Abstract
Background Antibody responses as serological markers of Plasmodium vivax infection have been shown to correlate with exposure, but little is known about the other factors that affect antibody responses in naturally infected people from endemic settings. To address this question, we studied IgG responses to novel serological exposure markers (SEMs) of P. vivax in three settings with different transmission intensity.
Methodology We validated a panel of 34 SEMs in a Peruvian cohort with up to three years’ longitudinal follow-up using a multiplex platform and compared results to data from cohorts in Thailand and Brazil. Linear regression models were used to characterize the association between antibody responses and age, the number of detected blood-stage infections during follow-up, and time since previous infection. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to test the performance of SEMs to identify P. vivax infections in the previous 9 months.
Principal findings Antibody titers were associated with age, the number of blood-stage infections, and time since previous P. vivax infection in all three study sites. The association between antibody titers and time since previous P. vivax infection was stronger in the low transmission settings of Thailand and Brazil compared to the higher transmission setting in Peru. Of the SEMs tested, antibody responses to RBP2b had the highest performance for classifying recent exposure in all sites, with area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.83 in Thailand, AUC = 0.79 in Brazil, and AUC = 0.68 in Peru.
Conclusions In low transmission settings, P. vivax SEMs can accurately identify individuals with recent blood-stage infections. In higher transmission settings, the accuracy of this approach diminishes substantially. We recommend using P. vivax SEMs in low transmission settings pursuing malaria elimination, but they are likely to be less effective in high transmission settings focused on malaria control.
Author Summary Plasmodium vivax still poses a threat in many countries due to its ability to cause recurrent infections. Key to achieving the goal of malaria elimination is the ability to quickly detect and treat carriers of relapsing parasites. Failing to identify this transmission reservoir will hinder progress towards malaria elimination. Recently, novel serological markers of recent exposure to P. vivax (SEM) have been developed and validated in low transmission settings. It is still poorly understood what factors affect the antibody response to these markers when evaluated in contrasting endemic contexts. To determine the factors that influence the antibody response to SEM, we compared the antibody levels in three sites with different transmission intensity: Thailand (low), Brazil (moderate) and Peru (high). In this study, we found that transmission intensity plays a key role in the acquisition of the antibody repertoire to P. vivax. In highly endemic sites, it is likely that immunological memory resulting from a constant and sustained exposure will impact the performance of SEMs to detect individuals with recent exposure to P. vivax. In summary, SEMs that perform well in low transmission sites do not perform as well in high transmission regions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work has been supported by FIND with funding from the Australian and British governments. This work was made possible through Victorian State Government Operational Infrastructure Support and Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Independent Research Institute Infrastructure Support Scheme. Brazilian team was partly funded by Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas-FAPEAM (PAPAC 005/2019 and Pro-Estado). Cohort samples were derived from field studies in Peru originally funded by Amazonian International Center of Excellence for Malaria Research (ICEMR) supported by the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH-NIAID) U19AI089681 to J.M.V. (https://www.niaid.nih.gov); M.G.G is supported by Training Grant 5D43TW007120 (https://www.fic.nih.gov). J.R. is supported by the Pasteur - Paris University (PPU) International PhD Program. R.J.L. received the Page Betheras Award from WEHI to provide funding for technical support for this project during parental leave. R.J.L is supported by a NHMRC Early Career Investigator Fellowship (1173210). M.L. and W.M. are CNPq fellows. I.M. is supported by an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1043345). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Peruvian cohort was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee from the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (UPCH) (SIDISI 57395/2013) and from the University of California San Diego Human Subjects Protection Program (Project # 100765). UPCH also approved the use of the Peruvian serum samples in the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (WEHI) (SIDISI 100873/2017). The Thai cohort was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand (MUTM 2013-027-01). The Brazilian study was approved by the FMT-HVD (51536/2012), and by the Brazilian National Committee of Ethics (CONEP) (349.211/2013). The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at WEHI approved samples for use in Melbourne (#14/02).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data is available in the main text or the supplementary material.
