| Literature DB >> 32350385 |
Nicholas J Andreas1,2, Robindra Basu Roy1,3,4, Maria Gomez-Romero2,5,6, Verena Horneffer-van der Sluis2,5, Matthew R Lewis2,5,6, Stephane S M Camuzeaux5, Beatriz Jiménez2,5,6, Joram M Posma2, Leopold Tientcheu3, Uzochukwu Egere3, Abdou Sillah3, Toyin Togun3,4, Elaine Holmes2, Beate Kampmann7,8,9.
Abstract
We applied a metabonomic strategy to identify host biomarkers in serum to diagnose paediatric tuberculosis (TB) disease. 112 symptomatic children with presumptive TB were recruited in The Gambia and classified as bacteriologically-confirmed TB, clinically diagnosed TB, or other diseases. Sera were analysed using 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and mass spectrometry (MS). Multivariate data analysis was used to distinguish patients with TB from other diseases. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Model performance was tested in a validation cohort of 36 children from the UK. Data acquired using 1H NMR demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity and Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56-73%), 83% (95% CI, 73-93%), and 0.78 respectively, and correctly classified 20% of the validation cohort from the UK. The most discriminatory MS data showed a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI, 60-71%), specificity of 86% (95% CI, 75-93%) and an AUC of 0.78, correctly classifying 83% of the validation cohort. Amongst children with presumptive TB, metabolic profiling of sera distinguished bacteriologically-confirmed and clinical TB from other diseases. This novel approach yielded a diagnostic performance for paediatric TB comparable to that of Xpert MTB/RIF and interferon gamma release assays.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32350385 PMCID: PMC7190829 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64413-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The mean weight, age, and sex of participants as well as number for each patient diagnosis is given, range in brackets. Data refers to samples analysed using lipidomics.
| Characteristic | Discovery Cohort | Validation cohort | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other Diseases (n = 57) | Bacteriologically confirmed TB (n = 22) | Clinically diagnosed TB (n = 33) | Bacteriologically confirmed TB (n = 14) | Clinically diagnosed TB (n = 22) | ||||||
| Age (years) | 6.29 (0.7–14) | 5.4 (0.4–13) | 5.3 (0.3–12) | 8 (1–15) | 6.0 (1–13) | |||||
| Sex | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F |
| 29 | 28 | 7 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 11 | |
| Mean Weight[ | 18.8 (7–42) | 18.7 (5.1–52.2) | 16.9 (5.1–34.7) | 32.4 (5.0–64.1) | 23.5 (9.2–57.8) | |||||
| Positive tuberculin skin test — no. (%)* | 10 (18%) | 14/21 (66%) | 11 (33%) | 11 (79%) | 17 (77%) | |||||
| Positive IGRA — no/total no. (%) | 28 (49%) | 13/15 (87%) | 23/32 (72%) | 11/12 (92%)** | 16/21 (76%)** | |||||
| Culture-positive TB — no. (%) | 0 | 19 (86%) | 0 | 14 (100%) | 0 | |||||
| Sputum positive TB — no. (%) | 0 | 4 (18%) | 0 | 3/13 (23%) | 0 | |||||
| Xpert MTB/RIF positive TB — no. (%) | 0 | 10 (45%) | 0 | — | — | |||||
| Direct referrals to paediatric TB clinic in The Gambia | 18 (32%) | 8 (36%) | 8/32 (25%) | — | — | |||||
| Identified as symptomatic through contact tracing in The Gambia | 39 (68%) | 14 (64%) | 24/32 (75%) | — | — | |||||
| Samples analysed by lipidomics ESI+ (total 112) | 57/57 | 22/22 | 33/33 | 14/14 | 22/22 | |||||
| Samples analysed by lipidomics ESI− (total 112) | 57/57 | 22/22 | 33/33 | 14/14 | 22/22 | |||||
| Samples analysed by NMR (total 95) | 49/57 | 17/22 | 29/33 | 9/14 | 19/22 | |||||
| Samples analysed by HILIC (total 108) | 56/57 | 21/22 | 31/33 | 13/14 | 22/22 | |||||
*A positive result on the tuberculin skin test was defined according to guidelines from the World Health Organization as an induration of 10 mm or more.
**One result was indeterminate in the clinically diagnosed group and two in the bacteriologically-confirmed group.
Figure 1OPLS-DA model based on 1H NMR spectroscopy data, with 500 model iterations, separating Gambian infants at enrolment based on diagnosis, R2Y = 0.78, Q2Y = 0.30, n = 93 (one sample was excluded as there was no information on the participant’s weight, and another was excluded as it was an outlier). (A) The upper panel shows the median 1H spectra of the serum, with peaks which were statistically significantly different between the two groups highlighted. Peaks in red were found in higher concentrations in the TB disease group, while peaks in blue were found in increased concentrations in the other diseases group. This was plotted for easier identification of the peaks and their corresponding metabolites. The lower panel displays a skyline significance plot of significant variables discriminating between the groups. Variables in red above the dashed line are statistically significantly increased in samples from the TB disease group, the strength of the correlation is displayed by the distance from the dashed line, with variables further away being more strongly associated with that group. Variables in blue below the dashed line are the variables increased in the other diseases group (or found in lower concentrations than in the TB disease group). (B) OPLS-DA scores plot, displaying the correlations in the 1H spectra between the participants (the closer the scores are the more similar these participants 1H NMR spectra are to one another). Red squares represent the TB disease group, blue circles represent the other diseases group, and green crosses represent the validation group samples.T orthogonal signal correction, TOSC; T cross validation, TCV.
Chemical shifts discriminating between TB and other diseases in Gambian children at enrolment. Peaks without significant variables on either side were ignored.
| 1H ppm | Carbon ppm | r (CI lower and upper bound) | P value | Q value FDR | Increased in | 1H NMR peak multiplicity | Potential metabolite | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.427 | 19.07 | 0.36 (0.26–0.44) | <0.001 | 0.03 | TB | Doublet | Unknown |
| 2 | 1.498 | 19 | −0.38 (−0.47– −0.29) | <0.001 | 0.02 | Other diseases | Doublet | Alanine |
| 3 | 2.044 | 29.68 | 0.36 (0.24–0.45) | <0.001 | 0.03 | TB | Multiplet | Glutamate |
| 4 | 2.054 | 24.83 | 0.50 (0.40–0.58) | <0.001 | 0.004 | TB | Broad resonance | N-acetyl glycoprotein (Glyc-A) |
| 5 | 2.076 | 0.41 (0.30–0.50) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Broad resonance | O-acetyl glycoprotein | |
| 6 | 2.106 | 25.14 | 0.45 (0.36–0.53) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Multiplet | Glutamate |
| 7 | 2.159 | 0.36 (0.25–0.44) | <0.001 | 0.03 | TB | Multiplet | Glutamate | |
| 8 | 2.489 | −0.37 (−0.50– −0.24) | <0.001 | 0.02 | Other diseases | Triplet | Unknown | |
| 9 | 2.549 | −0.41 (−0.51–−0.30) | <0.001 | 0.01 | Other diseases | Doublet | Unknown | |
| 10 | 2.715 | 0.38 (0.27–0.48) | <0.001 | 0.02 | TB | Multiplet | Glutamate | |
| 11 | 2.931 | −0.44 (−0.53–−0.35) | <0.001 | 0.01 | Other diseases | Broad resonance | Unknown | |
| 12 | 2.963 | −0.42 (−0.51– −0.33) | <0.001 | 0.01 | Other diseases | Broad resonance | Unknown | |
| 13 | 3.258 | −0.41 (−0.51– −0.29) | <0.001 | 0.01 | Other diseases | Undetermined | Unknown | |
| 14 | 3.601 | 0.44 (0.35–0.52) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Undetermined | Unknown | |
| 15 | 3.629 | 0.36 (0.26–0.44) | <0.001 | 0.03 | TB | Undetermined | Unknown | |
| 16 | 3.642 | 0.37 (0.27–0.46) | <0.001 | 0.02 | TB | Undetermined | Unknown | |
| 17 | 3.664 | 0.38 (0.26–0.48) | <0.001 | 0.02 | TB | Undetermined | Unknown | |
| 18 | 3.685 | 0.39 (0.28–0.50) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Undetermined | Unknown | |
| 19 | 3.692 | 0.39 (0.29–0.48) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Doublet of doublets | Unknown | |
| 20 | 3.702 | 0.40 (0.29–0.49) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Doublet of doublets | Glyc-A | |
| 21 | 3.707 | 0.40 (0.29–0.49) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Singlet | Leucine | |
| 22 | 3.900 | 68.94 | 0.43 (0.34–0.52) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Undetermined | Unknown |
| 23 | 3.925 | 0.42 (0.32–0.51) | <0.001 | 0.01 | TB | Undetermined | Glyc-A | |
| 24 | 7.342 | 0.35 (0.22–0.46) | <0.001 | 0.03 | TB | Doublet | Phenylalanine |
Sensitivity, false positive rate, specificity and false negative rates for each of the analytical platforms employed and 95% CI.
| R2Y | Q2Y | Sensitivity | False negative rate | Specificity | False positive rate | Threshold | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1H NMR n = 93 | 0.78 | 0.30 | 0.69 (0.56, 0.73) | 0.31 (0.27, 0.44) | 0.83 (0.73, 0.93) | 0.17 (0.07, 0.27) | 1.78 | 0.78 |
HILIC n = 107 | 0.49 | 0.23 | 0.59 (0.49, 0.67) | 0.41 (0.33, 0.51) | 0.89 (0.75, 0.92) | 0.11 (0.08, 0.25) | 3.69 | 0.76 |
Lipidomics ESI− n = 112 | 0.47 | 0.27 | 0.58 (0.53, 0.64) | 0.42 (0.36, 0.47) | 0.89 (0.80, 0.96) | 0.11 (0.04, 0.20) | 3.28 | 0.78 |
Lipidomics ESI+ n = 112 | 0.48 | 0.23 | 0.67 (0.60, 0.71) | 0.33 (0.29, 0.40) | 0.86 (0.75, 0.93) | 0.14 (0.07, 0.25) | 0.65 | 0.78 |
1H NMR n = 65 | 0.92 | 0.29 | 0.82 (0.59, 0.88) | 0.18 (0.12, 0.41) | 0.77 (0.59, 0.94) | 0.23 (0.06, 0.41) | −0.90 | 0.81 |
HILIC n = 77 | 0.63 | 0.21 | 0.76 (0.52, 0.81) | 0.24 (0.19, 0.48) | 0.68 (0.57, 0.86) | 0.32 (0.14, 0.43) | −1.12 | 0.77 |
Lipidomics ESI− n = 79 | 0.66 | 0.14 | 0.68 (0.55, 0.77) | 0.32 (0.23, 0.45) | 0.79 (0.64, 0.95) | 0.21 (0.05, 0.36) | −1.65 | 0.74 |
Lipidomics ESI+ n = 79 | 0.68 | 0.17 | 0.73 (0.59, 0.82) | 0.27 (0.18, 0.41) | 0.77 (0.59, 0.91) | 0.23 (0.09, 0.41) | −1.47 | 0.78 |
Figure 2ROC curves displaying the sensitivity and specificity of the OPLS-DA model from data acquired by (A) 1H NMR spectroscopy, AUC = 0.78 (B) HILIC, AUC = 0.76 (C) Lipidomics ESI−, AUC = 0.78 (D) Lipidomics ESI+, AUC = 0.78. The red line is the line of no-discrimination and the green line gives the slope of the best result.
Diagnostic performances of routine and potential methods for TB in paediatric populations relative to the metabonomic signatures in this study.
| Diagnostic Test | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| AFB Smear microscopy[ | 26% (14–39) | 100% (99–100) |
| Xpert MTB/Rif assay[ | 62% (51–73) | 98% (97–99) |
| Urine lipoarabinomannan (LAM)[ | 48% (38–59) | 61% (56–65) |
| TB-LAMP[ | 78% (71–83) | 98% (96–99) |
| 51 transcript RNA expression signature[ | 83% (67–94) | 84% (75–93) |
| T-cell activation marker-TB assay (TAM-TB)[ | 83% (57–96) | 97% (89–100) |
| 1H NMR spectroscopy | 69% (56–73) | 83% (73–93) |
| HILIC | 59% (49–67) | 89% (75–92) |
| Lipidomics ESI− | 58% (53–64) | 89% (80–96) |
| Lipidomics ESI+ | 67% (60–71) | 86% (75–93) |