De Meyst Anne, Alexiou Zoïe, Lernout Tinne, Morré Servaas A, Vanrompay Daisy
Laboratory of Immunology and Animal Biotechnology, Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Microorganisms. 2024 Mar 26;12(4):658. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12040658.
Serology routinely serves as a diagnostic tool to confirm infections in humans. Particularly in delayed settings, such as post-outbreak scenarios where the acute phase of infection has subsided, serology is invaluable. Multiple studies, nonetheless, indicate deficiencies in specificity and sensitivity of current chlamydial antibody detection assays. Incorporation of multiple antigens per target is known to improve the accuracy of chlamydial serological assays. We, therefore, used the recomLine test (Mikrogen diagnostics) on serological samples of two cohorts, as it is the only commercially available test allowing detection of antibodies against three human pathogenic species (, and ) using multiple antigens per target. The first cohort (n = 156; samples collected between 2008 and 2022 during a screening initiative) comprised women from the Netherlands (NL) with past exposure to , while the second cohort (n = 44; samples collected in 2018 in a health examination survey) consisted of Belgian citizens (BE) with occupational or recreational exposure to chickens, representing a risk population for . The test indicated a statistically equivalent seroprevalence in both cohorts (39.10% in NL and 34.09% in BE; p = 0.337). As expected seroprevalence was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the Dutch cohort (48.72%), as compared to the Belgian cohort (4.55%). Lastly, seroprevalence did not significantly differ between the two groups (2.27% in BE and 1.92% in NL; p = 0.633), even though a higher prevalence was expected for the Belgian cohort. This prompts us to question whether the Belgian cohort truly constituted a risk population or whether the recomLine test is susceptible to cross-reaction of species-specific antibodies, thereby increasing prevalence in the Dutch cohort. We advocate for the development of affordable, highly sensitive antibody detection assays that can effectively distinguish between chlamydial species, addressing the increasing demand for enhanced serological testing methodologies.
血清学通常作为一种诊断工具来确认人类感染情况。特别是在延迟诊断的情况下,例如在感染急性期已消退的疫情后场景中,血清学具有重要价值。然而,多项研究表明,当前衣原体抗体检测方法在特异性和敏感性方面存在不足。已知每个检测靶点采用多种抗原可提高衣原体血清学检测的准确性。因此,我们对两个队列的血清学样本使用了重组线免疫印迹试验(Mikrogen诊断公司),因为这是唯一一种可商购的检测方法,它能够使用每个靶点的多种抗原检测针对三种人类致病衣原体(沙眼衣原体、鹦鹉热衣原体和肺炎衣原体)的抗体。第一个队列(n = 156;样本于2008年至2022年在一项筛查倡议期间收集)由过去曾接触过沙眼衣原体的荷兰女性组成,而第二个队列(n = 44;样本于2018年在一项健康检查调查中收集)由有职业或娱乐性接触鸡的比利时公民组成,这代表了感染鹦鹉热衣原体的风险人群。该检测显示两个队列中的血清阳性率在统计学上相当(荷兰队列中为39.10%,比利时队列中为34.09%;p = 0.337)。正如预期的那样,与比利时队列(4.55%)相比,荷兰队列中的沙眼衣原体血清阳性率显著更高(p < 0.001,为48.72%)。最后,尽管预计比利时队列中的肺炎衣原体血清阳性率会更高,但两组之间的肺炎衣原体血清阳性率并无显著差异(比利时队列中为2.27%,荷兰队列中为1.92%;p = 0.633)。这促使我们质疑比利时队列是否真的构成了感染鹦鹉热衣原体的风险人群,或者重组线免疫印迹试验是否易受种特异性抗体交叉反应的影响,从而提高了荷兰队列中的血清阳性率。我们主张开发经济实惠、高度敏感的抗体检测方法,能够有效区分不同的衣原体种类,以满足对增强血清学检测方法日益增长的需求。