Sarkari B, Rezaei Z. Immunodiagnosis of human hydatid disease: Where do we stand? World J Methodol 2015; 5(4): 185-195 [PMID: 26713278 DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v5.i4.185]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Bahador Sarkari, PhD, Professor of Immunoparasitology, Basic Sciences in Infectious Diseases Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Street, Building No. 3, Shiraz 71345-1735, Iran. sarkarib@sums.ac.ir
Research Domain of This Article
Parasitology
Article-Type of This Article
Review
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Bahador Sarkari, Basic Sciences in Infectious Diseases Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz 71345-1735, Iran
Zahra Rezaei, Department of Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz 71345-1735, Iran
ORCID number: $[AuthorORCIDs]
Author contributions: Sarkari B performed the literature search, wrote the first draft of the manuscript, edited and approved the final version; Rezaei Z performed the literature and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Bahador Sarkari, PhD, Professor of Immunoparasitology, Basic Sciences in Infectious Diseases Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Street, Building No. 3, Shiraz 71345-1735, Iran. sarkarib@sums.ac.ir
Telephone: +98-71-32305291 Fax: +98-71-32305291
Received: August 4, 2015 Peer-review started: August 6, 2015 First decision: September 22, 2015 Revised: October 26, 2015 Accepted: November 13, 2015 Article in press: November 17, 2015 Published online: December 26, 2015 Processing time: 132 Days and 19.4 Hours
Abstract
Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is a zoonotic parasitic infection caused by the larval stage of Echinococcus granulosus. Diagnosis of CE mainly relies on a combination of serological testing along with imaging approaches. A variety of serological methods, mainly based on hydatid cyst fluid, antigen B (AgB) and antigen 5, have been developed and used for immunodiagnosis of CE, yet their performances are not satisfactory. Although utilizing of recombinant or synthetic antigens, improved the performance of serological tests, it has not applicably overcome the problem of low sensitivity and cross reactivity, seen in the diagnosis of CE. Performances of immunodiagnostic tests based on AgB subunits are promising. The 8 kDa subunit of AgB is the most studied antigen in native, synthetic or recombinant form for diagnosis of CE. From the 5 subunits of AgB, antigen B8/1 and B8/2 provided the highest diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, detecting of specific antibodies of IgG subclasses has improved the efficacy of immunodiagnostic tests. Among the IgG subclasses, both IgG2 and IgG4 are considered as good markers for diagnosis and IgG4 as a suitable marker for follow up of the patients. In this review an overview of immunodiagnostic methods, related antigens and their performances in the diagnosis of CE are given. The paper highlights pitfall and challenges in the serological diagnosis of CE. Moreover, limitation of currently available immunodiagnostic tests and the most recent development in the designing and application of serological assays for diagnosis of CE in human are addressed.
Core tip: Cystic echinococcosis (CE) (hydatid cyst) is one of the most important parasitic diseases, causing tremendous morbidity and mortality for the human patients. Diagnosis of CE mainly relies on ultrasound images of the cyst along with serological testing. So far, there is no highly specific and sensitive immunodiagnostic test for diagnosis of CE and performances of the currently available tests are not satisfactory. Different antigenic sources including hydatid cyst fluid, antigen B and 5, excretory-secretory antigens of larval stage or adult worm have widely been used for development of serological assays for diagnosis of CE. Utilizing of antigen B subunits in immunodiagnostic tests and detection of IgG subclasses, as a good marker, opened a promising perspective in diagnosis of this debilitating disease.
Citation: Sarkari B, Rezaei Z. Immunodiagnosis of human hydatid disease: Where do we stand? World J Methodol 2015; 5(4): 185-195
Cystic echinococcosis (CE), known as hydatid cyst or hydatid disease, is a zoonotic parasitic infection caused by the larval stage of Echinococcus granulosus (E. granulosus). Dogs and other canids harbor the adults tape worm and herbivores acts as intermediate host and become infected through ingestion of parasite’s eggs. Human acquire the infection by accidental ingestion of E. granulosus eggs.
CE with its significant economic and medical impact constitutes an important public health problem in many developing countries[1-3]. An estimated 1.2 million people worldwide are affected by CE and the disease accounts for annual estimate of 3.6 million DALYs (disability adjusted life years) through the world[4]. Early and proper diagnosis of CE can provide appropriate management and suitable treatment of the disease[5].
Diagnosis of CE is mainly confirmed through a combination of relevant history, serological testing, along with imaging approaches. A variety of serological methods have been developed and used for immunodiagnosis of CE in recent years, including indirect hemagglutination (IHA), immunoblotting, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent-antibody (IFA), latex agglutination test, and immunochromatography test[1,6-11]. For the development of these assays different antigens from adult worm, protoscolices, worm eggs or hydatid cyst fluid have been defined, purified and evaluated in the aforementioned serological tests.
Diagnosis of CE has drastically improved during the last two decades. Progress in methods for antigen purification, cloning expression and purification of E. granulosus recombinant antigens, and defining and synthesis of immunodominant peptides contributed to this development. Nevertheless, immunodiagnosis of CE is still problematic. Commercially available serological tests show unsatisfactory performance. The lack of standardization of immunodiagnostic assays and also antigen preparation contribute to discrepancy in results reported in different laboratories. Cyst size, stage and location as well as patients characteristics may be accounted for the discrepancy of the same test performance in different clinical diagnostic laboratories.
Hence, serological assays still have a complementary role to imaging in the diagnosis of CE. Low sensitivity (up to 30% of false negativity) and also low specificity (up to 25% of false positivity) make serological results difficult to interpret[12-17].
Pitfalls and challenges in the diagnosis of CE
In spite of the development of a variety of immunodiagnostic test, following diagnostic pitfalls and challenges still exist in the diagnosis of CE.
Available immunodiagnostic tests give a relatively high rate of false-negativity. False negative results in immunodiagnostic tests for CE may be seen in patients with small cysts, intact cysts, cysts in extrahepatic locations, heavily calcified cysts (e.g., non-viable), or cyst in privilege sites (brain or eye). Akbulut et al[18] reported that 15 out of 40 patients with pancreatic echinococcosis, found in the literature have had negative serological testing for CE. Among 65 CE patients in Germany, false negative serological results were reported in 18% by IHA and in 15% by ELISA[19]. In a study by Akcam et al[20] more than 20% of patients with extra-hepatic cysts were reported to be negative by IHA test. Using WB, 10 cases of IHA-negative were found to be positive. In a study by Wuestenberg et al[21], CE was confirmed in 9 cases of IHA-negative by clinical findings and imaging (US). Cardiac hydatid cyst, with 54 mm × 45 mm size, was serologically negative in Canpolat et al[22] report. Karakasli et al[23] reported a case of large spinal-para spinal hydatid cyst with negative ELISA and WB testing. They suggested that clinical and neuro-radiological findings should be considered in such cases. Review of 100 case of pulmonary hydatidosis by Zapatero et al[24] revealed that positive serological test have been present with ruptured cyst (positive IHA in all of ruptured cyst) while the test detected only 80% of patients with unruptured cysts. Serological test for CE have been negative in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive cases[25].
Currently available tests give rather high rate of false-positive reaction in patient infected with other parasites (notably cestodes) or even in healthy subjects. False positive results are related to cross reactant antibodies.
Differentiation of past (cured or calcified cyst) from present (active or progressive) hydatid infection is difficult by existing antibody detection assays. Antibody titer may remain for years, even after surgical removal of the cyst or proper drug treatment[26,27]. Therefore a positive serological test may not necessarily imply the presence of active cyst or even the reactivation of CE.
Hydatid cysts in unusual locations may complicate its diagnosis. Congenital, choledochal and pancreatic pseudocysts along with lipoma, ovarian intra-abdominal cystadenoma and intra-hepatic haematoma may be misdiagnosed as hydatid cyst by ultrasonography/ computerized tomography (US/CT)[13]. In all of these conditions an appropriate serological test would be quite helpful with negative results.
Performance of serological tests varies in different pathological stage of CE according to WHO classification[28].
A single defined molecule may not be sufficient for diagnosis of CE. Recent immunoproteome analysis of hydatid cyst fluid (HCF), in different stages of cyst (based on WHO classification), revealed that specific immunodominant epitopes changes from[29] one stage to another stage. This indicates that more than one defined immunodominant antigen may be needed to diagnosis CE in different status of the cyst.
Antigenic sources for immunodiagnosis of CE
Antigenic sources which have widely been used for immunodiagnosis of CE are HCF, component of HCF, ES of protoscolices or adult worm, and also extract of adult worm or larval stage. Antigen for immunodiagnosis of CE has been comprehensively reviewed by Carmena et al[12]. The main antigens for diagnosis of CE and their performance in diagnosis of CE are discussed below.
HCF: HCF is the most common antigenic source which has been used for diagnosis of CE. HCF is a mixture of host (albumin, globulins) and parasite components[30-32]. Sensitivities of serological tests based on HCF are high but their specificities are far from satisfactory (30%-
90%)[8,10,12,28,31,33-35]. Many of available commercial kits are using HCF in ELISA system for diagnosis of CE. Table 1 summarizes the performance of HCF in diagnosis of CE in different serological assays.
Table 1 Performance of hydatid cyst fluid in diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis in different serological assays.
Using HCF as a source of antigen, Sedaghat et al[35] evaluated the performance of a simple dot ELISA and CCIEP (counter current immunoelectrophoresis) for diagnosis of human hydatidosis and found a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 89.1% for Dot-ELISA and 80% and 62% for CCIEP. Dot ELISA had a better performance in comparison with CCIEP. Using HCF, EL-Shazly et al[8] reported a sensitivity of 96.7% and specificity of 97.5% for ELISA and 86.7% and 95% for IHA. Al-Sherbiny et al[6] applied the camel HCF in a dipstick assay and reported a high diagnostic sensitivity (100%) and specificity (91.4%).
CCIEP is a relatively sensitive, but not specific method for diagnosis of CE. In a retrospective study conducted by Sadjjadi et al[15] hospital records of 1227 surgically proven CE cases were examined and found that only 62% of cases had a CCIEP positive test in comparison with 96.3% of positive findings by US and pathology.
Antigen 5: Antigen 5 (Ag5) is one of the most immunogenic and abundant part of HCF. It composed of 57 and 67 kDa components and dissociate into 38 and 22-24 kDa subunits under reducing conditions[36]. Ag5, after AgB, is one of the most studied antigens in the serodiagnosis of CE. Numerous studies pointed out that Ag5 has a high rate of cross-reactivity with sera of healthy controls or other non-CE patients[12,17,37]. Its performances in native, recombinant or synthetic forms have not been satisfactory due to either low sensitivity (50-54), or specificity because of cross reactivity with sera of the patients with other cestoda, trematoda or even nematoda. In an Ag5-based ELISA, Khabiri et al[38] reported that IgE and IgG4 are the most important antibodies, with low cross reactivity with sera of healthy control and non-CE cases.
Contrary to these reports, a recent study by Pagnozzi et al[39] demonstrated that highly enriched Ag5, by chromatographic method, attained highly specific and unambiguous results, in Western blotting and ELISA system in diagnosis of CE. The authors indicated that low performance of this antigen in previous studies is related to non-properly purified antigen which have been used and considered that highly purified Ag5 is a promising antigen in diagnosis of CE. Having said that, the low number of sera tested in their study does not allow drawing a decisive conclusion. Table 2 shows the performance of Ag5 in diagnosis of CE in different serological assays.
Table 2 Performances of antigen 5 for immunodiagnosis of cystic echinococcosis in different serological assays.
No. of subjects
Test
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Cross reaction
Year
Ref.
CE patient
Other disease
Healthy control
Ag5
39
51
29
IgG ELISA
54
89
AE
2000
[9]
Ag5
58
36
40
IgG ELISA
100
70.17
Leish, Toxop, Fascio
2006
[39]
Ag5
58
36
40
IgG1 ELISA
100
70.17
Leish, Toxop, Fascio
2006
[38]
Ag5
58
36
40
IgG4 ELISA
75.8
93.02
Toxop, Fascio
2006
[38]
Ag5
58
36
40
IgE ELISA
70.1
100
None
2006
[38]
rAg5
34
36
18
IgG ELISA
65
89
AE, Cysts
2005
[77]
rAg5-38s
34
36
18
IgG ELISA
21
97
AE
2005
[77]
Antigen B: Antigen B (AgB) is a thermostable polymeric lipoprotein of 120-160 kDa, composed of 8 kDa subunits which dissociates into 8/12, 16 and 24 kDa subunits, under reducing condition in SDS-PAGE[36]. AgB is considered as the main antigen of HCF with high specificity and sensitivity in serological diagnosis of CE[9,10,31,40-42].
AgB is highly immunogenic, a feature that makes this antigen a suitable candidate for immunodiagnosis of CE. The smallest subunit, 8 kDa, considered as the most appropriate antigen in diagnosis of CE. Not surprisingly, the 8 kDa subunit of AgB is the most studied antigen in native, synthetic or recombinant form for diagnosis of CE. Sarkari et al[42] obtained diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 80% when AgB was evaluated in an immunoblotting system. In their study from 40 sera of hydatidosis patients, 32 cases (80%) detected the 8 kDa subunit, 29 cases (72.5%) recognized the 16 kDa component and 29 cases (72.5%) detected the 24 kDa subunit of antigen B. In continuation of their study, when the AgB was used in an ELISA system, sensitivity of the system was determined to be 92.5% and the specificity was found to be 97.3%[10].
Recombinant AgB are not doing much better in diagnosis of CE when compared with native homologues antigens. The performance of rAgB subunits for diagnosis of CE was evaluated by Jiang et al[40] where they reported performance order of AgB1 > AgB4 > AgB2 > AgB5 > AgB3. It was found that in some cases antibodies against subunits of AgB was not produced. In another study, Jiang et al[43] reported that AgB1 has higher diagnostic sensitivity in comparison with AgB2 and AgB4. However, in Virginio et al[44] study, antigen B8/2 provided the highest diagnostic sensitivity (93.1%) and specificity (99.5%) in ELISA system. In Leggatt et al[45] study, a sensitivity of 90.9% was reported for the 12 kDa subunit of AgB (corresponding to the smallest subunit of AgB) in a blotting system. More than 5% (5.5%) of cysticercosis patients reacted with this subunit.
The 12 kDa subunit of AgB, was cloned and expressed by Abdi et al[46]. The antigen was comparatively evaluated for diagnosis of CE, with native AgB and HCF. The sensitivity and specificity of rAgB, in ELISA system was similar to HCF (96% and 97%), and lower than native AgB (98.6% and 100%).
A recombinant antigen of B8/1 (rAgB), showed a high sensitivity (94.6%) and specificity (93.9%) for diagnosis of CE, using serum samples from Iran, China and Japan, in comparison with HCF, native AgB, prepared from sheep HCF, either from Iran of Japan[31].
Mamuti et al[41] cloned and produced recombinants of EmAgB8/1 from E. multilocularis and EgAgB/1 from E. granulosus and evaluated their antigenic reactivity in Western Blotting and ELISA in comparison with that of counterpart, an 8 kDa subunit of AgB. WB showed reactivity with 81.3% of sera from CE patients and 40.6% of sera from alveolar echinococcosis (AE) patients, while EgAgB8/1 showed reactivity with 86% of CE and 42% of AE patients. Both EmAgB/1 and EgAgB/1 showed similar reactivity with 37.8% of sera from AE and 88% of sera from CE patients.
A synthetic P176 peptide related to N-terminal extreme of AgB/1 subunit yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 78.69 and 96.88 for pulmonary hydatid cyst[47].
Application of antigen B in a dot immunogold filtration assay increased the test specificity (98.3%) but in turn decreased the sensitivity (77.9%) of the assay, compared to native antigen[48].
Source of antigen B is an important factor which affects the performance of the test for diagnosis of CE. In agreement with this, Rahimi et al[49] showed that AgB isolated from human and sheep liver cyst have the best performance in diagnosis of CE when compared with those antigen obtained from liver or lungs cyst of goat, cattle or camel.
Combination of antigen B and antigen 5 may increase the sensitivity of the test as currently used in a commercially available test. The commercially available Rapid Immunochromatography test VIRapid® HYDATIDOSIS test (Vircell, Spain) using antigen 5/B was evaluated by Tamer et al[50] for diagnosis of CE where they reported a sensitivity of 96.8% and specificity of 87.5%. In their study, the antigen cross reacted with sera from taeniasis and leishmaniasis patients and also a few (4%) of healthy controls.
Nature and quality of antigen B, isolated from HCF, may be variable based on the host species, cyst location, cyst status and also parasite strain. This is one of the reasons that different laboratories attain different results using AgB in serodiagnosis of CE. In view of this point, discrepancies in results of serodiagnosis of CE, using antigen B might be related to, method of antigen preparation, variation in host and strain of parasite, differences in antigen B, site of the cyst, clinical status and type of the cyst. Table 3 shows the performances of antigen B in diagnosis of CE in different serological assays.
Table 3 Performances of antigen B in diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis.
Antigen
No. of subjects
Test
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Cross reactions
Year
Ref.
CEpatients
Other disease
Healthy control
nAg B
204
21
90
IB
66
100
None
2000
[75]
nAg B
59
55
15
IgG ELISA
80
77
AE, NCC
2005
[77]
nAg B
90
86
27
IgG ELISA
77
85
AE, RA
2000
[9]
nAg B
204
21
90
IgG ELISA
74
100
None
2000
[75]
nAg B
31
87
29
IgG ELISA
77.41
81.9
AE, Ev, Schist, Toxoc
2000
[78]
nAg B
78
24
15
IgG ELISA
93.5
89.7
Distomatosis, Schist
2001
[71]
nAg B
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
60.3
92.6
Cysts,Toxoc
2003
[44]
nAg B
22
12
4
WB
77
100
Toxoc, Other cestodes
2010
[30]
nAg B
40
40
70
IgG ELISA
92.5
97.3
Fascio
2007
[10]
nAg B
40
40
70
CCIEP
97.5
58.2
Fascio, Toxoc, Taenia, Malignancy
2007
[10]
nAg B
204
53
90
IB
66
100
None
2000
[75]
nAg B
204
53
90
IgG ELISA
74
100
None
2000
[75]
nAg B
35
29
25
IgG ELISA
94.2
81.6
NR
2009
[16]
nAg B
55
72
50
IgG ELISA
96.4
97.2
None
2014
[68]
nAg B
113
112
121
DIGFA
92.9
81
HD, Cysts, HCC, HH
2015
[48]
Goat liver Ag B
47
30
40
IgG ELISA
91.4
92.8
NR
2011
[49]
Human liver Ag B
47
30
40
IgG ELISA
97.8
97.1
NR
2011
[49]
Bovine lung Ag B
47
30
40
IgG ELISA
78.7
85.7
NR
2011
[49]
Sheep lung Ag B
47
30
40
IgG ELISA
93.6
88.5
NR
2011
[49]
Camel lung Ag B
47
30
40
IgG ELISA
93.6
90
NR
2011
[49]
Sheep liver Ag B
47
30
40
IgG ELISA
95.7
92.8
NR
201
[49]
rAgB
204
21
90
IB
72
100
None
2000
[75]
rAgB
113
112
121
DIGFA
77.9
98.3
None
2015
[48]
rAgB8/1
31
87
29
IgG ELISA
54.84
80.17
AE, Schist, Toxoc
2000
[78]
rAgB8/1
129
65
203
IgG4 ELISA
91.4
91.7
Cysts
2003
[44]
rAgB8/1
59
55
15
IgG ELISA
68
88
AE, NCC
2005
[80]
rAgB8/2
31
87
29
IgG ELISA
83.87
98.28
Schist, Toxoc
2000
[78]
rAgB8/2
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
93.1
99.5
Cysts, Toxoc
2003
[45]
rAgB8/2
129
65
203
IgG4 ELISA
69
87.5
Cysts
2003
[45]
rAgB8/2
59
55
15
IgG ELISA
45
86
AE, NCC
2005
[77]
rAgB8/1
129
65
203
IgG4 ELISA
91.4
91.7
Cysts
2003
[44]
rAgB8/1
59
55
15
IgG ELISA
68
88
AE, NCC
2005
[77]
rAgB8/2
31
87
29
IgG ELISA
83.87
98.28
Schist, Toxoc
2000
[78]
rAgB8/2
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
93.1
99.5
Cysts, Toxoc
2003
[44]
rAgB8/2
129
65
203
IgG4 ELISA
69
87.5
Cysts
2003
[44]
rAgB8/2
59
55
15
IgG ELISA
45
86
AE, NCC
2005
[77]
B1t
102
68
95
IgG ELISA
83.3
87.5
AE, Schist, Cysts, Fascio,
2008
[9]
B2t
102
68
95
IgG ELISA
91.2
93
Cysts, Schist, Fascio
2008
[9]
2B2t
186
174
110
IgG ELISA
87.6
99.1
AE, NCC, Hepatitis
2012
[9]
rEgAFFPt
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
58.6
95.6
Cysts, Toxoc
2003
[44]
rEgCaBP2
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
84.5
96.6
Cysts, Toxoc
2003
[44]
rEgcMDH
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
89.7
95.1
Cysts
2003
[44]
rEgAFFPf
129
65
203
IgG ELISA
69
89.7
Cysts, Toxoc
2003
[44]
rEpC1-GST
324
502
70
IgG IB
92.2
95.6
AE, NCC, Schist,
2003
[79]
Liver cancer
rTPxEg
100
218
20
IgG IB
39
69.3
AE, NCC
2004
[78]
rEgG5
23
138
20
IgG IB
61
70
AE, Cysts
2004
[79]
E14t
102
68
95
IgG ELISA
35.3
91.7
Schist
2008
[9]
C317
102
68
95
IgG ELISA
58.8
80.9
AE, Cysts, Taeniasis, Schist,
2008
[9]
p65
90
86
27
IgG ELISA
44
96
AE, Schist, Toxoc
2000
[9]
p175
90
86
27
IgG ELISA
49
94
AE, Schist, Toxoc
2000
[9]
p176
90
86
27
IgG ELISA
80
93
AE, Schist, Toxoc,
2000
[9]
Syph, Chagas
p177
90
86
27
IgG ELISA
38
92
AE, Toxoc, Syph,
2000
[9]
Chagas
pGu4
90
86
27
IgG ELISA
18
98
AE
2000
[9]
Protoscolices antigens: Native metacestode-derived antigens show substantial (mainly more than 90%) sensitivities in diagnosis of CE[51]. However cross-reactivity with other parasitic diseases (fascioliasis, schistosomiasis, amebiasis, taeniasis, cysticercosis and filariasis) is the main drawback of using such antigens for serodiagnosis of CE. The best performance for serological tests of ELISA, IHA and IFA, was achieved for ELISA (87.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity), using metacestode antigen[52].
Detection of IgG subclasses: Detecting of specific antibodies of IgG subclasses may improve the diagnostic performance of immunodiagnostic tests. Xu et al[53] examined the seroreactivity of 42 IgG negative (total IgG) with IgM, IgE, IgA, and IgG subclasses and found that 32 cases were positive with either one or combined of two of other antibodies. The best seropositivity (42.95%) was reported with either IgG1 alone or a combination of IgG1 + IgA + IgM. IgG subclasses is usually linked to the status of cyst development. Findings of Daeki et al[54] demonstrated that IgG antibody response is associated with the growth and development of cyst, while IgG1, 2 and 3 responses are predominantly related to involutive phase in CE cysts. Patients with relapsing disease have a high level of IgG4 titer.
Lawn et al[55] demonstrated that concentration of CE-specific IgG subclasses (IgG1-4), are much correlated with disease activity than total IgG. Among the IgG subclasses, IgG2 provided the best correlation with clinical outcome. In a lateral fellow dipstick test, a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 100% was reported for detection of IgG4, in comparison with IgG dipstick with 87.5% specificity[56]. Detection of antibodies mainly IgG subclasses (IgG1, 4) in urine of CE patients provide a similar result in comparison to serum sample in Chirag study[57].
Antigen detection for immunodiagnosis of CE
Antigen detection has been used for diagnosis of a few of parasitic diseases with satisfactory results[58-61]. Antigen detection might be useful for detection of current infection and also post treatment follow up of CE patients. However results with detection of hydatid cyst antigen for detection of CE are far from satisfaction[7,11,62-64].
Antigen detection in CE is much less sensitive than antibody detection and the later remains the most commonly used approach for diagnosis of this disease. Antigen can be detected in sera of 35%-85% of CE patients depends on the status and location of the cyst[7,16,63]. In some cases of CE circulating antigen has been detected in sera of patients who had not shown anti-hydatid antibodies in their serum. Swarna et al[11] reported a sensitivity of only 53.33% and specificity of 96.66% in a Dot-ELISA system for detection of hydatid cyst antigen in urine samples. Lower sensitivity (29.68) was obtained when CCIEP was used for detection of hydatid urinary antigen[62].
Using coagglutination test, a sensitivity of 47.5% was achieved for detection of hydatid antigen in urine[63]. Several interfering factors have been proposed to explain the poor performance of antigen-detection assays in diagnosis of CE. Among them are formation of immune complexes and low availability of free antigen, sequestration of antigen due to cyst layers, especially in intact cyst, and presence of interfering component in serum or urine, as demonstrated in other studies[58]. Cysts in privileged sites (e.g., eye and brain) do not release enough antigens to be detected by serological assays.
Location of the cyst is an important issue in diagnosis of CE as one study pointed out that CE antigen can be detected in 46% of patients with liver cyst but not in any of patients with lung hydatid cyst[16]. In an attempt to develop an antigen detection assay for diagnosis of CE, Sadjjadi et al[16] evaluated an ELISA system for detection of circulation antigens in serum of CE patients. In their study, antigen was detected in only 9 out of 35 (25.7%) of cases. Table 4 summarizes the performance of antigen detection assays in diagnosis of CE.
Table 4 Performances of antigen detection assays in immunodiagnosis of cystic echinococcosis.
Antigen
No. of subjects
Test
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Cross reaction (%)
Year
Ref.
CE patient
Other disease
Healthy control
Urinary antigen
40
24
25
Co-A
50
89.09
12.5
2000
[62]
Serum antigen
40
24
25
Co-A
73.08
94.23
12.5
2000
[62]
Serum antigen
35
29
25
IgG ELISA
25.7
98
3.4
2009
[16]
Serum antigen
141
25
25
LAT
72
98
4
2003
[7]
Serum antigen
40
24
25
CIEP
45
100
None
1997
[80]
Urinary antigen (ucon)
40
24
25
CIEP
22.5
95.91
8.33
1997
[80]
Urinary antigen (con)
40
24
25
CIEP
47.5
95.91
None
1997
[80]
Post treatment follow up: CE patients need to be followed up after treatment, to make sure about the risk of recurrence. Anti-CE antibodies may persist for several years after treatment[55]. Although antigen detection might be a useful approach in post-treatment follow-up, however its low sensitivity hampered its use for patients’ follow-up. Different serological assays have been used for monitoring of surgically or chemically treated CE patients[26,64-66].
In a recent cohort study, CE patients were followed for a mean of 6 years and the level and isotypes of antibodies were evaluated before and after surgical or anti-helminthic drugs treatment. Results demonstrated that IgE, IgG1 and IgG4 are the most important antibodies for serological diagnosis of active CE. During post-operation, IgM, IgE, IgG1, IgG2 and IgG4 were the best correlative with disease activities[67]. Reiterová et al[68] reported that antibodies to AgB was not detectable three months after treatment but antibodies to HCF were remained detectable.
It has been reported that subclasses of IgG have different performance in diagnosis of primary in comparison to relapse cases of CE. One study suggested IgG2 as a good marker for primary infection and total IgG for detection of relapse cases[69].
Recombinant P29 protein of E. granulosus was synthesized by Ben Nouir et al[64] and evaluated for post-surgical follow-up of CE patients, in an ELISA and WB systems. Results indicated that, using P29-ELISA, all of initially seropositive cases of CE seroconverted to negative within three years after treatments, while HCF-ELISA remained positive in 90% of cases. Western Blotting, using P29, remained positive in only 10% of cases after 3 years while HCF-WB remained positive in more than 25% of cases after 3 years of follow-up. However the performance of P29 in initial diagnosis of CE has not been satisfactory.
In another study by this group, somatic protoscolex antigens of E. granulosus have been assessed for follow-up of surgically treated CE patients and found that only 29% of treated patients reaching seronegativity after 5 years of follow up. The conventional HCF-ELISA becoming negative in 15% of cases at the end of the follow up period[65].
A double 27 and 28 kDa antigen, in WB, was also reported as useful antigen for the follow up of CE patients. However such bands were only detectable in 75% of the patients before treatment[65]. The prognostic value of AgB subunits was evaluated by Ben Nouir et al[64] in ELISA and WB systems. Patients were grouped into either cured or non-cured CE patient. Findings of the study showed that ELISA remained positive 4-5 years after treatment in 57.1% of cured and 100% of non-cured patients. Immunoblotting, based on AgB subunits (8 and 16 kDa), revealed 14.3% of seropositivity after 4 years, with no reactivity to the components after 5 years of follow up. Interestingly, WB remained positive in 100% of non-cured patients up to 5 years (end of follow-up period). Serum antibodies to a certain bands (24 and 39) of HCF in Western blotting decreased in post-surgical monitoring of CE patients[70].
CONCLUSION
The performances of currently available immunodiagnostic test in diagnosis of CE are not satisfactory and the best serological test for diagnosis of CE is still the subject of debate. Over the time, particularly during the last two decades, several immunodiagnostic tests have been developed, mainly based on HCF, AgB and Ag5, yet their performance in diagnosis of human hydatidosis are unsatisfactory.
The most widely used antigens for serological diagnosis of CE are AgB and Ag5. Yet new antigens are being constantly evaluated and new serological assays are being developed to improve the performance of serological diagnostic tests.
Utilizing of recombinant or synthetic antigen although improved the performance, but has not overcome the problem of low sensitivity or even cross reactivity with other antigen in diagnosis of CE and these problems still remained. Considerable variation in performance of serological test for diagnosis of CE between different laboratories is mainly related to lack of standardization of antigen preparation, inadequate sensitivities and specificity, and also strain of the parasite that antigens have been purified from its content.
Immunodiagnostic tests based on recombinant antigen has drawn the attention of many researchers and the outcomes of such studies are promising. These antigens, especially based on AgB subunits, showed not all the times, but in most cases, satisfactory performance in comparison to their homologues antigens.
New interesting perspective in the development of serological assays for diagnosis of CE might be derive from recent observation that IgG subclasses are good markers for diagnosis and also follow up of CE patients. Moreover, the evaluation of highly purified Ag5 for immunodiagnosis of CE seems to be a promising task ahead which must be undertaken in the future. And finally immunodiagnosis assays may well be improved through combining of several well-defined antigens, notably immunodominant antigen in different stages of the cyst development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Technical assistance of Reza Shahriari Rad is appreciated.
Footnotes
P- Reviewer: Jose R, Ni Y S- Editor: Qiu S L- Editor: A E- Editor: Lu YJ
Eckert J, Deplazes P. Biological, epidemiological, and clinical aspects of echinococcosis, a zoonosis of increasing concern.Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17:107-135.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Al-Sherbiny MM, Farrag AA, Fayad MH, Makled MK, Tawfeek GM, Ali NM. Application and assessment of a dipstick assay in the diagnosis of hydatidosis and trichinosis.Parasitol Res. 2004;93:87-95.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Devi CS, Parija SC. A new serum hydatid antigen detection test for diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis.Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;69:525-528.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
El-Shazly AM, Saad RM, Belal US, Sakr T, Zakae HA. Evaluation of ELISA and IHAT in serological diagnosis of proven cases of human hydatidosis.J Egypt Soc Parasitol. 2010;40:531-538.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
González-Sapienza G, Lorenzo C, Nieto A. Improved immunodiagnosis of cystic hydatid disease by using a synthetic peptide with higher diagnostic value than that of its parent protein, Echinococcus granulosus antigen B.J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:3979-3983.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sadjjadi SM, Abidi H, Sarkari B, Izadpanah A, Kazemian S. Evaluation of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, utilizing native antigen B for serodiagnosis of human hydatidosis.Iran J Immunol. 2007;4:167-172.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Hira PR, Shweiki HM, Francis I. Cystic hydatid disease: pitfalls in diagnosis in the Middle East endemic area.J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;96:363-369.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Liance M, Janin V, Bresson-Hadni S, Vuitton DA, Houin R, Piarroux R. Immunodiagnosis of Echinococcus infections: confirmatory testing and species differentiation by a new commercial Western Blot.J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:3718-3721.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sadjjadi SM, Ardehali S, Noman-Pour B, Kumar V, Izadpanah A. Diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis: ultrasound imaging or countercurrent immunoelectrophoresis?East Mediterr Health J. 2001;7:907-911.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Siracusano A, Bruschi F. Cystic echinococcosis: progress and limits in epidemiology and immunodiagnosis.Parassitologia. 2006;48:65-66.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Canpolat U, Yorgun H, Sunman H, Aytemir K. Cardiac hydatid cyst mimicking left ventricular aneurysm and diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging.Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2011;39:47-51.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Zapatero J, Madrigal L, Lago J, Baschwitz B, Pérez E, Candelas J. Surgical treatment of thoracic hydatidosis. A review of 100 cases.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1989;3:436-440.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Coupland U, Dobosz S, Zawadka K, Marczyńska M. Cystic echinococcosis in a child infected with HIV.Ann Parasitol. 2012;58:101-103.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Haghpanah B, Mosavat B, Ghayour Z, Oreizi F. Diagnostic value of hydatid cyst antigens using western blotting method.Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2010;3:175-185.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Tawfeek GM, Elwakil HS, El-Hoseiny L, Thabet HS, Sarhan RM, Awad NS, Anwar WA. Comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of crude sheep hydatid cyst fluid, purified antigen B and its subunit (12 Kda), assessed by ELISA, in the diagnosis of human cystic echinococcosis.Parasitol Res. 2011;108:371-376.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sedaghat F, Sadjjadi SM, Hosseini SV, Kazemian S, Sarkari B. Evaluation of a simple Dot-ELISA in comparison with countercurrent immunoelectrophoresis for diagnosis of human hydatidosis.Clin Lab. 2011;57:201-205.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Lightowlers MW, Liu DY, Haralambous A, Rickard MD. Subunit composition and specificity of the major cyst fluid antigens of Echinococcus granulosus.Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1989;37:171-182.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Di Felice G, Pini C, Afferni C, Vicari G. Purification and partial characterization of the major antigen of Echinococcus granulosus (antigen 5) with monoclonal antibodies.Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1986;20:133-142.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Khabiri AR, Bagheri F, Assmar M, Siavashi MR. Analysis of specific IgE and IgG subclass antibodies for diagnosis of Echinococcus granulosus.Parasite Immunol. 2006;28:357-362.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Mamuti W, Yamasaki H, Sako Y, Nakao M, Xiao N, Nakaya K, Sato N, Vuitton DA, Piarroux R, Lightowlers MW. Molecular cloning, expression, and serological evaluation of an 8-kilodalton subunit of antigen B from Echinococcus multilocularis.J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:1082-1088.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sarkari B, Sadjjadi S, Abidi H, Izadpanah A, Kazemian S, Rafati A. Application of western blotting using native antigen B for serodiagnosis of human cystic echinococcosis.Iran J Parasitol. 2007;2:7-12.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Jiang L, Feng Z, Zhang YG, Wang ZY. [Serodiagnosis of the recombinant multi-epitope antigens from antigen B subunits of Echinococcus granulosus].Zhongguo Jishengchongxue Yu Jishengchongbing Zazhi. 2013;31:438-442.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Virginio VG, Hernández A, Rott MB, Monteiro KM, Zandonai AF, Nieto A, Zaha A, Ferreira HB. A set of recombinant antigens from Echinococcus granulosus with potential for use in the immunodiagnosis of human cystic hydatid disease.Clin Exp Immunol. 2003;132:309-315.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Leggatt GR, Yang W, McManus DP. Serological evaluation of the 12 kDa subunit of antigen B in Echinococcus granulosus cyst fluid by immunoblot analysis.Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992;86:189-192.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Rahimi H, Sadjjadi S, Sarkari B. Performance of antigen B isolated from different hosts and cyst locations in diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis.Iran J Parasitol. 2011;6:12-19.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sari C, Ertuğ S, Karadam SY, Ozgün H, Karaoğlu AO, Ertabaklar H. [The comparative evaluation of Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Indirect Hemagglutination Test (IHA) and Indirect Fluorescent Antibody Test (IFAT) in the diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis].Turkiye Parazitol Derg. 2009;33:73-76.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Xu MQ, Zhu B, Xue HC, Li X, Guo XR, Zhang YH, Li H. [Reexamination of specific antibodies in sera of cystic echinococccosis patients with IgG negative seroresponse].Zhongguo Jishengchongxue Yu Jishengchongbing Zazhi. 2002;20:148-151.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Daeki AO, Craig PS, Shambesh MK. IgG-subclass antibody responses and the natural history of hepatic cystic echinococcosis in asymptomatic patients.Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2000;94:319-328.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Lawn SD, Bligh J, Craig PS, Chiodini PL. Human cystic echinococcosis: evaluation of post-treatment serologic follow-up by IgG subclass antibody detection.Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;70:329-335.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sarkari B, Chance M, Hommel M. Antigenuria in visceral leishmaniasis: detection and partial characterisation of a carbohydrate antigen.Acta Trop. 2002;82:339-348.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sarkari B, Hatam GR, Mikaeili F, Sadeghi H, Ebrahimi S. A comparative study of antigen and antibody detection in visceral leishmaniasis using serum and urine-based ELISA.Trop Biomed. 2008;25:96-99.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Ghatei MA, Hatam GR, Hossini MH, Sarkari B. Performance of latex agglutination test (KAtex) in diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis in Iran.Iran J Immunol. 2009;6:202-207.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
van Dam GJ, de Dood CJ, Lewis M, Deelder AM, van Lieshout L, Tanke HJ, van Rooyen LH, Corstjens PL. A robust dry reagent lateral flow assay for diagnosis of active schistosomiasis by detection of Schistosoma circulating anodic antigen.Exp Parasitol. 2013;135:274-282.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 101][Cited by in F6Publishing: 102][Article Influence: 9.3][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Ravinder PT, Parija SC, Rao KS. Urinary hydatid antigen detection by coagglutination, a cost-effective and rapid test for diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis in a rural or field setting.J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:2972-2974.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Ben Nouir N, Gianinazzi C, Gorcii M, Müller N, Nouri A, Babba H, Gottstein B. Isolation and molecular characterization of recombinant Echinococcus granulosus P29 protein (recP29) and its assessment for the post-surgical serological follow-up of human cystic echinococcosis in young patients.Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103:355-364.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 35][Cited by in F6Publishing: 39][Article Influence: 2.4][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Ben Nouir N, Nuñez S, Gianinazzi C, Gorcii M, Müller N, Nouri A, Babba H, Gottstein B. Assessment of Echinococcus granulosus somatic protoscolex antigens for serological follow-up of young patients surgically treated for cystic echinococcosis.J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:1631-1640.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 28][Cited by in F6Publishing: 31][Article Influence: 1.9][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Ciobotaru MD, Luca M, Cobzaru RG. Surgical management of pulmonary hydatidosis in children.Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2014;118:753-758.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Tenguria RK, Naik MI. Evaluation of human cystic echinococcosis before and after surgery and chemotherapy by demonstration of antibodies in serum.Ann Parasitol. 2014;60:297-303.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Benabid M, Galai Y, Nouira R, Bouchoucha S, Bouratbine A, Aoun K. Contribution of specific anti-hydatid IgG subclasses in the diagnosis of echinococcosis primary infection and relapses.Clin Lab. 2013;59:293-298.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Kumar Tenguria R, Naik MI, Fomda B. Application of Western Blotting for the post-treatment monitoring of human cystic echinococcosis.Iran J Public Health. 2013;42:826-832.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sbihi Y, Rmiqui A, Rodriguez-Cabezas MN, Orduña A, Rodriguez-Torres A, Osuna A. Comparative sensitivity of six serological tests and diagnostic value of ELISA using purified antigen in hydatidosis.J Clin Lab Anal. 2001;15:14-18.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Hernández-González A, Muro A, Barrera I, Ramos G, Orduña A, Siles-Lucas M. Usefulness of four different Echinococcus granulosus recombinant antigens for serodiagnosis of unilocular hydatid disease (UHD) and postsurgical follow-up of patients treated for UHD.Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008;15:147-153.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 54][Cited by in F6Publishing: 60][Article Influence: 3.5][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Lorenzo C, Ferreira HB, Monteiro KM, Rosenzvit M, Kamenetzky L, García HH, Vasquez Y, Naquira C, Sánchez E, Lorca M. Comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of six major Echinococcus granulosus antigens assessed in a double-blind, randomized multicenter study.J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:2764-2770.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 48][Cited by in F6Publishing: 54][Article Influence: 2.8][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Rott MB, Fernández V, Farias S, Ceni J, Ferreira HB, Haag KL, Zaha A. Comparative analysis of two different subunits of antigen B from Echinococcus granulosus: gene sequences, expression in Escherichia coli and serological evaluation.Acta Trop. 2000;75:331-340.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ][Cited by in Crossref: 50][Cited by in F6Publishing: 53][Article Influence: 2.2][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Parija SC, Ravinder PT, Rao KS. Detection of hydatid antigen in urine by countercurrent immunoelectrophoresis.J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:1571-1574.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
