{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of the IFN-γ release assay using RD1 immunodominant T-cell antigens for diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.","authors":"Setareh Mamishi, Babak Pourakbari, Reihaneh Hosseinpour Sadeghi, Majid Marjani, Shima Mahmoudi","doi":"10.1093/femsle/fnae023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) poses a significant challenge, with controversies surrounding the accuracy of IFN-γ release assays (IGRAs). This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of RD1 immunodominant T-cell antigens, including ESAT-6, CFP-10, PE35, and PPE68 proteins, for immunodiagnosis of EPTB. Twenty-nine patients with EPTB were enrolled, and recombinant PE35, PPE68, ESAT-6, and CFP-10 proteins were evaluated in a 3-day Whole Blood Assay. IFN-γ levels were measured using a Human IFN-γ ELISA kit, and the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) test was performed. Predominantly, the patients were of Afghan (62%, n = 18) and Iranian (38%, n = 11) nationalities. Eighteen individuals tested positive for QFT-Plus, accounting for 62% of the cases. The positivity rate for IGRA, using each distinct recombinant protein (ESAT-6, PPE68, PE35, and CFP-10), was 72% (n = 21) for every protein tested. Specifically, among Afghan patients, the positivity rates for QFT-Plus and IGRA using ESAT-6, PPE68, PE35, and CFP-10 were 66.7%, 83.3%, 83.3%, 77.8%, and 88.9%, respectively. In contrast, among Iranian patients, the positivity rates for the same antigens were 54.5%, 54.5%, 54.5%, 63.6%, and 45.5%, respectively. In conclusion, our study highlights the potential of IGRA testing utilizing various proteins as a valuable diagnostic tool for EPTB. Further research is needed to elucidate the underlying factors contributing to these disparities and to optimize diagnostic strategies for EPTB in diverse populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12214,"journal":{"name":"Fems Microbiology Letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fems Microbiology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnae023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) poses a significant challenge, with controversies surrounding the accuracy of IFN-γ release assays (IGRAs). This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of RD1 immunodominant T-cell antigens, including ESAT-6, CFP-10, PE35, and PPE68 proteins, for immunodiagnosis of EPTB. Twenty-nine patients with EPTB were enrolled, and recombinant PE35, PPE68, ESAT-6, and CFP-10 proteins were evaluated in a 3-day Whole Blood Assay. IFN-γ levels were measured using a Human IFN-γ ELISA kit, and the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) test was performed. Predominantly, the patients were of Afghan (62%, n = 18) and Iranian (38%, n = 11) nationalities. Eighteen individuals tested positive for QFT-Plus, accounting for 62% of the cases. The positivity rate for IGRA, using each distinct recombinant protein (ESAT-6, PPE68, PE35, and CFP-10), was 72% (n = 21) for every protein tested. Specifically, among Afghan patients, the positivity rates for QFT-Plus and IGRA using ESAT-6, PPE68, PE35, and CFP-10 were 66.7%, 83.3%, 83.3%, 77.8%, and 88.9%, respectively. In contrast, among Iranian patients, the positivity rates for the same antigens were 54.5%, 54.5%, 54.5%, 63.6%, and 45.5%, respectively. In conclusion, our study highlights the potential of IGRA testing utilizing various proteins as a valuable diagnostic tool for EPTB. Further research is needed to elucidate the underlying factors contributing to these disparities and to optimize diagnostic strategies for EPTB in diverse populations.
期刊介绍:
FEMS Microbiology Letters gives priority to concise papers that merit rapid publication by virtue of their originality, general interest and contribution to new developments in microbiology. All aspects of microbiology, including virology, are covered.
2019 Impact Factor: 1.987, Journal Citation Reports (Source Clarivate, 2020)
Ranking: 98/135 (Microbiology)
The journal is divided into eight Sections:
Physiology and Biochemistry (including genetics, molecular biology and ‘omic’ studies)
Food Microbiology (from food production and biotechnology to spoilage and food borne pathogens)
Biotechnology and Synthetic Biology
Pathogens and Pathogenicity (including medical, veterinary, plant and insect pathogens – particularly those relating to food security – with the exception of viruses)
Environmental Microbiology (including ecophysiology, ecogenomics and meta-omic studies)
Virology (viruses infecting any organism, including Bacteria and Archaea)
Taxonomy and Systematics (for publication of novel taxa, taxonomic reclassifications and reviews of a taxonomic nature)
Professional Development (including education, training, CPD, research assessment frameworks, research and publication metrics, best-practice, careers and history of microbiology)
If you are unsure which Section is most appropriate for your manuscript, for example in the case of transdisciplinary studies, we recommend that you contact the Editor-In-Chief by email prior to submission. Our scope includes any type of microorganism - all members of the Bacteria and the Archaea and microbial members of the Eukarya (yeasts, filamentous fungi, microbial algae, protozoa, oomycetes, myxomycetes, etc.) as well as all viruses.