| Literature DB >> 33329547 |
Casey P Shannon1,2, Travis M Blimkie3, Rym Ben-Othman4,5, Nicole Gladish6, Nelly Amenyogbe5,7, Sibyl Drissler8, Rachel D Edgar6,9, Queenie Chan10, Mel Krajden11, Leonard J Foster10, Michael S Kobor6, William W Mohn3, Ryan R Brinkman8, Kim-Anh Le Cao12, Richard H Scheuermann13,14,15, Scott J Tebbutt1,2,16, Robert E W Hancock3, Wayne C Koff17, Tobias R Kollmann4,5, Manish Sadarangani4,18, Amy Huei-Yi Lee19.
Abstract
Background: Vaccination remains one of the most effective means of reducing the burden of infectious diseases globally. Improving our understanding of the molecular basis for effective vaccine response is of paramount importance if we are to ensure the success of future vaccine development efforts.Entities:
Keywords: baseline immunity; hepatitis B vaccination; multi-omic analysis; network analysis; vaccine response
Year: 2020 PMID: 33329547 PMCID: PMC7734088 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.578801
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1Study visit schedule and cohort demographics. (A) Immunization and sampling schedule: Screening of patients eligible for this study occurred 14–60 days prior to the first vaccine dose. Eligible participants returned 14 days prior to vaccination to complete enrolment and have blood and microbiome samples taken. At day 0, the first vaccine dose was administered after blood and microbiome sampling. Blood sampling then occurred at days 1, 3, 7, and 14 post-vaccination. At day 28, blood sampling and the second HBV dose was administered. At day 180, blood sampling and the last dose of HBV was given, followed by a final blood sample taken at day 208. (B) Demographics: Participant sex and age. (C) Patient anti-HBs antibody titres at 28, 180, and 208 days post first HBV vaccination dose.
Figure 2Temporal response profiles following HBV vaccination differs across omics compartments. Low dimensional projection of the flow cytometry (A), epigenomic (B), transcriptomic (C), and proteomic (D) data using multilevel principal component analysis to visualize global changes across time. In each panel, different post-vaccination time points for each individual are shown in red (Day 0), green (Day 1), and blue (Day 14). We observed differing global temporal patterns of change following vaccination across the various omics compartments. Epigenomic and transcriptomic profiles changed rapidly post-vaccination (Day 1; green vs. blue/red) before returning to baseline by Day 14. Conversely, flow cytometry and proteomic profiles were most distinct by Day 14 (blue vs. red/green).
Figure 3Temporal molecular changes identified in four omic data following HBV vaccination. (A) Volcano plot of epigenetic data, with horizontal lines indicating a p-value of 0.001, and vertical lines indicating a delta beta of 0.03. (B) Volcano plot for transcriptomic data, with horizontal line indicating a p-value of 0.05 and vertical lines indicating fold change of 1.5. (C) volcano plot of proteomic data, with horizontal line indicating a p-value of 0.05. (D) volcano plot of microbiome data, with the horizontal line indicating a p-value of 0.05 and vertical lines indicating a fold change of 1.5, with larger fold changes to the left and right of these lines. For all panels, green or red points indicate a decrease or increase, respectively, in the post-vaccine sample compared to the pre-vaccine baseline. Higher values on the y-axis for all plots indicate greater significance (lower p-value).
Figure 4Network analysis of transcriptomics and proteomics data reveal baseline differences between vaccine responders and non-responders. (A) Minimum-connected network from the 40 DE genes identified when comparing responders to non-responders (defined using Day 180 titre measures). (B) Minimally-connected first-order integrated protein-protein interaction network of the same 40 DE genes combined with the 267 differentially expressed proteins when comparing responders to non-responders (Day 180 post-vaccination). (C) Minimally-connected first-order integrated protein-protein interaction network of differentially expressed transcripts and proteins from B with the addition of differentially methylated genes (898 CpG sites) when comparing responders to non-responders (Day 180 post-vaccination). Novel nodes, not present in individual transcriptomic or proteomics networks are highlighted in orange.
Figure 5Multi-omics integration to reduce overfitting by identifying of more biologically relevant features. (A) Comparison of the performance of a multi-omics model (DIABLO) to that of single-omics models of equivalent complexities, fit separately to individual omics datasets (otu, operating taxonomic units of the fecal microbiome; cpg, blood-based DNA methylation; protein, plasma proteomics; flow, cell counts by flow cytometry; mrna, whole blood transcriptomics). Mean squared error (MSE) differed significantly across all models (Kruskal-Wallis test; p = 0.0023), with the multi-omics model achieving significantly lower error (and better performance) when compared to all other models, with the exception of the proteomics-derived model (p = 0.068). (B) Integrated minimally-connected first-order network of features identified by DIABLO from transcriptomic, proteomics, and epigenetic data. Novel nodes identified from integration are highlighted in orange. (C) Selected enriched pathways and (D–F) selected enriched genes (mRNA) or proteins (proteomics) identified from integration (NetworkAnalyst, DIABLO, or both methods) are shown.