Content uploaded by Stephen Graves
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Graves on Sep 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
A New Assay: Specific Interferon-γDetection for the
Diagnosis of Previous Q Fever
Stephen R. Graves
Microbiology, Pathology North–Hunter, New South Wales Health Pathology and Australian Rickettsial Reference Laboratory, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
(See the Major Article by Schoffelen et al on pages 1742–51.)
Exposure to a microbe may be either
clinically apparent (ie, the patient is sick)
or not (ie, latent infection). In either
case, antibodies are usually synthesized
by the B-cell arm (humoral immunity) of
the patient’s adaptive immune response.
This is the marker of exposure detected
by most serological tests carried out in
diagnostic laboratories. However, the
other component of the adaptive immune
system, the T-cell (or cell-mediated) im-
mune response, is equally important to
the patient’s recovery and survival. How-
ever, this aspect of the immune response
is rarely used to diagnose infection as T
lymphocytes are involved, rather than
antibodies, and they are more difficult to
use in routine laboratory testing. Never-
theless, cell-mediated immunity (CMI) is
both sensitive and specific, both features
being the hallmarks of a good diagnostic
test.
The article by Schoffelen et al [1]in
this issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases
uses the CMI arm of the patient’s adap-
tive immune response to diagnose Q
fever, or more correctly, to diagnose pre-
vious exposure to Coxiella burnetii, the
causative bacterium.
When T lymphocytes in the patient
bloodareexposedinvivotoantigende-
posited in the skin, they are attracted to
the site and undergo antigen-stimulated
proliferation while in the process of “at-
tacking”the invading microbe (antigen).
This produces an induration (lump) in the
skin. One of the key cytokines involved in
this process is interferon gamma (IFN-γ).
If the patient’s T lymphocytes are
exposed to antigen in vitro, IFN-γis pro-
duced and can be measured. This is the
basis of the assay developed by the
authors. It is a good assay (sensitive and
specific) but will probably never take
over from the current serological assays
for the simple reason that T lymphocytes
in blood are more difficult to work with
in the diagnostic laboratory than are anti-
bodies in serum. Nevertheless, it is an ad-
ditional diagnostic test and could be very
useful in certain patients with difficult-
to-interpret serology results.
It would be well worth developing as a
routine assay in diagnostic reference lab-
oratories in countries where Q fever is a
problem—and this is probably everycoun-
try in the world, except New Zealand
(where no cases have ever been diag-
nosed). Countries that have periodic out-
breaks, such as the Netherlands and
Germany, may find such an assay to
be a very valuable additional tool in
controlling Q fever. Countries with high
levels of background Q fever (but rarely
large outbreaks because of different local
animal husbandry practices), such as Aus-
tralia, may also find it useful. Unfortunate-
ly, where large distances are involved in
transporting patient samples to the diag-
nostic laboratory, the assay may not be
useful, as the patient’s T lymphocytes (as
distinct from their antibodies) may not
survive the long trip to the laboratory. For
this new assay, it would be important to
know the maximum time available to get
blood from the patient to the laboratory.
In a related diagnostic test for tuberculo-
sis, it is 12 hours, greatly limiting the use-
fulness of the assay in Australia.
Interestingly, a similar assay was used
many years ago in Australia when the
human Q fever vaccine (QVAX) was being
developed and tested, to show that vacci-
nees developed a CMI response [2–6].
Schoffelen et al’s results show that skin
testing, serological testing, and their new
T-cell in vitro assay give essentially the
same diagnostic results, which is very
pleasing. One area of diagnostic difficulty
in Q fever is the accurate diagnosis of the
post–Q fever “fatigue syndrome.”There
appears to be no serological pattern that
correlates with it. It would be interesting
to know if there were an INF-γrelease
assay that could diagnose it. That would
be of great practical benefit to the prac-
ticing medical microbiologist. Would
Australian doctors and laboratories use
Received 12 February 2013; accepted 19 February 2013;
electronically published 5 March 2013.
Correspondence: Stephen R. Graves, Microbiology, Patholo-
gy North–Hunter, New South Wales Health Pathology, Locked
Bag 1, Hunter Region Mail Centre, 2310, Australia (stephen.
graves@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au).
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2013;56(12):1752–3
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press
on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All
rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.
permissions@oup.com.
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit132
1752 •CID 2013:56 (15 June) •EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/56/12/1752/402304 by guest on 18 September 2019
this new assay in prevaccination testing?
Yes, because the current skin test and
serological tests may both give false-
negative results, with the result that the
patient is immunized and may develop
an adverse reaction to QVAX. But would
the greater “sensitivity”of the new assay
result in some normal person not being
vaccinated (due to a false-positive reac-
tion) and then being susceptible to Q
fever in their workplace? Possibly. I have
seen several cases in which Q fever has
occurred in patients who were refused
vaccination on the basis of faulty (false-
positive) pretesting. The answer to this
conundrum is to develop a better Q fever
vaccine that does not require the patient
to be pretested.
Note
Potential conflicts of interest. Author certi-
fies no potential conflicts of interest.
The author has submitted the ICMJE Form
for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest.
Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the
content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
References
1. Schoffelen T, Joosten LAB, Herremans T, et al.
Specific interferon γdetection for the diagno-
sis of previous Q fever [published online
ahead of print 5 March 2013]. Clin Infect Dis
2013; 56:1742–51.
2. Penttila IA, Harris RJ, Storm P, Haynes D,
Worswick DA, Marmion BP. Cytokine dys-
regulation in the post-Q-fever fatigue syn-
drome. QJM 1998; 91:549–60.
3. Marmion BP, Ormsbee RA, Kyrkou M, et al.
Vaccine prophylaxis of abattoir–associated Q
fever: eight years experience in Australian ab-
attoirs. Epidemiol Infect 1990; 104:275–87.
4. Izzo AA, Marmion BP, Worswick DA.
Markers of cell-mediated immunity after vac-
cination with an inactivated whole cell Q fever
vaccine. J Infect Dis 1988; 157:781–9.
5. Izzo AA, Marmion BP, Hackstadt T. Analysis
of the cells involved in the lymphoproliferative
response to Coxiella burnetii antigens. Clin
Exp Immunol 1991; 85:98–108.
6. Izzo AA, Marmion BP. Variation in interfer-
on-gamma responses to Coxiella burnetii anti-
gens with lymphocytes from vaccination or
naturally infected subjects. Clin Exp Immunol
1993; 94:507–15.
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY •CID 2013:56 (15 June) •1753
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/56/12/1752/402304 by guest on 18 September 2019