Dataset Information

A comparison of host response strategies to distinguish bacterial and viral infection.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Compare three host response strategies to distinguish bacterial and viral etiologies of acute respiratory illness (ARI).

Methods

In this observational cohort study, procalcitonin, a 3-protein panel (CRP, IP-10, TRAIL), and a host gene expression mRNA panel were measured in 286 subjects with ARI from four emergency departments. Multinomial logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation were used to evaluate the protein and mRNA tests.

Results

The mRNA panel performed better than alternative strategies to identify bacterial infection: AUC 0.93 vs. 0.83 for the protein panel and 0.84 for procalcitonin (P<0.02 for each comparison). This corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 83% for the mRNA panel, 81% and 73% for the protein panel, and 68% and 87% for procalcitonin, respectively. A model utilizing all three strategies was the same as mRNA alone. For the diagnosis of viral infection, the AUC was 0.93 for mRNA and 0.84 for the protein panel (p<0.05). This corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 82% for the mRNA panel, and 85% and 62% for the protein panel, respectively.

Conclusions

A gene expression signature was the most accurate host response strategy for classifying subjects with bacterial, viral, or non-infectious ARI.

SUBMITTER: Ross M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8670660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Distinguishing bacterial and viral respiratory infections is challenging. Novel diagnostics based on differential host gene expression patterns are promising but have not been translated to a clinical platform nor extensively tested. Here, we validate a microarray-derived host response signature and explore performance in microbiology-negative and coinfection cases. METHODS:Subjects with acute respiratory illness were enrolled in participating emergency departments. Reference standard was an adjudicated diagnosis of bacterial infection, viral infection, both, or neither. An 87-transcript signature for distinguishing bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness was measured from peripheral blood using RT-PCR. Performance characteristics were evaluated in subjects with confirmed bacterial, viral, or noninfectious illness. Subjects with bacterial-viral coinfection and microbiologically-negative suspected bacterial infection were also evaluated. Performance was compared to procalcitonin. FINDINGS:151 subjects with microbiologically confirmed, single-etiology illness were tested, yielding AUROCs 0•85-0•89 for bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness. Accuracy was similar to procalcitonin (88% vs 83%, p = 0•23) for bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection. Whereas procalcitonin cannot distinguish viral from non-infectious illness, the RT-PCR test had 81% accuracy in making this determination. Bacterial-viral coinfection was subdivided. Among 19 subjects with bacterial superinfection, the RT-PCR test identified 95% as bacterial, compared to 68% with procalcitonin (p = 0•13). Among 12 subjects with bacterial infection superimposed on chronic viral infection, the RT-PCR test identified 83% as bacterial, identical to procalcitonin. 39 subjects had suspected bacterial infection; the RT-PCR test identified bacterial infection more frequently than procalcitonin (82% vs 64%, p = 0•02). INTERPRETATION:The RT-PCR test offered similar diagnostic performance to procalcitonin in some subgroups but offered better discrimination in others such as viral vs. non-infectious illness and bacterial/viral coinfection. Gene expression-based tests could impact decision-making for acute respiratory illness as well as a growing number of other infectious and non-infectious diseases.

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.MethodsThis systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.ResultsSignature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.ConclusionsIn this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.

Project description:Since ancient times, even in today's modern world, infectious diseases cause lots of people to die. Infectious organisms, pathogens, cause diseases by physical interactions with human proteins. A thorough analysis of these interspecies interactions is required to provide insights about infection strategies of pathogens. Here we analyzed the most comprehensive available pathogen-human protein interaction data including 23,435 interactions, targeting 5,210 human proteins. The data were obtained from the newly developed pathogen-host interaction search tool, PHISTO. This is the first comprehensive attempt to get a comparison between bacterial and viral infections. We investigated human proteins that are targeted by bacteria and viruses to provide an overview of common and special infection strategies used by these pathogen types. We observed that in the human protein interaction network the proteins targeted by pathogens have higher connectivity and betweenness centrality values than those proteins not interacting with pathogens. The preference of interacting with hub and bottleneck proteins is found to be a common infection strategy of all types of pathogens to manipulate essential mechanisms in human. Compared to bacteria, viruses tend to interact with human proteins of much higher connectivity and centrality values in the human network. Gene Ontology enrichment analysis of the human proteins targeted by pathogens indicates crucial clues about the infection mechanisms of bacteria and viruses. As the main infection strategy, bacteria interact with human proteins that function in immune response to disrupt human defense mechanisms. Indispensable viral strategy, on the other hand, is the manipulation of human cellular processes in order to use that transcriptional machinery for their own genetic material transcription. A novel observation about pathogen-human systems is that the human proteins targeted by both pathogens are enriched in the regulation of metabolic processes.