Overcome low levels of detection limit and choice of antibody affects detection of lipoarabinomannan in pediatric tuberculosis.

The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that tuberculosis (TB) in children and adolescents is often overlooked by healthcare providers and difficult to diagnose. As childhood TB cases rise, finding a diagnostic high in sensitivity and specificity is critical. In this study 91 urine samples from children aged 1-10 years were analyzed for tuberculostearic acid (TBSA) by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and capture ELISA (C-ELISA). In C-ELISA the CS35/A194-01 antibody performed very poorly with both curve-based and model-based cutoffs. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the CS35 OD450 values was only 0.60. Replacing the capture antibody with BJ76 gave a better performance in both sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.95). When these samples were analyzed by GC/MS, 41 classified as 'probable/possible' for TB were distinctly TBSA positive with ten samples having <3 ng/mL LAM. However, from the 50 samples with 'unlikely' TB classification, 36 were negative but 7 had >3 ng/mL and were designated as LAM positive. This experimental assay assessment study signifies that i) the antibody pair CS35/A194-01 that has been successful for adult active TB diagnosis is not adequate when LAM level is low as in pediatric TB; ii) no one mAb appears to recognize all TB-specific LAM epitopes.

Introduction

The SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted health and economics in 2020 and 2021, including access to essential tuberculosis (TB) services such as national disease surveillance systems and reports on TB disease burden (incidence and mortality). The World Health Organization (WHO) Global tuberculosis report 2020 [1] included provisional estimates of TB incidence in 2020 suggesting that a global total of about 10 million people fell ill with TB in 2020. Children also fall victim to this disease as evidenced by the 1.2 million pediatric cases seen worldwide in the same year. TB in children and adolescents is often overlooked by healthcare providers and difficult to diagnose [2]. The greatest numbers of pediatric TB cases are seen in children younger than 5 years, and in adolescents older than 10 years.

Childhood TB differs from adult TB due to its differential signs, which are based on the child’s age [3]. High risk factors for contracting latent TB include contact with an adult who is likely infected or exposed to TB, or traveled to a country where TB is endemic [4]. Healthcare providers needs to consider the clinical signs such as fatigue, weight loss, lack of playfulness, persistent cough, and a positive tuberculin skin test (TST) [5]. A screening questionnaire serves as one of the first steps in determining a child’s risk for TB and latent TB [4]. If the questionnaire indicates one or more risk factors, TST is performed followed by a medical examination and medical history; then chest radiographs to confirm the diagnosis of TB [4].

Immunodiagnostic assays are another means to diagnose childhood TB [4]. The Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility (MODS) assay, for instance, is an immunodiagnostic test that uses either gastric fluid aspirate or sputum samples from pediatric patients [6]. However, a major drawback to MODS is that the required sputum samples are difficult to obtain from young children [6].

Two commercial blood based Interferon-gamma-release-assays (IGRA) in use are the T-SPOT and the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-tube test [7]. When both an IGRA and TST were administered to children aged 5 to 18, the sensitivity was higher (96%) than for TST alone (83%) [8].

Recently, urine samples have been shown to be useful in the diagnosis of pediatric TB. A study performed by Gautam et al. used the Alere Determine™ (AlereLAM) assay to detect LAM in urine from children infected with intrathoracic TB (ITTB) or lymph node TB (LNTB) [9]. AlereLAM detected 21 LNTB and 46 ITTB cases that were missed by other methods including Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) stain, liquid culture, and Xpert testing.

A second immunodiagnostic test to detect the presence of LAM in urine is the Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM test (FujiLAM). Nicol et al. looked at the sensitivity and specificity of FujiLAM in children suspected of having a TB [10]. The sensitivity of FujiLAM (42%) and AlereLAM (50%) were similar [10]. However, FujiLAM had higher sensitivity in children with HIV and children who were malnourished. FujiLAM additionally had significantly higher specificity (92%) compared to AlereLAM (66%). Because of its high specificity, it has been suggested that the FujiLAM test may be useful to “rule-in” children in high-risk situations including those who are malnourished or living with HIV [10]. With childhood TB cases on the rise, finding a diagnostic approach that is high in both sensitivity and specificity is critical.

In our continued effort to validate LAM as a biomarker for active TB, in this study we examined 91 urine samples from children (age range 1–10 yrs). Clinical diagnosis was made by a pediatric pulmonologist based on smear, culture, chest-X-ray, TST, contact history, and symptoms. All samples were analyzed simultaneously by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and C-ELISA, the two assays that have been utilized and applied over time in our laboratory [11-13]. All urine samples were from sputum smear negative children. Our goal was to see if LAM can be quantified in the pediatric urine samples and if the C-ELISA could be applied successfully to detect LAM.

Methods and materials

Sample cohort

Anonymized urine samples used in our study were provided by Laboratorio Socios En Salud Sucursal, Peru. The study samples were collected from children with suspected TB and symptomatic children in whom TB was ruled out by a pediatric pulmonologist on the basis of negative bacteriological (i.e., smear and culture) results from sputum or gastric aspirate; chest x-ray, and tuberculin skin testing (n = 91). All samples were collected in the morning. Sample size was not predetermined, we received and analyzed what was available as left over and sent to CSU for our experiments [14].

Urine for LAM spiked and negative control samples was obtained from healthy volunteers from a TB non-endemic region, centrifuged within an hour of collection and the supernatant aliquoted and stored frozen at -80°C until further use. To derive a LAM assay standard curve, the control urine (NEU) was spiked with CDC1551 LAM that is serially diluted two-fold to obtain a concentration range (range 0.02–12.5 ng/mL). The same urine sample was used as a negative control (no spike) for the urine background to derive a cutoff for the analysis of clinical samples. A standard curve was routinely extrapolated every time a new antibody was tested with each set of clinical samples.

Ethics statement

The study generating the urine samples conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Peru National Institute of Health and the Institutional Review Board of Harvard Medical School. Written informed consent was provided by adults and guardians. The present research was approved by the CSU Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), and the CSU Integrity and Compliance Review Board (IRB) under approval IRB protocol number 09-006B.

LAM for assay standardization

The LAM used in this study was isolated and purified from Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) CDC1551 in large quantities (20–30 mgs of LAM isolated from ~90g of wet cells) so that the same standard was used throughout the year for recurring experiments [15].

Pretreatment of urine samples

Sample aliquots were thawed on ice before use. A 100μL aliquot of the urine sample was transferred to a fresh screw-cap tube and dialyzed, using a 3K MWCO dialysis tubing (Spectraphor), against DI H2O overnight followed by treatment with Proteinase K (Pro K, Thermo Fisher Scientific) at a final concentration of 200μg/mL at 55°C for 30 min and then inactivated by boiling (100°C) for 10 min. The supernatant obtained after centrifugation at 12,000 x g for 10 min was directly used for ELISA. The control samples were analyzed in triplicate and the clinical samples were analyzed in duplicate. For the adult clinical samples, the dialysis step was omitted and the ProK pretreatment was carried out before the C-ELISA analysis.

Antibodies (mAb)

Our experiments used a previously described mouse mAb CS35 IgG3 raised against Mycobacterium leprae was obtained from the CSU repository [11, 16], subcloned and purified by Pinter laboratory (Rutgers University) and used for our experiments. A human mAb A194-01 IgG1 was obtained from Pinter laboratory (Rutgers University) [17]. Application and use of the antibodies has been described in our previously published works [11, 12, 18]. A rabbit monoclonal antibody, BJ76 IgG was obtained from Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and as reported, and was raised by immunizing rabbits with the cell wall components of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv [19]. A single chain fragment variable (scFv) phage display library was generated, the BJ76 nucleotide sequence was deducted from selected clones from the library [19] and cloned into an expression vector for production and purification of a rabbit IgG/k in CHO cells. No animal work was undertaken for generation of these antibodies.

Capture ELISA (C-ELISA)

A 96-well polystyrene high binding microplate (Corning, costar) was coated with the capture antibody (CS35 at 10μg/mL and BJ76 at 2.5μg/mL) overnight at 4°C. The plates were blocked with 1% BSA for 60 min after a brief rinse with the same. Urine spiked with LAM and the clinical samples (pretreated) were applied to the appropriate wells on the plate/s and incubated at 27°C for 90 min. After incubation, the plate/s were washed (1X PBS, Tween 80) and detection antibody (biotinylated A194-01 @ 250 ng/mL) was applied and incubated for 90 min at 27°C. The incubation was followed by washes and a 25 min incubation with streptavidin horseradish peroxidase (R&D Systems) @ 27°C). Ultra TMB-ELISA, a chromogenic substrate (Thermo Scientific) was added to the plate/s to develop the color for 30 min and the reaction was stopped by adding sulphuric acid and the optical density measured at 450nm (for the sample) and 570nm (background signal from the plate).

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis for TBSA in urine LAM

The method developed has been described in detail [13, 20]. We modified the method for this particular set of samples by introducing a hexane extraction step prior to the hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC). Typically, urine samples (1 mL) after the hexane (1mL) wash were dried under vacuum and then subjected to HIC over Octyl Sepharose® (OS)-CL 4B using 5–65% step gradient of n-propanol in 0.1 M ammonium acetate (NH4OAc). The 40% and 65% n-propanol in 0.1 M NH4OAcluents from the HIC column was processed for GC/MS analysis to make the corresponding pentafluorobenzyl tuberculostearate derivative. D2-palmitic acid (5ng) was used as an internal standard. The Octyl Sepharose® purified LAM from urine was dried (N2-stream) and subjected to alkaline hydrolysis in 0.25 N aqueous NaOH (200 μL) and heated at 80°C for 1.5 h. Water (0.5 mL) was added to the tube and acidified with conc. H2SO4 (5 μL) to pH ~2. It was then extracted with CHCl3 (500 μLx2) and organic layers were collected together and dried. To neutralize the trace amount of acid, 28% NH4OH (100 μL) was added to it and dried again. The dry sample was then treated with acetonitrile (100 μL), diisopropyl ethylamine (50 μL) and 2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorobenzyl bromide (20 μL) at room temperature. After 30 min, the sample was dried (N2-stream) and reconstituted in Hexanes (AR Grade) (100 μL) and then transferred to GC vials for GC/MS.

The GC/MS analysis of the pentafluorobenzoate ester was carried out using selective ion monitoring program in a negative chemical ionization-splitless mode. The inlet temperature was at 250°C. The oven was set at 50°C for 1 min, ramped at 20°C/min till 150°C and held for 0.01 min and finally ramped at 10°C/min to 310°C and held for 5 min. Methane was used as the collision gas at 2.0 mL/min. The source and MS transfer line temperatures were 250°C and 330°C respectively. The instrument was set to collect data for m/z 257.3 (internal standard) in the range of 5 to 18.5 mins and m/z 297.3 from 18.5 to 27.1 mins for TBSA. GC/MS chromatograms with respective peaks were integrated manually and integrated areas were generated by the Chromeleon v 7.2 software for the estimation of total TBSA content. It was then used to calculate the LAM-equivalent using previously reported formulae [13].

Statistical analysis

BJ76 was tested twice and the OD450 values averaged. One sample had insufficient sample for a second run and only the first run value was used. Cutoffs for classification using OD450 and TBSA measurements were determined in three ways: from standard curves of LAM-spiked urine; from empirical data to maximize area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using the ROCR package [21] version 1.0.11, and calculated as inflection points in logistic regression models using base R. ROCR was also used to calculate 10-fold cross-validation ROC curves. The standard curve cutoff for BJ76 was an average of cutoffs for the two runs. Confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity were calculated using Wilson’s method [22] with a continuity correction, as implemented in the DescTools package [23] version 0.99–43. ROCR and the ggplot2 package [24] version 3.3.5 were used to create plots. Statistical analyses were conducted in R open source software version 4.1.1 [25].

Results and discussion

The 91 pediatric TB cases had an age range of 1–10 years and were not tested for HIV. All samples were received blind and clinical status was revealed after analyses were completed. Clinical diagnoses were made by a local pediatric pulmonologist based on smear, culture, chest-X-ray, TST, contact history, and symptoms. All children samples were smear negative as reported and received frozen.

LAM quantification of pediatric urine samples using GC/MS

D-arabinose (55–60%), D-mannose (36–40%), and fatty acyls (1–3%; palmitate C:16; tuberculostearate (TBSA) C:19:1) [26, 27] are monomeric components amenable to GC/MS after derivatization of LAM. For quantification of LAM by GC/MS in urine, we have been routinely using D-ara and TBSA as structural surrogates for the “full-length” LAM [28]. The use of hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) is an integral part of our GC/MS protocol where LAM is purified away from other interfering urinary components. The criteria for calling a sample LAM positive in the GC/MS analysis of TBSA and D-ara is that the same fraction eluting off the Octyl Sepharose CL 4B® column (40–65%), must have both TBSA and D-ara in amounts that calculate to be comparable to LAM (i.e. molar ratio of D-ara vs. TBSA). However, for the pediatric samples reported herein, LAM concentrations were too low (< 2ng/mL) to estimate D-ara, as this required four ion peaks be integrated. Therefore, we relied on the uniformity of independent TBSA analyses done at two separate times, thus accounting for inter-assay variability to strengthen reproducibility and support our conclusions. TBSA assay reproducibility gives us confidence in LAM amounts present in each sample. Correlation of the two assays was excellent (Fig 1). The amount of LAM-equivalent was calculated using the previously reported formulae [13]. Based on these calculations, a majority of the pediatric TB-positive samples in this study cohort had 2–8 ng/mL of LAM in urine.

Fig 1

Repeat TBSA analyses at two different times.

The two times TBSA assay values (ng/mL) are plotted against each other with 3ng/mL indicated by dashed lines. The Pearson’s correlation validates the assay accuracy. A number of samples diagnosed as negative by clinicians (blue dots) had high levels of TBSA and therefore concluded to be LAM positive.

From the 91 urine samples analyzed by GC/MS, 41 that were classified as ‘probable/possible’ for TB were also TBSA positive with ten samples having less than 3 ng/mL of LAM (S1 Table). However, from the 50 TB negative or with ‘unlikely’ TB classification, 36 were clearly negative (i.e. on the mass spec the peak for TBSA at m/z 297.3 @ retention time 19.5 mins- flat lined) but 7 had >3 ng/mL and were designated as LAM positive (S1-S13 Figs in S1 File). This observation is consistent with our published work in adults, in which we find urine samples classified as negative by clinicians to have LAM detected by GC/MS [13, 20].

Detection of LAM in pediatric urine samples using ELISA

For these pediatric samples, we first tested the antibody pair CS35/A194-01 in C-ELISA. CS35 performed very poorly as OD450 values were not clearly distinct between the TB groups. The majority of the samples had values near the curve-based cutoff. The area under the curve (AUC) of the CS35 OD450 value was only 0.60.

Following this, we changed two parameters. In the second set of experiments, urine samples were first dialyzed in water, and then treated with proteinase K as described [11] and a different capture antibody (BJ76) was used. This antibody pair was selected from our repertoire based on its comparable performance with CS35 and a good limit of detection (LoD) above the background at 25–50 pg/mL of LAM spiked in urine (Fig 2). BJ76 is a rabbit mAb provided to us by FIND and has been shown to have affinity to the terminal methylthioxylose in LAM in a glycan array (manuscript in preparation). In contrast to our published studies showing that CS35 when paired with A194-01 worked well with adult TB urine samples with an LoD of ~100pg/mL but gives high background with both unspiked urine and the clinical samples. BJ76 had significantly lower background and an LoD of ~25–50 pg/mL when used on spiked urine samples. For the clinical samples, both sensitivity and specificity of the C-ELISA improved with this pair of mAbs, having an AUC of 0.96. BJ76 performed better than CS35 in all pediatric samples (Fig 3). A comparison of the sensitivity and specificity for the two antibody pairs is shown in Fig 4.

Fig 2

Comparative ELISA OD450 for two mAbs used for preselection in spiked urine samples.

Generation of LAM standard curve with Mtb CDC1551 LAM spiked into urine from a healthy volunteer using C-ELISA showing CS35, mouse mAb @ 10μg/mL as capture antibody against biotinylated A194-01, human mAb @ 250ng/mL used as the detection antibody (blue circles) in comparison to BJ76, rabbit mAb @ 2.5μg/mL as capture against biotinylated A194-01 @ 250ng/mL as the detection antibody (red triangles). The graph shows BJ76 when paired with A194-01 antibody shows reduction in background signal and improved LoD (from 100pg/mL for CS35/A194-01 pair) to about 50-20pg/mL.

Fig 3

Comparative performance analyses of CS35 vs, BJ76 as capture mAbs in C-ELISA.

A: values for mAb CS35 are plotted for each TB status; violin plots indicate the density of points. The cutoff based on a logistic model is shown by the solid red line; the cutoff based on the standard curve is given by the dotted line. The majority of values were at or near the standard curve cutoff. B: Average ROC curve with 10-fold cross-validation curves shown by dotted lines. AUC was low in all folds. C: OD450 values for BJ76 are plotted for each TB status; violin plots indicate the density of points. The cutoff based on a logistic model is shown by the solid red line; the cutoffs based on the standard curve are shown by the dotted lines. D: Average ROC curve with 10-fold cross-validation curves shown by dotted lines. AUC was high in all folds.

Fig 4

A forest plot comparing sensitivity and specificity for the different models.

Sensitivity (left) and specificity (right) are plotted with 95% confidence intervals. Classifications using the standard curve cutoffs for BJ76 were made using the average of cutoffs for each run. BJ76 sets were run in duplicate and OD450 values were averaged (original individual values are in Table 1). BJ76 performs better than CS35 in all cases.

Table 1

Cutoff values calculated by the different methods are given for each antibody.

Balanced accuracy (the average of sensitivity and specificity) is given for the cutoffs in each model.

	Cutoff values		Balanced Accuracy
Method	BJ76	CS35	BJ76	CS35
Logistic model	0.391	0.688	0.96	0.50
Standard curve	0.396	0.410	0.95	0.60
ROC curve	0.394	0.412	0.96	0.71

Cutoff values were calculated by the different methods and are given for each antibody (Table 1). Balanced accuracy (the average of sensitivity and specificity) is given for the cutoffs in each model. The high cutoff value identified by the logistic model for CS35 is indicative of the poor performance of that antibody, as OD450 values were similar in both TB-positive and TB-negative samples.

From the TBSA quantification, we found the amounts of LAM in the pediatric population with TB disease is lower than we see in adults with TB, a finding consistent with the higher frequency of paucibacillary TB in children. The lower levels of LAM available in the urine samples of children along with the higher background signals from CS35 may be the reason for the unsatisfactory performance of the CS35/A194-01 pair as compared to BJ76/A194-01. This was further substantiated when we tested 25 adult urine samples obtained from FIND (S2 Table). These urine samples had been stored in the CSU storage since 2015. Thirteen out of 25 were culture positive with 2+, 3+ smear gradation and 12 were culture negative. With CS35/A194-01 both specificity and sensitivity were 100% correctly identifying 13 /25 as C-ELISA positive and 12/25 as C-ELISA negative whereas with BJ76/A194-01 the sensitivity dropped to 61.5% as for 5/13 culture positive samples OD450 fell below the ELISA cut off. This supports our report that CS35 as a capture mAb is very effective in detecting LAM in adult TB patients where LAM amounts are comparatively higher (> 8ng/mL) in majority of the clinical samples. A reason for this antibody selectivity is unclear at the present time since BJ76 has not gone through a rigorous validation.

The current study signifies that i) antibody pair CS35/A194-01 that has been so successful for adult active TB diagnosis is not adequate when the LAM amounts are very low (as in pediatric TB and miliary TB); ii) sample pretreatment is not efficient in reducing background in pediatric samples giving a higher background; iii) changing the capture antibody to BJ76, seemed to have improved ELISA sensitivity for pediatric samples; iv) no one monoclonal mAb (to date) appears to recognize all TB-specific LAM epitopes; and v) heterogenic variation of LAM occurs naturally in urine, so that epitopes present will impact results based on mAbs in C- ELISA formats and in the LAM detection methods.

A summary of analyses of the pediatric samples is presented in the schematic flow (Fig 5). The characteristics of the 91 children included in the analysis are detailed in the S1 Table which also includes data from GC/MS (2XTBSA) and C-ELISA with two mAb pairs. The data from the 25 adult TB samples is presented in S2 Table.

Fig 5

Summary of analysis of pediatric TB samples in this study.

Flow chart for 91 pediatric TB samples showing clinically positive and negative status assigned by the clinicians with the patient samples diagnostic outcomes using C-ELISA and GC-MS to detect LAM in urine.

Conclusion

Pediatric tuberculosis (PTB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, particularly in developing countries. Diagnosis of pediatric TB brings one of the biggest challenges to conclusive decisions on whether or not to finalize a treatment downstream. There is a substantial research gap in developing new diagnostics for children, furthering the diagnostic conundrum in resource-limited settings. PTB (i.e. children under 15 years of age) is a public concern as it could be a marker for recent transmission. Infants and young children are more likely to develop life-threatening forms of TB disease (e.g., disseminated TB, TB meningitis). Usual diagnostic approaches are based on clinical presentations, radiographic abnormalities, contact history, and tuberculin skin test, all of which are of low specificity [29].

In the present study on our path to develop a non-sputum-based diagnostic assay, on a set of pediatric urine samples, we first used GC/MS for quantification of LAM and showed unambiguously that it is present albeit at low levels. Concomitantly, using a simple ELISA but with a specific pair of mAb BJ76/A194-01 we were able to detect LAM clearly distinguishing TB positive from ‘unlikely’ TB. Our work indicates that for pediatric TB diagnosis, an ELISA based assay (which uses larger sample volumes) may be more appropriate where sample concentration can be applied and thus may not be ideal in the field. It is rather puzzling why a broad spectrum antibody like CS35 would selectively recognize LAM from the adult TB population but bind less efficiently to PTB, it is tempting to suggest that there is epitope variability, an issue that cannot be addressed easily due to low abundance of LAM in PTB. Both BJ76 and A194 are claimed to be MTX specific. How they are working in a pair is also not clear? We speculate Ab specificities to multiple LAM epitopes. Also, LAM was equally distributed across all ages by C-ELISA using BJ76 (S2 File).

The use of an antibody independent approach (i.e. quantification based on mass spectrometry) was vital in this work as we could assess the levels of LAM that needed to be detected in an immunoassay and thus selected an mAb from our repertoire that offered least background. Limitations of our study are that our sample cohort was from a HIV negative geographical region and that contribution of HIV could not be assessed in this particular set. A larger cohort is needed to support our conclusion. The novel assays require further evaluation in distinct clinical settings and in immunosuppressed patient groups.

Table of contents.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

S1-S13 Figs.

GC/MS chromatograms of TBSA analysis of 91 pediatric urine samples includes both culture positive and culture negative samples.

(PPTX)

Click here for additional data file.

Forest plot- age vs LAM distribution using BJ76.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

GC/MS data and ELISA OD450 values, clinical status on all 91 pediatric urine samples.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

ELISA OD450 values and clinical status for 25 adult urine samples.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Sep 2022

19 Sep 2022

To The Editor

PLOS One

Ref Manuscript [PONE-D-22-15293]

Thank you for a very thorough review of our manuscript in PLOS One. [PONE-D-22-15293]

We have now carefully edited, reduced the Introduction by 10% and answered to the reviewers concerns as best as possible. The responses are all hilited in red.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'..

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was funded through NIH AI R01 AI132680 (to DC) and the samples analyzed in this study were provided under NIH/NAID U19 AI109755 to Dr. Molly F Franke (Harvard Medical School).”

This statement has been removed from the acknowledgement section

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“NO The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

This statement in correct as stated, funding related statement has been removed from the Acknowledgement section of the Manuscript

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Funding Information provided is correct.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

The Supplementary Files (Supporting Information) provided with this manuscript contain all the data presented in this study. There is no other repository information for data availability.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Captions for supporting Information are revised and included at the end of the manuscript after the References and updated in-text citations to match

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Not Applicable, All References have been cross checked.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: i review with interest the study titled "Overcome Low Levels of Detection Limit and Choice of Antibody Affects Detection of

Lipoarabinomannan in Pediatric Tuberculosis" on 91 urine samples from children aged 3-10 years. urine samples were analyzed for tuberculostearic acid (TBSA) by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and

capture ELISA (C-ELISA). the study is interesting and well written. but i have few comments that could improve the manuscript:

1- the introduction is too long and should be shortened. Edited and shortened

2- write the type of the study? Experimental Assay Assessment

3- what is the duration of the study? Samples were from the U19 (NIH/NAID U19 AI109755) program that originated in 2015,-Mesman, A.W., Soto, M., Coit, J. et al. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pediatric stool samples using TruTip technology. BMC Infect Dis 19, 563 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4188-8. Children recruited to participate in a pediatric TB Diagnostic Study between May 2015-Feb 2018 in Peru.

91 urine sample cohort was sent to CSU in 2020, GC/MS was done in September 2021and C-ELISA completed in March 2022, manuscript incorporating all data was submitted in May 2022. Thus, the duration of experimental work described herein was 2020-2022.

4- what are the exclusion criteria? For our study-Not Applicable as the study design was applied by the U19 program which states. “Subjects recruited in the pediatric TB diagnostics study were less than 15 years of age with a history of contact with an adult with TB within the previous two years, presenting with TB like symptoms i.e., persistent cough for two weeks or longer, unexplained weight loss and fever with fatigue for more than a week.

5- what are the primary and secondary outcomes of the study? The primary outcome of our study is LAM is present albeit in low levels in children with TB symptoms as tested by clinicians irrespective of culture/smear status and amounts of LAM is quantifiable by GC/MS. Secondary outcome is, sensitive immunoassay needs to be developed with more selective Abs, or sample concentration need to be performed to detect low levels of urinary LAM among children

6- how did you estimate the sample size? and what is the power of the study? Sample size was not predetermined, we received and analyzed what was available as left over and sent to CSU for our experiments.

Reviewer #2: Challenges with specimen collection and bacteriological confirmation of TB in young children, due to the paucibacillary nature of TB disease in this age group and the lack of highly sensitive point-of care tests. There is no gold-standard test available for children, and many of the older testing methods are often time-consuming and inaccurate. Using urine samples is a non-invasive, non-sputum-based diagnostic assay and useful method of detecting TB in children. The study indicates that for pediatric TB diagnosis, an ELISA based assay (which uses larger sample volumes) may be more appropriate where sample concentration can be applied. All children samples in this study were smear negative make the positive results in urine sample is more valuable. The study populations were very clear and appropriately. TB group, and non TB group based on 5 combination parameters: clinical symptom, X-ray, exposure history, TST and bacteriological evidence (microscopy, culture). Properly designed positive and negative control samples. Urine positive control for LAM spiked with CDC1551 LAM. The same urine sample was used as a negative control (no spike) for the urine background to derive a cutoff for the analysis of clinical samples. The used antibodies (mouse mAb CS35 IgG3, mAb A194-01 IgG1) were well calibrated. Techniques (C-ELISA , GC/MS) applied according to standard procedures. The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously (BJ76 was tested twice and the OD450 values averaged. Confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity were calculated using Wilson’s method. Statistical analyses were conducted in R open source software version 4.1.1). In 2022, WHO strongly recommends using LF-LAM to assist in the diagnosis of TB disease in HIV-positive adults and children with signs and symptoms of TB (pulmonary and/or extrapulmonary). The result of study make a suggestion that the use of urine specimens may consider as a tool for definitive diagnosis of tuberculosis, not only as a diagnostic assist. Unfortunately, there was no HIV status of the pediatric patient in the study. If the author analyzes the results by age group, especially in the group of children under 5 years old, it may have an additional contribution in screening, diagnosis and treatment. We agree with the reviewer, the shortfall of our study is that we had no children sample with HIV coinfection for comparison. When we initiated this work, our goal was to thoroughly investigate LAM distribution among HIV negative TB positive patients and we concentrated in samples originating in Peru where HIV incidence is >1%. The children cohort also originated in Peru, therefore, no HIV, we are now looking into a new pediatric sample source which will have HIV/TB coinfection. As suggested, we analyzed the data based on <5yrs>, and our analysis shows that LAM amounts are equally distributed among all ages. (see forest plot in Supplementary Fig S14). This also, fits our hypothesis that when low levels (+/-2-4ng) of LAM are detected, it is difficult to correlate with any factors such as age/smear and perhaps sex.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Doaa El Amrousy

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-2Mod.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Sep 2022

Overcome Low Levels of Detection Limit and Choice of Antibody Affects Detection of Lipoarabinomannan in Pediatric Tuberculosis

PONE-D-22-15293R1

Dear Dr. Chatterjee,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

30 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-15293R1

Overcome Low Levels of Detection Limit and Choice of Antibody Affects Detection of Lipoarabinomannan in Pediatric Tuberculosis

Dear Dr. Chatterjee:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE