| Literature DB >> 33253168 |
Carlos Sánchez-Ovejero1, Eylem Akdur2, Raúl Manzano-Román3, Ana Hernández-González4, María González-Sánchez5, David Becerro-Recio5, Javier González-Miguel5, Okan Akhan6, Carmen M Cretu7, Kamenna Vutova8, Francesca Tamarozzi9, Mara Mariconti10, Enrico Brunetti11, Ambra Vola12, Massimo Fabiani13, Adriano Casulli9,14, Mar Siles-Lucas5.
Abstract
Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is a neglected zoonotic disease caused by Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato. Diagnosis and monitoring of CE rely primarily on imaging while serology is used as a confirmatory test. However, imaging is not always conclusive and currently available serological assays have suboptimal sensitivity and specificity, lack standardization, and are not useful for patients´ follow-up. Seroassays for CE are usually based on hydatid fluid (HF), a complex, variable antigenic mixture, and cross-reactivity exists especially with alveolar echinococcosis. Recombinant proteins based on immunogenic antigens most abundant in HF, such as AgB1, AgB2 and Ag5, have been used to overcome these limitations. None of them so far showed potential to replace HF; however, their performance have been largely tested on a limited number of samples, and comparison of different antigens using the same cohort has been rarely performed. The combination of several immunogenic epitopes in a single recombinant protein could enhance test sensitivity. For the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with CE, we compared the performance of the crude HF, previously described recombinant 2B2t antigen, and GST-tagged version of 2B2t, and novel designed recombinants (GST-Ag5t and the GST-DIPOL chimera containing AgB1, AgBB2 and Ag5 epitopes) by IgG-ELISA format. Samples belong to a retrospective cohort of 253 well-characterized patients with CE, previously described for the evaluation of the 2B2t antigen, 92 patients with alveolar echinococcosis, and 82 healthy donors. The reference standard for CE diagnosis was the presence of a CE lesion as diagnosed by ultrasonography. The highest sensitivity was obtained with HF [86.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 81.2-91.0], followed by GST-2B2t (70.0%, 95% CI: 63.1-76.2), 2B2t (65.5%, 95% CI: 58.5-72.0), GST-Ag5t (64.5%, 95% CI: 57.5-71.1) and GST-DIPOL (63.1%, 95% CI: 56.0-69.7). The GST-2B2t had the best specificity (95.8%, 95% CI: 88.3-99.1) and the lowest cross-reactivity (38.7%, 95% CI: 27.6-50.6). Good response to treatment also correlated to negative test results in the GST-2B2t ELISA. While none of the tested recombinant antigen appears suitable to replace HF for the diagnosis of CE, GST-2B2t should be further explored as a confirmation test, based on its high specificity and low cross-reactivity, and for the follow-up after treatment in those patients with positive serology for this antigen.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33253168 PMCID: PMC7728171 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with CE.
| Characteristics | Number (percentage) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 136 (53.7%) |
| Female | 117 (46.3%) |
| Number of cysts | |
| 0 | 33 (13%) |
| 1 | 142 (56%) |
| >1 | 78 (31%) |
| Median (IQR) | 1 (1–2) |
| Cyst localization | |
| Liver | 231 (91.3%) |
| Others | 18 (7.1%) |
| NS | 4 (1.6%) |
| Main cyst diameter | |
| S (0–50 mm) | 97 (38.3%) |
| M (>50–100 mm) | 107 (42.7%) |
| L (>100 mm) | 16 (6.3%) |
| NS | 33 (12.7%) |
| Median (IQR) | 59 (45–90) |
| Cyst classification | |
| CE1 | 13 (5.1%) |
| CE2 | 20 (7.9%) |
| CE3a | 28 (11.1%) |
| CE3b | 71 (28.1%) |
| CE4 | 49 (19.4%) |
| CE5 | 39 (15.4%) |
| NS | 33 (13%) |
IQR, interquartile range; S, small; M, medium; L, large.
*Patients treated by surgery or aspiration before entering the cohort study. NS, not stated.
Fig 1Flow chart showing the participants (cystic echinococcosis patients) in the study.
1Patients receiving surgery or percutaneous treatment before the collection of the first serum sample. 2Patients with only one serum sample. For the follow-up analysis, patients treated by surgery or aspiration were classified as “cured patients”, if showing no US images suggesting relapses during the follow-up period, and “non-cured patients”, if showing relapses detected by US during the monitoring period. For patients treated with albendazole, patients were classified with good response when the image evolved from active or transitional stages to inactive stages (CE4 and CE5) and with poor response when the image did not change from active or transitional stages to inactive stages. Samples from pre-treatment and from follow-up were collected from the same patients.
Fig 22A. Acrylamide gel stained with Coomassie blue, showing the production and purification results for the recombinant antigens GST-Ag5t (1 to 3) and GST-DIPOL (4 to 6). 1, 4: Culture supernatants; 2, 5: culture pellets, 3, 6: purified proteins. The molecular weights are indicated on the left of the figure, and the position of each recombinant protein is indicated with arrows. 2B. Amino acid (aa) sequence of the recombinant protein GST-DIPOL. The arrow indicates the last aa of the GST tag protein. Sequences corresponding to each antigen are indicated underlined (AgB1), in bold (AgB2) and in shadowed characters (Ag5). Aa in grey correspond to the link between the three antigens. The predicted immunogenic epitopes are shown in italics and the alpha-helix structure is shadowed in grey.
Amino acid sequences of the antigens B1, B2 and Ag5 of Echinococcus granulosus (G1 genotype).
The whole amino acid sequence for each antigen is shown. Also for each antigen, the most antigenic epitopes as predicted with the SVMTriP program are underlined; the alpha-helix regions as predicted with the PreSSAPro program are shadowed in grey; and the amino acid sequences corresponding to the cDNAs amplified with the specific PCRs and cloned into the pGEX-4T3 expression vector are in bold. The GenBank accession number for each antigen is indicated between parentheses.
| Antigen | Amino acid sequence |
|---|---|
| Ag B1 (AF143813.1) | |
| Ag B2 (U15001.1) | |
| Ag 5 (JF970202.1) |
Sensitivity, specificity and cross-reactivity of the tests for the detection of IgG in ELISA.
| Hydatid fluid | 2B2t | GST-2B2t | GST-Ag5t | GST-DIPOL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 176/203 | 133/203 65.5% | 142/203 70.0% | 131/203 | 128/203 63.1% | ||
| Before treatment | 91/112 | 69/112 | 70/112 | 70/112 | 61/112 | |
| After treatment | 85/91 | 64/91 | 72/91 | 61/91 | 67/91 | |
| 55/72 | 56/72 | 69/72 | 57/72 | 64/72 | ||
| 64/75 | 33/75 | 29/75 | 37/75 | 35/75 |
Statistically significant differences according to McNemar test conducted on paired samples are marked with
1 (between the marked tests and the HF-ELISA)
2 (between the marked test and 2B2t-ELISA)
3 (between the marked test and GST-2B2t-ELISA)
4 (between the marked test and the GST-Ag5t-ELISA), and
5 (between the marked test and the GST-DIPOL-ELISA).
Sensitivity of the serological tests according to different clinical characteristics.
| Hydatid fluid (ELISA) | 2B2t (ELISA) | GST-2B2t (ELISA) | GST-Ag5t (ELISA) | GST-DIPOL (ELISA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P = 0.1161 | P = 0.2801 | P = 0.8111 | |||
| | 99 (80.5) | 69 (61.6) | 70 (62.5) | 70 (62.5) | 61 (54.5) |
| | 89 (91.8) | 64 (70.3) | 72 (79.1) | 61 (67.0) | 67 (73.6) |
| P = 0.4841 | P = 0.3971 | P = 0.3401 | P = 0.7871 | P = 0.9751 | |
| | 117 (82.4) | 82 (62.1) | 87 (65.9) | 83 (62.9) | 80 (60.6) |
| | 71 (91.0) | 51 (71.8) | 55 (77.5) | 48 (67.6) | 48 (67.6) |
| P = 0.5151 | |||||
| | 13 (100.0) | 8 (80.0) | 9 (90.0) | 8 (80.0) | 9 (90.0) |
| | 20 (100.0) | 17 (89.5) | 16 (84.2) | 14 (73.7) | 17 (89.5) |
| | 28 (100.0) | 23 (85.2) | 25 (92.6) | 19 (70.4) | 22 (81.5) |
| | 66 (93.0) | 48 (72.7) | 54 (81.8) | 40 (60.6) | 48 (72.7) |
| | 37 (75.5) | 20 (44.4) | 21 (46.7) | 26 (57.8) | 22 (48.9) |
| | 24 (61.5) | 17 (47.2) | 17 (47.2) | 24 (66.7) | 10 (27.8) |
| P = 0.1121 | P = 0.4411 | P = 0.3331 | P = 0.0911 | ||
| | 66 (78.6) | 41 (53.2) | 47 (61.0) | 46 (59.7) | 39 (50.6) |
| | 93 (88.6) | 69 (71.1) | 70 (72.2) | 61 (62.9) | 65 (67.0) |
| | 15 (100.0) | 11 (78.6) | 11 (78.6) | 11 (78.6) | 11 (78.6) |
| P = 0.2211 | P = 0.1531 | P = 2561 | P = 0.6051 | ||
| | 177 (87.2) | 120 (64.2) | 128 (68.4) | 118 (63.1) | 118 (63.1) |
| | 10 (62.5) | 12 (80.0) | 13 (86.7) | 12 (80.0) | 9 (60.0) |
1 P-values estimated through multivariable logistic regression accounting for the potential confounding due to all variables presented in the table. The multivariable analysis was conducted on 203 and 187 patients with data available for all variables included into the models for HF-Elisa and other ELISAs, respectively. Statistically significant differences are highlighted in bold.
Fig 3Alignment of the epitopes described by several authors (p65 [35], 1994; p66, p67, p175 and p177 [36]; p13 [37], and GU4 [38]) for the antigens B1 and B2, and the DIPOL sequence corresponding to the abovementioned antigens.
The name for each epitope and its antigen of origin are shown in the figure.
Comparison of the SI of patients with CE4 cysts in non-treated patients and under drug treatment against hydatid fluid, B2t and 2B2t in ELISA.
| PATIENTS UNDER DRUG TREATMENT | NON-TREATED PATIENTS | p-value1 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydatid fluid (ELISA) | 283 (252–314) | 88 (19–263) | |
| 2B2t (ELISA) | 75 (24–132) | 30 (8–57) | |
| GST-2B2t (ELISA) | 102 (51–42) | 24 (-7–55) | |
| GST-Ag5t (ELISA) | 79 (47–128) | 48 (21–104) | 0.133 |
| GST-DIPOL (ELISA) | 83 (39–110) | 24 (2–59) |
* Median and interquartile range (IQR). 1 Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Significant P values are marked in bold. N indicates the number of patients tested with hydatid fluid ELISA (first number) or the number of patients tested with the ELISAs containing recombinant antigen (second number).
Fig 4Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative probability of negativization against the different tests over time in: (A) cured (blue line) and not cured (red line) patients who underwent surgical or percutaneous treatment; (B) patients with good (blue line) and bad response (red line) to albendazole treatment. Censored patients/samples, these can be derived by difference, and were due to missing attendance to the follow-up visit or no availability of serum leftover from routine serology to be stored for biobanking.