Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Challenges in Chlamydial Serology: Insights from a Belgian and a Dutch Population Cohort.
De Meyst, Anne; Alexiou, Zoïe; Lernout, Tinne; Morré, Servaas A; Vanrompay, Daisy.
Afiliación
  • De Meyst A; Laboratory of Immunology and Animal Biotechnology, Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
  • Alexiou Z; Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
  • Lernout T; Institute for Public Health Genomics (IPHG), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, 6211 LK Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Morré SA; Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
  • Vanrompay D; Institute for Public Health Genomics (IPHG), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, 6211 LK Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Microorganisms ; 12(4)2024 Mar 26.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38674603
ABSTRACT
Serology routinely serves as a diagnostic tool to confirm Chlamydia infections in humans. Particularly in delayed settings, such as post-outbreak scenarios where the acute phase of infection has subsided, serology is invaluable. Multiple studies, nonetheless, indicate deficiencies in specificity and sensitivity of current chlamydial antibody detection assays. Incorporation of multiple antigens per target is known to improve the accuracy of chlamydial serological assays. We, therefore, used the recomLine test (Mikrogen diagnostics) on serological samples of two cohorts, as it is the only commercially available test allowing detection of antibodies against three human pathogenic Chlamydia species (C. trachomatis, C. pneumoniae and C. psittaci) using multiple antigens per target. The first cohort (n = 156; samples collected between 2008 and 2022 during a C. trachomatis screening initiative) comprised women from the Netherlands (NL) with past exposure to C. trachomatis, while the second cohort (n = 44; samples collected in 2018 in a health examination survey) consisted of Belgian citizens (BE) with occupational or recreational exposure to chickens, representing a risk population for C. psittaci. The test indicated a statistically equivalent C. pneumoniae seroprevalence in both cohorts (39.10% in NL and 34.09% in BE; p = 0.337). As expected C. trachomatis seroprevalence was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the Dutch cohort (48.72%), as compared to the Belgian cohort (4.55%). Lastly, C. psittaci seroprevalence did not significantly differ between the two groups (2.27% in BE and 1.92% in NL; p = 0.633), even though a higher prevalence was expected for the Belgian cohort. This prompts us to question whether the Belgian cohort truly constituted a C. psittaci risk population or whether the recomLine test is susceptible to cross-reaction of species-specific antibodies, thereby increasing C. psittaci prevalence in the Dutch cohort. We advocate for the development of affordable, highly sensitive antibody detection assays that can effectively distinguish between chlamydial species, addressing the increasing demand for enhanced serological testing methodologies.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Microorganisms Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Bélgica

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Microorganisms Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Bélgica