Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, July 1999, p. 504-508, Vol. 6, No. 4
Department of Medical
Microbiology1 and Department of Image
Diagnosis,
Received 12 January 1999/Accepted 3 March 1999
An enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot for the diagnosis of
human hydatid disease was performed, and the different antibody responses were analyzed by a discriminant analysis. This multivariate technique gave us, first, a selection of the most important responses against Echinococcus granulosus infection and, second, a
procedure for the classification of patients into two groups: patients
with hydatid disease and patients without a history of hydatid disease. This method was applied to 67 patients, 25 with active hydatid cysts
(24 hepatic and 1 pulmonary) and 42 without a history of hydatid
disease and was compared with the results obtained by conventional
serology: indirect hemagglutination, latex particle agglutination, and
basophil degranulation. An immunoelectrotransfer blot coupled to a
discriminant analysis was more sensitive than conventional serological
diagnosis and detected 100% of patients with an active hepatic hydatid
cyst with a specificity of 100%. This method, however, failed to
detect an uncomplicated hyaline pulmonary hydatid cyst.
Hydatidosis is the parasitization of
tissue by the larval stage of different cestodes of the
Echinococcus genus and represents a public health problem
with important economic implications (15).
The diagnosis of hydatidosis is mainly based on two phenomena: analysis
by morphologic methods (radiology, echography, and nuclear magnetic
resonance imaging) and analysis by immunologic methods (detection of
antibodies, antigens, circulating immune complexes, and delayed
hypersensitivity and lymphoproliferative assays). The morphologic
methods as a whole have better sensitivity than immunologic ones, but
they require adequate equipment and the uncomplicated hydatid cysts are
poorly differentiated from idiopathic cysts. Immunologic methods are
more available as screening tests because they are technologically
simpler, but they lack sufficient sensitivity for the detection of
extrahepatic cysts (2, 10, 13).
The enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB) is a test which
combines the high sensitivity of the immunoenzymatic tests with the
high resolution of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (PAGE). The detection of antibodies against certain
proteins by EIBT is considered highly specific for detection of the
Echinococcus genus, and it has a sensitivity of about 90%, with a specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatidosis, but it is less sensitive for detection of uncomplicated cysts located
in the lung and brain (14).
The main subject of this paper is use of the serological pattern
obtained by EITB in order to improve the sensitivity of this procedure
for the diagnosis of hydatid disease, but without the loss of
specificity. The problem is to combine the bands obtained by EITB in
the classification task. This question has been studied by means of a
usual statistical procedure: discriminant analysis.
Patients studied.
Sixty-seven patients were included in the
study and were separated into the groups outlined below.
(i) Group 1.
Twenty-five patients with active hydatid cysts
comprised group 1. Twenty-two of them had fertile hepatic cysts. One
patient had an infertile giant hydatid cyst of the liver; another
patient had a fertile cyst of the lung. The last one was a patient who was previously treated for hepatic hydatidosis but who actually had a
fertile meningeal relapse. The activities and fertilities of the cysts
were confirmed by postsurgical parasitological examinations.
(ii) Group 2.
Group 2 consisted of 42 patients with no
history of hydatidosis. Twenty patients presenting with chronic
hepatopathies (hepatocarcinoma, cirrhosis, or chronic hepatitis) were
selected. Ten patients were children from 6 months to 2 years of age
who had no evidence of parasitic diseases. Eight patients were selected
from among the adult patients without hydatid disease; they had
suspected parasitosis, and hydatid serology was required by the
physician. Another four patients were children with transient
eosinophilia, and for these patients hydatid disease had been ruled
out. All the patients except the children younger than age 2 years were
selected from different clinical conditions classically linked to
false-positive results by hydatid serology.
1071-412X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Immunological Diagnosis of Human Cystic Echinococcosis: Utility
of Discriminant Analysis Applied to the Enzyme-Linked
Immunoelectrotransfer Blot

and
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
40°C. Anticoagulated complete blood samples were drawn from 23 of
the patients for immediate performance of BD tests.
IHA test. The commercial Cellognost Echinococcosis (Behring) test was used. Results equal to or greater than 1:64 were considered positive when hemagglutinins against type O erythrocytes were absent.
LA test. The commercial Agglutinotest echinococcosis (Ismunit) test was performed according to the manufacturer's recommendations, and those sera whose titers were equal to or greater than 1:2 were considered positive.
BD test. The BD test was performed by the method of Mir et al. (16).
Immunoelectrotransfer performance.
Hydatid cyst fluid from a
human fertile hepatic cyst was obtained by sterile puncture during
surgery. The fluid was centrifuged at 900 × g for 15 min, and the supernatant was sterilized by filtration through a
Millipore filter (pore diameter, 0.45 µm). Thereafter, it was
dialyzed in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at 4°C for 24 h and
was kept at
100°C in aliquots for no longer than a month.
Statistical analysis. In order to classify each patient as having active hydatid disease or not, the results of conventional serology and bands obtained by EITB were used. The results of conventional serology were considered in a qualitative manner; that is, sera were coded a 1 if they were considered positive for hydatid disease by each conventional test and were coded a 0 if they were negative. Similarly, the presence of a specific band in a patient's serum was coded 1 and the absence of the band was coded 0. As pointed out above, only the bands that constantly appeared with the positive control serum in all tests were considered. A previous and descriptive point is the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of each band and conventional serology, which were calculated by analyzing the relative frequencies. High values correspond to potentially important variables for the classification of a patient.
From a statistical point of view, our problem can be studied by means of a discriminant analysis because two conditions are present: a classification problem and a training sample, i.e., it is known whether each serum sample belonged to a patient with hydatid disease. First, this technique has as its main goal the design of a classification rule by using the training sample in such a manner that the rate of occurrence of misclassification errors (false positives and false negatives) is as low as possible. Essentially, a linear combination of the original variables (presence or absence of bands obtained by EITB) is used to classify a patient. This index is the discriminant score. If this discriminant score is greater than a certain value, then the patient is placed in one of the two groups (patients with hydatid disease or patients without hydatid disease), and if this score is lower than this value, the patient is placed in the other group. Note that in our case, each variable corresponded to the presence or absence of a concrete band in EITB or positive or negative conventional tests (IHA, LA, and BD tests). Second, this technique can be used to select the most important variables in such a manner that the accuracy of the method that used the smaller set of variables will be similar to the one that used all variables. A simpler and easier method is achieved when this smaller set of sampling information is used (1, 21, 24). All subsequent analyses were done by using the discriminant procedure of SPSS for Windows, version 6.1.3 (17). Briefly, the selection of variables has been done by using the stepwise method. Then, by using the selected variables, a discriminant score (Z) is determined and the observations are classified. Note that because equal prior possibilities are used, the classification rule can be formulated in two equivalent ways: If Z1 and Z2 are the mean values of the discriminant score in groups 1 and 2 (named centroids), respectively, an observation with a score Z is assigned to one or another group depending on whether Z
(Z1 + Z2)/2 or Z < (Z1 + Z2)/2.
This is equivalent to calculating them by using Bayes' theorem and
assigning an observation to the group with the highest posterior
probability. For instance, when the discriminant function is applied to
a particular patient, the presence or absence of the bands included in
the discriminant function will allow us to calculate the particular
score for the patient. The final classification for the patient would
be made by calculating the posterior probabilities with the statistical
package (using Bayes' theorem), or more easily, the patient may be
classified into the group whose centroid (mean of the scores for the
group) is closer to the patient's score.
The statistical significance of the classification made with the
discriminant function and the real situation was calculated by the
chi-square test.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Conventional serology.
As shown in Table
1, the agglutination of latex particles
is highly specific (100% in our series), with a sensitivity of about
74%, while the IHA test had a sensitivity of 95.5% and a specificity
of 90.5% even though a titer as low as 1:64 was considered significant. The BD test had great sensitivity (91.3%), but because we
did not dispose of recently drawn blood samples from patients from
group 2 specificity studies could not be performed.
|
EITB. The bands obtained by EITB with or without 2-mercaptoethanol treatment during the processing of the hydatid fluid are shown in Fig. 1. To facilitate the statistical analysis of the results, the different bands were given separate designations (see Table 4).
|
|
|
|
8.99 (X4)
1.03 (X8) + 8.78 (X11) + 8.88 (X12)
3.27, where
X3, X4, X8,
X11, and X12 are 1 or 0, depending on whether antibodies against the corresponding proteins are
found or not found, respectively.
The mean values of the discriminating score (centroids) for each
group were as follows: for patients with active hydatid cyst, 5.2561 = Z1; for patients
without a hydatid cyst,
3.1286 = Z2. The patients were classified in
group 1 (with hydatid cyst) if Z (for this patient) was
greater than or equal to half the sum of the centroids and in group 2 if Z was less than half the sum of the centroids.
The accuracies of the classifications are as follows. Among the 25 patients in group 1 whose clinical condition was confirmed, 24 were
predicted to be in group 1 and 1 was predicted to be in group 2. All 42 patients in group 2 whose clinical condition was confirmed
were correctly predicted to be in group 2. The proportion of correctly
classified patients was 98.51%.
The discriminant function outlined above has a sensitivity of 96% and
a specificity of 100% for the immunological diagnosis of hydatid
disease (P < 0.0001).
The positive predictive value of this methodology was 100%, while the
negative predictive value was 97.6%.
As indicated above, only one patient was erroneously classified. This
patient had a hydatid hyaline cyst of the lung which was not detected
by the test; so, for hepatic hydatid disease, the method had a
sensitivity and a specificity of 100%.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of the 25 patients with active hydatid cysts, 23 had hepatic cysts, 1 had a hyaline cyst of the lung, and another had a meningeal relapse after arterial dissemination of a giant hepatic cyst that spread into the aorta. Our results obtained by the IHA and LA tests are similar to those obtained by other researchers (8, 19).
Many studies have analyzed the predictive value of having antibodies against several antigens in hydatid cyst fluid (3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29). The presence of antibodies against the unreduced 60-kDa protein or against the reduced 36-kDa protein, which are part of Capron's antigen 5 (3), in 47.6 and 40.47% of the healthy population, respectively, is not surprising because the antigen 5 molecule contains the phosphoryl-choline epitope, a widely distributed hapten. Furthermore, it has been proved that antibodies against phosphoryl-choline could cross-react when highly sensitive tests are used (14, 25), and the 36- to 38-kDa reduced subunit of antigen 5 cross-reacts with human antibodies to other cestode, trematode, and nematode parasites and to blood group P1 antigen (29).
The presence of antibodies against the unreduced 50-kDa protein was far more specific. Antibodies against this protein were observed only in a patient in the group that did not have history of hydatidosis; but in another series that included patients with parasitosis other than hydatidosis (14), the detection of antibodies against the 50-kDa protein was less specific due to the cross-reactions.
In accordance with the majority of studies (9, 12, 14, 22, 23), the maximal specificity in the diagnosis of hydatidosis is obtained by detecting antibodies against the B-antigen complex of Oriol et al. (18), which corresponds to proteins with approximate molecular masses of 20, 16, and 10 kDa. The presence of antibodies against the 8- to 12-kDa protein, the smallest subunit of the B antigen (which is not altered by reduction with 2-mercaptoethanol), represents a specific indicator of a previous contact with Echinococcus genus cestodes (100% specificity) in our population. These antibodies, however, did appear in only 80% of the patients with active hydatid cysts (12, 14). Similarly, when antibodies against the 32-kDa unreduced protein, which perhaps corresponds to the 38-kDa protein reported by Verasategui et al. (28), are present, the diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 100%.
Despite the high sensitivity and specificity obtained with some single-band results (Table 4), when a discriminant analysis was applied by using the linear functions of the variables (the discriminant score) instead of analyzing the different variables separately, the sensitivity of EITB was increased, but without a notable loss of specificity.
EITB coupled with a discriminant analysis showed excellent sensitivity (100%) for the detection of cysts located in the liver, but it was unsuccessful for the diagnosis of infection in our only patient with pulmonary hydatidosis; that patient was also negative by conventional methods. Uncomplicated pulmonary cysts are most frequently serologically negative, and a method with a high level of sensitivity is necessary. We may not be able to predict the usefulness of EITBs until we study larger numbers of patients.
The results of sensitivity and specificity are based on the cyst location in the patients included in this study. The inclusion of only a single patient with pulmonary hydatidosis has the effect of raising the calculated sensitivity.
It may seem peculiar that the appearance of antibodies against the 33-kDa reduced protein, which appears to have a high degree of specificity when it is analyzed alone, may diminish the discriminant value and, apparently, also the probability of having hydatid cysts. This interpretation would be erroneous. By using the discriminant function, the combination of variables that allow a good classification are evaluated, although a single value for each variable included in the function could have a different meaning if it were considered alone.
However, when additional patients are included in such a study, the discriminant score will develop and will progressively better adjust to the population values.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Present address: Departamento de Microbiología de la Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Avenida Reyes Católicos no. 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Phone number: 34-1-550 49 00. Fax: 34-1-549 47 64. E-mail: igadea{at}fjd.es.
Present address: Departamento de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital
Luis Alcañiz, Játiva (Valencia), Spain.
Present address: Departamento de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital
Luis Alcañiz, Játiva (Valencia), Spain.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Anderson, T. V. 1984. Classifications of observations, p. 195-243. In An introduction to multivariate analysis, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 2. | Babba, H., A. Messedi, S. Masmoudi, M. Zribi, R. Grillot, P. Ambriose-Thomas, I. Beyrouti, and Y. Sahnoun. 1994. Diagnosis of human hydatidosis: comparison between imagery and six serologic techniques. Am. J. Trop Med. Hyg. 50:64-68. |
| 3. | Capron, A., L. Yarzabal, A. Vernes, and J. Fruit. 1970. Le diagnostic immunologique de l'equinococcose humaine. Pathol. Biol. 18:357-363[Medline]. |
| 4. | D'Amelio, R., O. Pontesilli, R. Dayal, F. de Rosa, M. Barnet, A. Teggi, and G. Brighouse. 1985. Characterization of parasite antigens from human hydatid cyst fluid by SDS-PAGE and IEF. Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 174:43-50[Medline]. |
| 5. | Gottstein, B., J. Eckert, S. A. Michael, and R. C. A. Thompson. 1987. Echinococcus granulosus antigens: immunoelectrophoretic and Western blot analysis of hydatid cysts fluids. Parasitol. Res. 73:186-189[Medline]. |
| 6. | Gottstein, B., V. V. W. Tsang, and P. M. Schantz. 1986. Demonstration of species-specific and cross-reactive components of Taenia solium metacestode antigens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35:308-313. |
| 7. | Hancock, K., and V. C. W. Tsang. 1988. India ink staining of proteins on nitrocellulose paper. Anal. Biochem. 133:157-162. |
| 8. | Hira, P. R., H. M. Shweiki, R. Siboo, and K. Behbehani. 1987. Counterimmunoelectrophoresis using an arc 5 antigen for the rapid diagnosis of hydatidosis and comparison with the indirect hemagglutination test. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 36:592-597. |
| 9. | Kanwar, J. R., S. P. Kaushick, I. M. S. Sawahaney, M. S. Kamboj, S. K. Mehta, and V. K. Vinayak. 1992. Specific antibodies in serum of patients with hydatidosis recognized by immunoblotting. J. Med. Microbiol. 36:46-51[Abstract]. |
| 10. | Kharebov, A., J. Nnahmias, and J. El-On. 1997. Cellular and humoral immune responses of hydatidosis patients to Echinococcus granulosus purified antigens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 57:619-625. |
| 11. | Larralde, C., R. M. Montoya, E. Sciutto, M. L. Díaz, T. Govezensky, and E. Coltorti. 1989. Deciphering Western blots of tapeworm antigens (Taenia solium, Echinococcus granulosus and Taenia crassiceps) reacting with sera from neurocysticercosis and hydatid disease patients. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 40:282-289. |
| 12. | Leggatt, G. R., and D. P. McManus. 1994. Identification and diagnostic value of a major antibody epitope on the 12 kDa antigen from Echinococcus granulosus (hydatid disease) cyst fluid. Parasite Immunol. 16:87-96[Medline]. |
| 13. | Macpherson, C. N. L., T. Romig, E. Zeyhle, P. H. Rees, and J. B. O. Were. 1987. Portable ultrasound scanner versus serology in screening for hydatid cysts in a nomadic population. Lancet ii:259-261. |
| 14. | Maddison, S. E., S. B. Slemenda, and P. M. Schantz. 1989. A specific diagnostic antigen of Echinococcus granulosus with an apparent molecular weight of 8 kDa. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 40:337-383. |
| 15. | Matossian, R. M. 1987. The immunological diagnosis of human hydatid disease. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 71:101-104. |
| 16. | Mir, A., J. García de Lomas, P. Olmos, J. M. Nogueira, and F. Buesa. 1982. Degranulación de Basófilos humanos en el diagnóstico de la hidatidosis. Clin. Esp. 167:31-34. |
| 17. |
Noru is, M. J.
1994.
SPSS professional statisticsTM 6.1. Discriminant analysis.
SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.
|
| 18. | Oriol, R., J. F. Williams, M. V. Pérez-Esandi, and C. Oriol. 1971. Purification of lipoprotein antigens of Echinococcus granulosus from sheep hydatid fluid. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 20:569-575. |
| 19. | Peláez, A., A. Sastre, C. Morales, M. L. Martínez, and A. Basomba. 1988. A comparative study of the EAST, indirect haemagglutination, basophil degranulation and latex tests in the diagnosis of human hydatid disease. Allergol. Immunopathol. 16:109-112[Medline]. |
| 20. | Plikaytis, B. D., G. H. Carlone, P. Edmans, and L. W. Mayer. 1986. Robust estimation of standard curves for protein molecular weight and linear-duplex DNA base pair number after gel electrophoresis. Anal. Biochem. 152:346-364[Medline]. |
| 21. | Seber, G. A. F. 1989. Multivariate observations, p. 279-346. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 22. | Shambesh, M. K., P. S. Craig, A. M. Gusbi, E. F. Echtuish, and H. Wen. 1995. Immunoblot evaluation of the 100 and 130 kDa antigens in camel hydatid cyst fluid for serodiagnosis of human cystic echinococcosis in Libya. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 89:276-279[Medline]. |
| 23. | Shapiro, S. Z., G. M. Bahr, and P. R. Hira. 1992. Analysis of host components in hydatid cyst fluid and immunoblot-diagnosis of human Echinococcus granulosus infection. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 86:503-509[Medline]. |
| 24. | Sharma, S. 1996. Two group discriminant analysis, p. 237-286. In Applied multivariate techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. |
| 25. | Shepherd, J. C., and D. P. McManus. 1987. Specific and cross-reactive antigens of Echinococcus granulosus hydatid cyst fluid. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 25:143-154[Medline]. |
| 26. | Siracusano, A., S. Ioppolo, S. Notargiacomo, E. Ortona, R. Riganó, A. Teggi, F. De Rosa, and G. Vicari. 1991. Detection of antibodies against Echinococcus granulosus major antigens and their subunits by immunoblotting. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 85:239-243[Medline]. |
| 27. | Tsang, V. C. W., J. M. Peralta, and A. R. Simons. 1983. Enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot techniques (EITB) for studying the specificities of antigens and antibodies separated by gel electrophoresis. Methods Enzymol. 92:377-391[Medline]. |
| 28. |
Verasategui, M.,
P. Moro,
A. Guevara,
T. Rodríguez,
E. Miranda, and R. H. Gilman.
1992.
Enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot test for diagnosis of human hydatid disease.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1557-1561 |
| 29. | Zhang, L.-H., G. R. Leggatt, and D. P. McManus. 1995. Further characterization of the 38 KDa antigen from Echinococcus granulosus (hydatid disease) cyst fluid: evidence for antigenic heterogeneity and reactivity with anti-P1 antibodies. Parasite Immunol. 17:287-296[Medline]. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. | Clin. Microbiol. Rev. | Infect. Immun. |
|---|---|---|
| J. Clin. Microbiol. | J. Virol. | ALL ASM JOURNALS |