3.2 Performance of ELISA serological tests using r-PROE and
r-IGLL1
The immunization against r-PROE and r-IGLL1 of BFL, FDL patients and
control subjects was presented on the boxplots of Figure 1. As shown in
Figure 1A, BFL patients (median: 1.24) had significantly higher levels
of antibodies to r-PROE than FDL patients (median: 0,66, K-test p-value:
2.2 x 10-5) as well as controls exposed (median :0.34,
K-test p-value: 1x 10-5) and unexposed to feathers
(median: 0.37, K-test p-value: 1 x10-5).
In addition, FDL patients had significantly higher antibody levels than
controls exposed (K-test p-value: 2.1 x10-5) and
unexposed to feathers (K-test p-value: 9.8 x10-5). On
the other hand, as shown in Figure 1B, the level of antibodies to
r-IGLL1 was significantly higher in BFL patients (median: 2.36) compared
to FDL patients (median: 0.33, K-test p-value: 4.2 x
10-7), controls exposed (median: 0.19, K-test p-value:
6.7 x 10-6) and unexposed to feathers (median: 0.24,
K-test p-value: 6.7 x 10-6). However, no-significant
difference using kruskalmc between FDL patients and controls
unexposed to feathers were found (K-test p-value: 0.06). Consequently,
r- IGLL1 was contributive to the diagnosis for the serological diagnosis
of patients with BFL but ineffective to support FDL diagnosis.
The characteristics of the r-PROE and r-IGLL1 ELISA (sensitivity,
specificity and area under the curve) performed by the ROC curve
analysis were presented in Table 2. The ELISA test using r-PROE with an
index threshold of 0.5 has shown that 74.2% of patients diagnosed with
FDL have a positive test compared to 86.7% of controls with a negative
test (AUC=0.9). These proteins were effective for the diagnosis of both
chronic and acute forms. Indeed, the r-PROE ELISA test provided a
consistent diagnosis for 15/20 patients suffering from chronic FDL and
8/11 patients suffering from acute FDL. The ELISA test based on the use
of the r-IGLL1 protein provided a correct result for 6/6 patients with
chronic BFL and 8/9 patients with acute BFL.
In the case of exposure to both feather bedding and birds, analyses of
the ROC curve showed a significant differential threshold between FDL
and BFL cases. If the r-PROE ELISA test index value was between 0.5 and
1, the interpretation was in favor of FDL, while the “bird” etiology
was preferred for an index value greater than 1 (Table 2). In addition,
if the bird is the cause of the disease, the index value of the
IGLL1-ELISA test will be greater than 1.1. Based on these results, we
have proposed a key choice to support the diagnosis of HP of avian
origin according to the patient’s exposure, in Figure 2.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The development of tools to improve the diagnosis of HP is a challenge
and at the heart of current concerns, as HP experts have highlighted the
need for a diagnostic test to measure serum IgG levels with a
well-accepted threshold2. In the present study, we
showed that an ELISA test using r-PROE allowed effective discrimination
between 31 FDL patients and 30 controls. The r-IGLL1 ELISA test was only
useful for the serological diagnosis of the 15 BFL patients. These
results will serve as a guide for the clinicians in the choice and
interpretation of serological tests to be performed according to the
type of avian exposure of patients.
HPs are often difficult to diagnose in part because of the difficulty to
identify the antigenic source but also because the clinical behavior of
these diseases mimics those of other pulmonary diseases. Indeed, despite
thorough investigations, the offending HP-antigen was not identified in
25-53% of cases17, 18. The group of Barcelona
reported that 43% of patients initially identified with idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis actually had a chronic form of HP, half of these
cases were due to exposure to feather bedding9. Thus,
exposure to avian feather proteins may be an unrecognized cause of
HP7, 19, 20. The detection of antigen-specific IgG
antibodies is useful to support the diagnosis of HP, as it allows
identification of the causal antigen2, 12. In our
experience, serological analyses were mainly used to rule out the
diagnosis of HP in favor of other respiratory
pathologies21, but also to identify the etiologic
agent involved in HP. For serological analyses, several methods to
determine precipitins (Ouchterlony double diffusion and
Immunoelectrophoresis)22 or specific IgG antibodies
(ELISA and ImmunoCAP®, Uppsala, Sweden) have been used in analytical
laboratories23.
ELISA was described as being more sensitive than precipitin assays in
detecting antibodies to pigeon droppings for BFL
serodiagnosis13, 22. Currently, the antigens used for
the serological diagnosis of FDL are purified (commercial or
non-commercial) from goose feathers, duck feathers, a mixture of both,
or from those of other bird species (pigeon,
parakeet)24, 25. Several studies have shown
significantly high antibody levels in patients using feather duvet and
pillow antigens than controls24-26. Comparison of the
data obtained is difficult due to the different techniques used but also
to the lack of standardization of antigen
production11.
New techniques, such as proteomics coupled with mass spectrometry
(LC-MS/MS), now make it possible to characterize proteins associated
with the disease. IgG antibodies against r-IGLL1 and r-PROE proteins
have been identified as biomarkers of BFL and have been found in
droppings, bloom, and pigeon serum using an optimal immunoproteomic
approach13, 14.
The diagnostic performance of an ELISA test for BFL performed with
r-IGLL1 and r-PROE gave the best specificity (100%) and sensitivity
(84%)13. These proteins are involved in the immune
and digestive systems of birds13. Several studies have
suggested the presence of cross-reactive antigenic reactions between
different bird species or different avian matrices, especially for
pigeons 14, 27-29. Recently, significant correlations
have been found in serological analyses between pigeon, duck, and goose
antigens11. Based on the BLASTp alignment, our results
showed that the amino-acid sequence of duck IGLL has higher identity
with goose IGLL (ID: 81%) than pigeon IGLL1 (ID: 65%) (Supplemental
data). On the contrary, the amino-acid sequence of duck PROE has higher
sequence identity with pigeon PROE (81%) than with the orthologous
protein in geese (73%). The conservation of the amino-acid sequences of
these proteins is a contributing factor to the antigenic cross-reaction
observed in serological analyses14, 28. In the present
study, we evaluated the performance of an ELISA using the pigeon r-IGLL1
and r-PROE proteins to support the serological diagnosis of FDL cases.
We found the ELISA test using r-IGLL1 to be useful to support the
diagnosis of BFL patients but not for FDL cases. Conversely, we found
significantly higher levels of circulating IgG antibodies against r-PROE
in BFL and FDL patients than controls. Indeed, r-PROE was the most
effective antigen for discriminating FDL patients from controls exposed
and unexposed to feathers. The characteristic performance of the r-PROE
ELISA test using an optimal threshold index value was as follow:
sensitivity of 74.2%, specificity of 86.7% and AUC of 0.9.
The antibodies of patients directed against r-IGLL1 and r-PROE are
respectively two and seven times significantly higher in BFL patients
compared to FDL patients. Although patients were exposed for long
periods to their pillows, but with little agitation, the amount of
inhalable antigenic protein was probably lower than that inside an
aviary (66.6% of our BFL patients were pigeon breeders). Indeed, in
such a location, antigens come from droppings, bloom, and feathers and
are frequently suspended by the birds or the breeder during cleaning.
Such differences in exposure intensity may explain the higher level of
antibodies in BFL patients compared to the FDL observed in our study.
Since the intensity of sensitization is significantly different between
BFL and FDL patients against r-PROE in ELISA (r-IGLL1 specific for BFL
patients), we proposed a useful key for cases of patients exposed to
both feathers and birds. Although r-PROE and r-IGLL1 were both effective
for serodiagnosis of BFL cases, to simplify procedures, we recommend
that only r-IGLL1 be used for the diagnosis of patients exposed to
birds. Likewise, in the event of a suspected FDL case, r-PROE was the
only protein to be used for the ELISA test. In case of multi-exposure
(feather bedding + birds), an index value for r-PROE between 0.5 and 1
is in favor of the diagnosis of FDL, and above 1, in favor of BFL case.
Several studies have shown that FDL cases are related to childhood
exposure to birds, and that contact with pillow feathers is a trigger
for sensitization that occurred long before29-31. The
use of a feather pillow/duvet should be discouraged in cases of BFL
because continuous contact with avian antigens can induce disease
progression and cause permanent lung damage9, 32, 33.
Finally, as there is no effective treatment to reverse the lung damage
caused by the disease, early identification of the antigenic source is
necessary. The diagnosis of FDL should be based on a proactive approach
to find the antigen source to remove it from the patient’s
environment21.
In conclusion, we recommend the use of r-PROE and r-IGLL1 proteins,
respectively, for the serological diagnosis of patients exposed strictly
to bedding feathers or birds and presenting with respiratory symptoms.
These two ELISA tests allow the diagnosis of both chronic and acute
forms of FDL and BFL cases. The ELISA test based on the use of r-PROE
showed a sensitivity of 74.2% and a specificity of 86.7% for an AUC of
0.9 for FDL patients. The use of recombinant proteins guarantees highly
standardized production and optimal inter-batch reproducibility.
The use of the ELISA test reduces the time taken to report results to
patients / clinicians to 3 days. This time saving allows the
implementation of an early avoidance strategy favorable to the patient’s
state of health. This serological approach is efficient, standardized,
fast, inexpensive and easy to implement.
REFERENCES
1. Raghu G, Document S, Remy-Jardin M, et al. Diagnosis of
Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis in Adults: An Official ATS/JRS/ALAT
Clinical Practice Guideline. American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine . 2020;(ja)
2. Nogueira R, Melo N, e Bastos HN, et al. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis:
Antigen diversity and disease implications. Pulmonology . 2018;
3. Morisset J, Johannson KA, Jones KD, et al. Identification of
Diagnostic Criteria for Chronic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. An
International Modified Delphi Survey. American journal of
respiratory and critical care medicine . 2018;197(8):1036-1044.
4. Lacasse Y, Girard M, Cormier Y. Recent Advances in Hypersensitivity
PneumonitisRecent Advances in Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. CHEST
Journal . 2012;142(1):208-217.
5. Morell F, Roger A, Reyes L, Cruz MJ, Murio C, Munoz X. Bird fancier’s
lung: a series of 86 patients. Medicine . 2008;87(2):110-130.
6. Rodrigo MJ, Benavent MI, Cruz MJ, et al. Detection of specific
antibodies to pigeon serum and bloom antigens by enzyme linked
immunosorbent assay in pigeon breeder’s disease. Occupational and
environmental medicine . 2000;57(3):159-164.
7. Jacobs MR, Andrews CP, Ramirez RM, Jacobs RL. Frequency of goose and
duck down causation of hypersensitivity pneumonitis within an 80-patient
cohort. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology .
2019;123(2):201-207.
8. Morell F, Villar A, Ojanguren I, et al. Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis
and (Idiopathic) Pulmonary Fibrosis Due to Feather Duvets and Pillows.Archivos de Bronconeumología . 2020;
9. Morell F, Villar A, Montero M-Á, et al. Chronic hypersensitivity
pneumonitis in patients diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a
prospective case-cohort study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine .
2013;1(9):685-694.
10. Liu-Shiu-Cheong P, Kuo CR, Wilkie SWA, Dempsey O. Feather duvet
lung. BMJ Case Reports CP . 2019;12(11)
11. Raulf M, Joest M, Sander I, et al. Update of reference values for
IgG antibodies against typical antigens of hypersensitivity pneumonitis.Allergo Journal International . 2019:1-12.
12. Vasakova M, Morell F, Walsh S, Leslie K, Raghu G. Hypersensitivity
Pneumonitis: Perspectives in Diagnosis and Management. American
Journal of Respiratory And Critical Care Medicine . 2017;(ja)
13. Rouzet A, Reboux G, Dalphin J-C, et al. An immunoproteomic approach
revealed antigenic proteins enhancing serodiagnosis performance of bird
fancier’s lung. Journal of immunological methods . 2017;450:58.
14. Shirai T, Furusawa H, Furukawa A, et al. Protein antigen of
bird-related hypersensitivity pneumonitis in pigeon serum and dropping.Respiratory Research . 2017;18(1):65.
15. Morell F, Ojanguren I, Cruz M-J. Diagnosis of occupational
hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Current opinion in allergy and
clinical immunology . 2019;19(2):105-110.
16. Dalphin J-C, Gondouin A. Rare Causes and the Spectrum of
Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. Orphan Lung Diseases . Springer;
2015:457-472.
17. Pérez ERF, Swigris JJ, Forssén AV, et al. Identifying an inciting
antigen is associated with improved survival in patients with chronic
hypersensitivity pneumonitis. CHEST Journal .
2013;144(5):1644-1651.
18. Hanak V, Golbin JM, Ryu JH. Causes and presenting features in 85
consecutive patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Elsevier;
812-816.
19. Inase N, Ohtani Y, Sumi Y, et al. A clinical study of
hypersensitivity pneumonitis presumably caused by feather duvets.Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology . 2006;96(1):98-104.
20. Jordan LE, Guy E. Paediatric feather duvet hypersensitivity
pneumonitis. BMJ case reports . 2015;2015:bcr2014207956.
21. Bellanger A-P, Reboux G, Rouzet A, Barrera C, Rocchi S, Millon L.
Hypersensitivity pneumonitis: a new strategy for serodiagnosis and
environmental surveys. Respiratory Medicine . 2019;
22. Simpson C, Shirodaria PV, Evans JP, Simpson DI, Stanford CF.
Comparison of immunodiffusion and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay in
the detection of abnormal antibodies in pigeon breeder’s disease.Journal of clinical pathology . 1992;45(6):490-493.
23. Rodrigo MJ, Postigo I, Wangensteen O, Guisantes JA, Martínez J. A
new application of Streptavidin ImmunoCAP® for measuring IgG antibodies
against non-available commercial antigens. Clinica Chimica Acta .
2010;411(21):1675-1678.
24. Koschel D, Lützkendorf L, Wiedemann B, Höffken G. Antigen‐specific
IgG antibodies in feather duvet lung. European journal of clinical
investigation . 2010;40(9):797-802.
25. Sennekamp J, Lehmann E. Improved IgG Antibody Diagnostics of Feather
Duvet Lung by an Antibody Screening Test. Pneumologie (Stuttgart,
Germany) . 2015;69(11):638-644.
26. Haitjema T, van Velzen-Blad H, Van Den Bosch JM. Extrinsic allergic
alveolitis caused by goose feathers in a duvet. Thorax .
1992;47(11):990.
27. Rouzet A, Reboux G, Rognon B, et al. Immunogenic proteins specific
to different bird species in bird fancier’s lung. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A . 2014;77(12):724-730.
28. Rouzet A, Valot B, Reboux G, Millon L, Roussel S. Common Proteins
Located in Pigeon, Budgerigar, and Hen Droppings Related to Bird
Fancier’s Lung. Journal of investigational allergology & clinical
immunology . 2018;28(3):182.
29. Sterclova M, Vasakova M, Metlicka M. Significance of specific IgG
against sensitizing antigens in extrinsic allergic alveolitis:
serological methods in EAA. Revista portuguesa de pneumologia .
2011;17(6):253-259.
30. Inase N, Sakashita H, Ohtani Y, et al. Chronic bird fancier’s lung
presenting with acute exacerbation due to use of a feather duvet.Internal medicine . 2004;43(9):835-837.
31. Shaw J, Leonard C, Chaudhuri N. Feather bedding as a cause of
hypersensitivity pneumonitis. QJM: An International Journal of
Medicine . 2017;110(4):233-234.
32. Cormier Y. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (extrinsic allergic
alveolitis): A Canadian historical perspective. Canadian
respiratory journal: journal of the Canadian Thoracic Society .
2014;21(5):277.
33. Raghu G. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: shifting the concept to
irreversible pulmonary fibrosis of many entities. The Lancet
Respiratory Medicine . 2019;7(11):926-929.