Evaluation of vaccine-induced antibody responses: Impact of new technologies
Health Sciences Division, RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. Electronic address: .Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.62). 04/2013; 31(25). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.065
Host response to vaccination has historically been evaluated based on a change in antibody titer that compares the post-vaccination titer to the pre-vaccination titer. A four-fold or greater increase in antigen-specific antibody has been interpreted to indicate an increase in antibody production in response to vaccination. New technologies, such as the bead-based assays, provide investigators and clinicians with precise antibody levels (reported as concentration per mL) in ranges below and above those previously available through standard assays such as ELISA. Evaluations of bead assay data to determine host response to vaccination using fold change and absolute change, with a general linear models used to calculate adjusted statistics, present very different pictures of the antibody response when pre-vaccination antibody levels are low. Absolute changes in bead assay values, although not a standard computation, appears to more accurately reflect the host response to vaccination for those individuals with extremely low pre-vaccination antibody levels. Conversely, for these same individuals, fold change may be very high while post-vaccination antibodies do not achieve seroprotective levels. Absolute change provides an alternate method to characterize host response to vaccination, especially when pre-vaccination levels are very low, and may be useful in studies designed to determine associations between host genotypes and response to vaccination.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several autoantibodies (anti-dopamine 1 (D1R) and 2 (D2R) receptors, anti-tubulin, anti-lysoganglioside-GM1) and antibody-mediated activation of calcium calmodulin dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) signaling activity are elevated in children with Sydenham's chorea (SC). Recognizing proposed clinical and autoimmune similarities between SC and PANDAS (pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with a streptococcal infection), we sought to identify serial biomarker changes in a slightly different population. Antineuronal antibodies were measured in eight children (mean 11.3 years) with chronic, dramatic, recurrent tics and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) associated with a group A β-hemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) respiratory tract infection, but differing because they lacked choreiform movements. Longitudinal serum samples in most subjects included two pre-exacerbation samples, Exac), one midst Exac (abrupt recurrence of tic/OCD; temporally association with a GABHS infection in six of eight subjects), and two post-Exac. Controls included four groups of unaffected children (n = 70; mean 10.8 years) obtained at four different institutions and published controls. Clinical exacerbations were not associated with a significant rise in antineuronal antibody titers. CaMKII activation was increased at the GABHS exacerbation point in 5/6 subjects, exceeded combined and published control's 95th percentile at least once in 7/8 subjects, and median values were elevated at each time point. Anti-tubulin and anti-D2R titers did not differ from published or combined control group's 95th percentile or median values. Differences in anti-lysoganglioside-GM1 and anti-D1R titers were dependent on the selected control. Variances in antibody titers and CaMKII activation were identified among the institutional control groups. Based on comparisons to published studies, results identify two groups of PANDAS: 1) a cohort, represented by this study, which lacks choreiform movements and elevated antibodies against D2R; 2) the originally reported group with choreiform movements and elevated anti-D2R antibodies, similar to SC. Increased antibody mediated CaMKII activation was found in both groups and requires further study as a potential biomarker.PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0120499. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120499 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.