal means and variances displayed in Additional file 2
Comparison of malaria seroprevalence estimates by both assay protocols and sample types in the 2017 Haiti survey
| Antigen | Serum | Dried blood spot | Average estimate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard (% positive) | OneStep (% positive) | Standard (% positive) | OneStep (% positive) | ||
| PfMSP1-19 | 45.7 | 38.8 | 46.6 | 42.4 | 43.4 (3.5) |
| PvMSP1-19 | 5.8 | 8.9 | 7.0 | 7.9 | 7.4 (1.3) |
| PmMSP1-19 | 6.2 | 8.3 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 6.7 (1.1) |
| PfCSP | 16.4 | 18.8 | 15.6 | 13.8 | 16.2 (2.1) |
| PfAMA1 | 27.8 | 10.1 | 27.9 | 34.6 | 25.1 (10.5) |
| PfLSA1 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 8.2 | 6.3 | 7.1 (0.82) |
| PfGLURP-R0 | 12.2 | 11.0 | 12.8 | 8.3 | 11.1 (2.4) |
| HRP2 | 11.4 | 13.1 | 8.7 | 13.1 | 11.6 (2.1) |