Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2008, p. 1647-1654, Vol. 46, No. 5
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JCM.02018-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida,1 North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, Florida,2 Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia3
Received 4 October 2007/ Returned for modification 28 November 2007/ Accepted 28 February 2008
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Investigators have assessed a wide range of potential diagnostic markers including the detection of candidal nucleic acids, metabolites such as D-arabinitol, cell wall components such as β-D-glucan, and antigens such as secreted aspartyl proteinase (SAP), enolase (ENO1), and mannan (5). Despite reports of reasonable diagnostic yields for each of these tests, none have been broadly validated or accepted in widespread clinical practice. There has been less enthusiasm for antibody detection as a diagnostic strategy because of concerns regarding false-negative tests in immunocompromised patients (26). Nevertheless, recent studies detecting antibodies against SAP (19, 20), ENO1 (13, 16), mannan (30, 33, 36), a 52-kDa metalloprotein (6), hyphal wall protein 1 (HWP1) (14), and a Candida albicans germ tube antigen (CGTA) (26) reported sensitivities and specificities that are consistent with those of other diagnostic markers, even among highly immunocompromised hosts like stem cell transplant and liver transplant recipients (11, 12, 21, 31, 34). Moreover, various combinations of an antibody test with an antigen test have been shown to be superior to either test alone in diagnosing systemic candidiasis (23, 28, 29). Clearly, much work in developing diagnostic markers remains to be done; antibody detection strategies merit exploration as part of these endeavors.
In ongoing work in our laboratories, we have used a human antibody-based screening strategy to identify C. albicans genes that encode immunogenic proteins including previously uncharacterized virulence factors (2, 3, 22, 27). In the present project, we have chosen 12 proteins of diverse function and cellular localization to study as targets for antibody detection assays. These proteins are classified into four groups: classic cell wall proteins (Bgl2 and MUC1), glycolytic enzymes localized to the cell wall (ENO1, FBA1, GAP1, and PGK1), intracellular proteins localized to the cell wall (NOT5 and MET6), and intracellular proteins likely not localized to the cell wall (CAR1, RBT4, SET1, and IPF9162) (2, 15, 16, 24, 27, 33). Our objectives were to determine if serum antibody responses against any purified recombinant antigens could reliably distinguish patients with systemic candidiasis from uninfected controls. We also sought to derive a predictive model for systemic candidiasis that considered antibody responses against multiple antigens.
|
|
|---|
Collection of sera. Patients at STH-UF were identified on the day blood or sterile-site cultures were positive for Candida spp. Controls were identified by the Infectious Diseases Consultation Service at STH-UF. Sera were collected in accordance with procedures approved by the UF Institutional Review Board, frozen, and stored at –70°C in the repository at the UF Mycology Research Unit. For patients with candidiasis, sera were obtained from the earliest possible date on or after the date that the first positive cultures were drawn. In all cases, this was within 7 days of the first positive culture (acute-phase sera). For eight patients with candidiasis, sera were also recovered 4 to 12 weeks after the date on which the first positive cultures were drawn (convalescent-phase sera).
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Antibody titers were evaluated for a set of 12 proteins that were identified using in vivo-induced antigen technology (MET6, SET1, GAP1, ENO1, NOT5, BGL2, FBA1, MUC1, CAR1, RBT4, IPF9162, and PGK1) (2, 3, 27). Whole or partial DNA sequences of the genes encoding the proteins were amplified by PCR using the primers listed in Table 1. Two fragments of MET6, PGK1, and MUC1 were amplified, resulting in a total of 15 DNA sequences. The resulting PCR products were cloned into plasmid pET30 using an EK/LIC cloning kit (EMD Biosciences, Inc.). All inserts were confirmed by DNA sequencing. Each plasmid was transformed into Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) cells (Novagen). Expression of the recombinant antigens was induced by isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG). The recombinant antigens were purified from cell-free supernatants by chromatography on Ni2+-nitrilotriacetic acid-agarose as previously described (3). Briefly, E. coli cell pellets were resuspended in BugBuster (Novagene) with Benzonase nuclease and rLysozyme and incubated at room temperature for 30 min with gentle shaking. Samples were then separated into a soluble fraction or an insoluble pellet by centrifugation at 10,000 x g for 10 min. The location of the recombinant protein was assessed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). If soluble, the supernatant fraction was filtered through a 0.45-µm filter (Millipore) and passed through a His-Bind column, followed by washing the column with binding buffer and then with wash buffer (both from EMD Biosciences, Inc.). The peptide of interest was then eluted with 60 to 100 mM imidazole buffer. The His6-tagged recombinant proteins were confirmed by 15% SDS-PAGE, which showed a single band of the expected size, and by Western blot analysis with anti-His monoclonal antibody (Invitrogen). The insoluble proteins were pelleted by centrifugation and then resuspended in 1:10-diluted BugBuster reagent (in deionized water). The suspension was centrifuged at 5,000 x g for 15 min at 4°C to collect the inclusion bodies. These inclusion bodies were then resuspended in 5 ml of 1:10-diluted BugBuster, which then underwent centrifugation as described above. The resultant pellet was again resuspended in diluted BugBuster and centrifuged at 16,000 x g for 15 min at 4°C. The final pellet of purified inclusion bodies was resuspended in 1x binding buffer including 6 M urea and incubated on ice for 1 h to completely dissolve the protein. The insoluble material was removed by centrifugation at 16,000 x g for 30 min; the purification process of the supernatant was performed as discussed above.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Primers used for cloning of antigens
|
Statistical analyses. The antibody titers for individual antigens were first log2 transformed to approximate normal distribution prior to data analysis. Means and standard errors for each predictor were calculated for each outcome variable. The differences in log2 antibody titers (IgM or IgG) were assessed using unpaired t tests with Welch correction; statistical significance was set at 0.05. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for IgM or IgG against individual predictors. The optimal cutoff was determined by receiver operating characteristic analyses. Multicolinearity among the predictor variables was assessed using colinearity diagnostics in SAS PROC REG.
Potentially significant predictor variables for the discriminant model were identified by backward elimination analysis using the STEPDISC procedure and by canonical correlation analysis using the CANCORR procedure in SAS/STAT. In the backward elimination analysis, the predictor variables chosen to leave the model were based on the significance level of an F test from an analysis of covariance. In the canonical analysis, standardized canonical coefficients, which reflect the relative contribution of each predictor variable to the power of discriminating between the two outcomes, were generated; the variables with highest absolute values were included in the discriminant model.
The DISCRIM procedure in SAS/STAT was used to identify the smallest subset of predictor variables that best discriminated the two outcomes. The performance of this discriminant analysis was evaluated by estimating the error rate (probability of misclassification of outcome). Finally, linear regression analysis using PROC REG in SAS was performed to generate the predicted function for the best set of predictors that were identified. The prediction score takes the form of y =
+ β1x1 + β2x2 + ... + βnxn, where
is the constant where the regression line intercepts the y axis and β is a regression coefficient.
To compare IgG responses in acute and convalescent-phase sera from eight patients with candidiasis, the titers against the recombinant antigens of interest were log2 transformed, and means and standard errors were calculated. The differences in log2 antibody titers were assessed using the Student t test; statistical significance was set at 0.05.
|
|
|---|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Descriptive data of patients with systemic candidiasis
|
Antibody responses against recombinant antigens in sera of patients with systemic candidiasis and uninfected controls. Sera from the 68 patients with systemic candidiasis and the uninfected controls were tested against the 15 recombinant antigens using ELISA. Sera from two patients (one with systemic candidiasis and one control) were sufficient to test against only 13 antigens (all except PGK1-1 and PGK1-2). As anticipated, IgM and IgG titers against each of the recombinant antigens in sera of eight newborn infants were consistently indistinguishable from background; these sera were excluded from further data analysis.
IgM and IgG data for the 60 patients (excluding newborn infants) with systemic candidiasis and 24 controls are presented in Table 3. Overall, IgG responses were better than IgM responses in differentiating patients with systemic candidiasis from controls. The mean log2 IgG titers were significantly higher for patients with systemic candidiasis than for controls against all 15 antigens. The mean log2 IgM titers, on the other hand, were significantly higher for patients with systemic candidiasis against only seven antigens: ENO1 and PGK1-1 (glycolytic enzymes localized to the cell wall), NOT5 (an intracellular protein localized to the cell wall), and SET1, RBT4, IPF9162, and CAR1 (intracellular proteins not localized to the cell wall). In addition, whereas IgG titers against specific antigens were detectable in sera of 85 to 98.3% of patients with systemic candidiasis, IgM titers were detectable in only 10 to 68.3% of patients.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Summary of IgM and IgG data against specific antigens among patients with systemic candidiasis versus controls
|
![]() View larger version (66K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Data on IgG titers from patients with systemic candidiasis stratified by Candida spp. (top) and immunosuppression (bottom). Arrows indicate a significant difference (P values of <0.05) in IgG titers between groups.
|
Identification of antibody responses that discriminated patients with systemic candidiasis from controls. For each of the antigens, we assigned cutoff antibody titers that best discriminated patients from controls using receiver operating characteristic analyses (data not shown). The sensitivities and specificities of IgM and IgG antibody responses in identifying patients with systemic candidiasis are presented in Table 4.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 4. Performance of IgM and IgG antibody titers against specific antigens in predicting systemic candidiasisa
|
Discriminant analysis of the full set of 15 predictors yielded an outcome classification error rate of 3.7% (3/82) (Table 5). Among the 58 patients and 24 controls for whom sera were adequate to test all antigens, only 3 were classified incorrectly: 1 patient with systemic candidiasis was predicted to be a control, and 2 controls were predicted to have systemic candidiasis. The sensitivity and specificity of the panel of 15 predictors were 96.6% (57/59) and 95.6% (22/23), respectively. Of note, discriminant analysis of the panel of seven predictors yielded results identical to those for the full set of 15 predictors.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 5. Performance of IgG against panels of recombinant antigensa
|
Using regression analysis, we confirmed that the panel of 4 predictors performed as well as the 15 predictors in identifying systemic candidiasis. The analysis of the four predictors yielded an R2 value of 0.69, which was not significantly different from the R2 value of 0.73 for the full model (F = 0.98; P = 0.47).
Testing a prediction model for systemic candidiasis. Based on our data, the equation that best predicted systemic candidiasis was as follows: prediction score = (0.10 x SET1 + 0.07 x ENO1 – 0.04 x MUC1-2 – 0.02 x PGK1-2 – 0.12), where SET1, ENO1, MUC1-2, and PGK1-2 indicate the log2 specific antibody titers in individual patients. A score of >0.5 for a given patient was predictive of systemic candidiasis.
To assess the validity of this model, we performed ELISAs against the 15 recombinant antigens using additional sera that had been collected from 16 patients with systemic candidiasis within 2 days of the positive blood cultures and from 16 uninfected controls. The panel of four predictors yielded sensitivity and specificity of 100% (16/16) and 87.5% (14/16), respectively. The only classification errors were two controls who were predicted to have systemic candidiasis.
IgG responses against recombinant SET1, ENO1, MUC1-2, and PGK1-2 in acute- and convalescent-phase sera of patients with systemic candidiasis. Finally, we performed ELISA using acute- and convalescent-phase sera from eight patients against the recombinant antigens included in the prediction model. The mean log2 IgG titer was significantly higher in convalescent-phase sera in than acute-phase sera against all four recombinant antigens (Table 6). Moreover, 100% (8/8), 87.5% (7/8), 62.5% (5/8), and 75% (6/8) of convalescent-phase sera exhibited at least fourfold increases in IgG titers against SET1, ENO1, MUC1-2, and PGK 1-2, respectively (Fig. 2).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 6. IgG responses against SET1, ENO1, MUC1-2, and PGK1-2 in acute- and convalescent-phase sera of eight patients with systemic candidiasis
|
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. IgG titers against SET1, ENO1, MUC1-2, and PGK1-2 in acute- and convalescent-phase sera of eight patients with systemic candidiasis. For each recombinant protein, titers in acute-phase sera are shown at left and convalescent-phase sera are shown at right. Convalescent-phase sera were recovered 4 to 12 weeks after the first blood culture was positive for Candida spp.
|
|
|
|---|
Our data refute three of the major concerns about the limitations of antibody detection as a diagnostic tool. First, we demonstrated that patients with systemic candidiasis exhibited significant IgG titers against a wide range of antigens at the time that the diagnosis was made by conventional culture-based methods. This observation corroborates a number of reports documenting significant IgG titers against individual proteins like ENO1, HWP1, mannan, and CGTA before or at the time of the first positive blood culture (13, 14, 23, 36). Such findings are consistent with the fact that blood cultures are often not positive until relatively late in the course of disease (8, 17, 18). It is also possible that invasive diseases like candidemia are preceded in at least some patients by low-level systemic exposure to Candida spp., perhaps reflecting "leakage" from mucosal sites of colonization. Alternatively, the relatively early and potent IgG responses could represent amnestic responses against tissue invasion by a commensal organism to which the host has already been exposed. Along these lines, IgG responses were superior to those of IgM against each of the 15 antigens in discriminating patients with systemic candidiasis from controls. Previous studies of IgM responses yielded conflicting results, with results superior to IgG against blastospore cytoplasm and mannan in one study and inferior against hyphal cell wall proteins in another (10, 32). In our study, it is interesting that IgM titers against the four intracellular proteins that are not localized to the cell wall among patients with systemic candidiasis were significantly higher than those among controls, which suggests that these antigens might be less visible to the humoral immune system during commensal growth.
Second, we showed that antibody responses against recombinant C. albicans antigens diagnosed patients infected with C. albicans and non-C. albicans spp. Indeed, the prediction model was accurate regardless of the infecting species, a finding that corroborates data from previous studies. IgG responses against C. albicans ENO1, for example, have been reported to be effective in identifying patients with candidemia caused by diverse Candida spp. (14). Interestingly, a recent study showed that the detection of antibodies against HWP1, a protein produced exclusively during hyphal growth by C. albicans, is also useful among patients infected with non-C. albicans spp. (13), suggesting that epitopes within nonconserved proteins might elicit cross-reactive responses. Finally, our limited data on immunocompromised hosts suggest that the IgG responses were not attenuated in these patients. Again, these results are consistent with data from previous reports (11, 12, 21, 31, 34).
The sensitivities and specificities that we observed using individual proteins are within the ranges previously reported for antibody detection against a variety of antigens. Studies of IgG responses to ENO1 yielded sensitivities of 50 to 92% and specificities of 78 to 95% (14, 15, 16, 26, 33), and similar performances have been reported for tests against SAP (20, 35), HWP1 (14), a 52-kDa metalloprotein (6), mannan (28, 36), and CGTA (26). In attempts to overcome the diagnostic limitations of existing antibody tests, investigators have combined antibody responses against individual proteins with tests of antigen and/or metabolite detection. In general, these strategies have improved the sensitivity and specificity of individual tests as well as resulted in earlier diagnoses of systemic candidiasis (7, 25, 28-30, 36). It is quite possible, therefore, that a prediction model such as ours, based on antibody responses to multiple antigens, will ultimately be of the greatest utility in combination with cultures and other diagnostic markers.
It is important that antibody responses in this study were measured against recombinant antigens. As such, we cannot make definitive conclusions about humoral responses against native Candida proteins. Nevertheless, we demonstrated that mean IgG titers against each of the recombinant antigens included in our prediction model were significantly higher in convalescent-phase sera than in paired acute-phase sera from eight patients. These data suggest that the elevated IgG responses reflected responses to the causative Candida isolate.
In conclusion, we have clearly shown that a prediction model based on IgG responses against a panel of recombinant proteins is a potentially powerful tool for diagnosing systemic candidiasis. Our findings support future studies to validate and define the role of antibody detection in the diagnosis of systemic candidiasis. Moreover, it will be useful to assess other applications of antibody testing against panels of candidal antigens, such as tracking responses to antifungal therapy and identifying high-risk patients who could benefit from preventive or preemptive treatment.
Experiments were conducted in the laboratories of M.H.N. and C.J.C. at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System.
There is no conflict of interest.
Published ahead of print on 5 March 2008. ![]()
|
|
|---|
- and β-linked oligomannosides during experimental and human systemic candidiasis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:164-171.This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»