The role of antibodies in tuberculosis diagnosis, prophylaxis and therapy: a review from the ESGMYC study group

Solomon Tibebu Melkie, Lilibeth Arias, Chiara Farroni, Mateja Jankovic Makek, Delia Goletti, Cristina Vilaplana
European Respiratory Review 2022 31: 210218; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0218-2021

Abstract

Tuberculosis (TB) is still responsible for the deaths of >1 million people yearly worldwide, and therefore its correct diagnosis is one of the key components of any TB eradication programme. However, current TB diagnostic tests have many limitations, and improved diagnostic accuracy is urgently needed. To improve the diagnostic performance of traditional serology, a combination of different Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) antigens and different antibody isotypes has been suggested, with some showing promising performance for the diagnosis of active TB. Given the incomplete protection conferred by bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination against adult pulmonary TB, efforts to discover novel TB vaccines are ongoing. Efficacy studies from advanced TB vaccines designed to stimulate cell-mediated immunity failed to show protection, suggesting that they may not be sufficient and warranting the need for other types of immunity. The role of antibodies as tools for TB therapy, TB diagnosis and TB vaccine design is discussed. Finally, we propose that the inclusion of antibody-based TB vaccines in current clinical trials may be advisable to improve protection.

Abstract

Despite being controversial, antibodies could play a role in the diagnosis of active TB, LTBI and treatment response monitoring. Antibodies could also help when administered as passive transfer and in the protection generated by new TB vaccine candidates. https://bit.ly/3tgEKeP

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated a worldwide total of 10 million cases of tuberculosis (TB) and 1.5 million deaths in 2020 [1] Currently approved diagnostic tools for both TB and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) have limitations [2]. Smear microscopy has variable sensitivity [2, 3], sputum culture is time-consuming and requires biosafety level three facilities [2], and GeneXpert requires trained professionals and has high equipment costs [3]. The tuberculin skin test has been used for many decades to diagnose LTBI but has false-positive results due to cross-reactivity with bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccine (BCG) and the need for follow-up visits to interpret the result limits its use [4]. Further, even though commercial interferon (IFN)-γ release assay (IGRA) tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and have better specificity for diagnosing LTBI, they are unable to differentiate between LTBI and active TB, are poor predictors for TB progression and are expensive [4]. In light of the above, alternative rapid and cost-effective diagnostic markers are urgently needed for both active TB and LTBI.

Monitoring of treatment outcomes in TB is also essential due to the long duration of TB treatment [5, 6] and the possibility of recurrence of TB afterwards [7]. Sputum culture conversion (SCC) is used to monitor treatment outcomes in TB [8, 9], even though it has shown modest sensitivity and specificity for predicting treatment relapse and failure [10]. As such, better biomarkers to predict TB treatment outcomes are needed because of their potential to impact the clinical TB management [8].

Numerous efforts are ongoing to develop new TB vaccines as the BCG is known to be effective in preventing severe forms of TB in infants but fails to protect against pulmonary TB (PTB) in young people and adults [11]. Almost all candidate TB vaccines currently in clinical trials are designed to induce cell-mediated immunity (CMI). However, evidence suggests the need for other types of immunity to achieve complete protection and consideration of the potential use of antibodies is emerging [12, 13].

Immune-based biomarkers detected from easily accessible samples such as blood and urine are considered to be ideal alternatives for the diagnosis of TB where sputum culture is either challenging or inefficient [2, 14–16]. In this regard, a growing body of literature suggests that mycobacterial-specific antibodies may be promising markers for the diagnosis of active TB and LTBI [4, 5, 17–19].

In this review, we discuss the role of antibodies in the diagnosis of active TB and LTBI, and highlight their use for treatment response monitoring, as well as their protective roles in passive transfer, and in current TB vaccine candidates.

The role of antibodies in TB diagnosis and treatment monitoring

Although the antibody-based assay for diagnosis of TB displays variable sensitivity and specificity, further research to develop new serological tests is underway [20]. Their potential advantages (cost-effectiveness, easy implementation and fast test performance) favour their use in low-resource TB high-endemic settings [21].

Antibody responses for diagnosis of active TB

Recently the WHO has developed target product profiles (TPPs) to define the end-user requirements that non-sputum-based rapid biomarkers should meet for acceptable performance of the test, namely a sensitivity and specificity of at least 98% for adult pulmonary TB [22]. Different strategies have been used to improve the accuracy of the serodiagnosis of TB (supplementary figure S1). Use of multiple mycobacterial antigens instead of a single antigen is one of the promising strategies for enhancing the performance of existing serological tests (tables 1 and 2) [18]. The failure of a serological assay based on several antigens may be due to the complex nature of the humoral immune response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), with differential antigen expression at different stages of infection [18, 19].

View this table:
TABLE 1

List of antibodies for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis (TB), latent TB infection (LTBI) and treatment monitoring

View this table:
TABLE 2

Descriptions of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) antigens included in this review

Khaliq et al. [18] (working in Pakistan) reported an antibody response in a multiplex serological assay comprising 11 recombinant MTB antigens, showing an IgG response with a sensitivity of 95% in sputum smear-positive and 88% in smear-negative individuals and allowing the diagnosis of up to 360 patients per day, thus suggesting the scalability of this assay for the rapid diagnosis of active TB in endemic settings. In Uganda, the median IgG levels for eight MTB antigens showed good sensitivity and specificity for the screening of active TB, meeting the TPP targets set by the WHO for a TB screening test [19]. However, further studies including LTBI and HIV-infected individuals should be conducted.

IgG response against six MTB antigens and fusion proteins from these antigens was used to discriminate TB patients from non-TB controls in a Brazilian cohort. The use of a fusion polyprotein improved the diagnostic accuracy up to 90%, suggesting the need to design a multiantigen cocktail/fusion protein to improve the diagnostic accuracy [23]. A related study demonstrated the antibody response to a panel of 24 MTB antigens using serum samples from Africa, Brazil and USA. The overall antibody response to a mixture of seven MTB antigens amounted to 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the diagnosis of PTB [24]. In a Chinese cohort, ELISA-based serodiagnosis of active PTB using new recombinant MTB antigens achieved an accuracy similar to the targets set by the WHO [25]. Overall, antibody-based diagnosis of active TB from blood samples using appropriate tools that allow antibody detection with multiple antigens could offer an exciting approach for the diagnosis of active TB if validated by further research, especially in TB-endemic countries [18, 19].

Another approach suggested to improve the accuracy of serological tests is combining different antibodies, such as IgA, IgM and IgG, instead of a single MTB-specific IgG [5, 21] (table 1). In this regard, anti-16 kDa IgA and anti-MPT64 IgA were found the ideal candidates for the diagnosis of active TB and LTBI, with a sensitivity and specificity > 90% in both cases. The combined antibodies improved the performance and accuracy, the authors concluding that individual and combined markers of IgG and IgA were a potential marker for the diagnosis of active TB [5]. Similarly, Baumann et al. [21] demonstrated that single anti-lipoarabinomannan (LAM) IgG showed a sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 86.6%, while a combination of other MTB antigens and antibodies improved the accuracy for discriminating between TB and LTBI to 86.5%. In another study, anti-A60 IgG showed a sensitivity and specificity of >90%, the combination of IgG with IgA or IgM not improving the diagnostic accuracy. This may be because of a lower immune response to the other Ig subclass and suggests that more than one antigen may be required to improve the accuracy [26]. Also, A60 antigen is a complex protein that is highly conserved in typical and atypical mycobacteria which could explain why, in a related study, anti-A60 IgG detection failed to discriminate active TB with a better performance by anti-45 kDa IgG [27].

An ELISA based on the detection of antibodies against natural lipid antigens contained in the cell wall has been described as accurate for TB diagnosis in a cohort of 349 subjects coming from high TB countries whose samples were shared by WHO–TDR [28]. Using a single lipid antigen, the lipid-based test provided a sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 88%, respectively, for smear- and culture-positive PTB detection; this increased to 96% and 95%, respectively, by a statistical combination of the results with seven antigens. In the validation study, a sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 83% was reached with a single antigen and increased up to an area under curve of 0.95 by combination of different antigens.

A commercial immunochromatographic test has been evaluated in Tunisia for the diagnosis of active TB by detecting serum IgG and IgM against three mycobacterial antigens. IgG against 38-kDa, 16-kDa, and 6-kDa antigens showed a sensitivity of 78.1% and specificity of 100% for discriminating active TB from non-TB. Further studies in larger samples are required to confirm the result and clinical use of the test [29].

In summary, antibodies play a role in TB diagnosis and show promising potential for rapid, point-of-care diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of active TB that allow early treatment and reduce the transmission of TB in the community.

Antibody response in the diagnosis of LTBI

Identification of patients at risk of progressing to active TB is critical for the proper and timely management of active TB patients [17, 30].

Significantly higher anti-ESAT-6 and anti-MDP1IgG levels were found in recent LTBI compared with non-infected and remotely infected individuals in Japan. The authors pointed out that the antibody responses to both growth- and dormant-stage antigens are critical and could help the diagnosis of recent LTBI, which has been associated with a high risk of developing active TB [17]. In another study conducted in India, a significantly higher IgG level was observed for PPE17 MTB antigen compared to ESAT-6, CFP-10 and PPD, and it discriminated between LTBI and healthy individuals, suggesting that antibodies could also be used in conjunction with the current QuantiFERON test to diagnose LTBI [4]. Similarly, Lu et al. [13] compared the anti-PPD IgG profiles of LTBI and active TB sera from patients from South Africa, USA and Mexico and found distinct glycosylation patterns of the immunoglobulin Fc portion in LTBI and active TB, antibodies from LTBI serum showed less fucose. In addition, LTBI serum, but not active TB, was found to contain more sialic acid and galactose, which have been associated with an anti-inflammation status [13]. Similarly, a study in Italy and USA showed di-galactosylated glycan structures found on IgG-Fc were associated with LTBI and with TB cure [31]. This suggests that differences in the glycosylation pattern of mycobacteria-specific antibodies could be used to differentiate between LTBI and active TB, which the currently approved IGRAs are unable to do; however, validation studies are needed. Furthermore, given the lack of published data, the assessment of the prognostic value of all of these biomarkers is also required, although this has not yet been done in a published study.

Antibody response in TB treatment response monitoring

Efforts to find prognostic markers are ongoing [32]. Detection of MTB-specific antibodies pattern at different timepoints during treatment, and their association with treatment outcome, could provide help [5, 32–34]. It is known that the levels of antibody response during treatment vary depending on the MTB antigens used [5, 33, 34]. For example, TB-specific IgG4 were recently shown to be increased in active TB, as compared to LTBI, and significantly decreased after the treatment in a study involving Italian and US patients [31]. The levels of IgG anti-14 kDa, anti-LAM or anti-38 kDa increase following treatment subsequently decreasing months and even years after its completion [5, 33, 34]. Moreover, not all patients respond in the same way, possibly due to differences in their immune status [33].

The detection of an antibody response at the time of diagnosis could identify TB patients at risk of poor treatment outcomes in a South African study [32]. The level of anti-Tpx IgG and anti-ESAT-6 IgA measured before the start of TB treatment has been found to predict slow responders with an accuracy of 90.5%, suggesting its potential prognostic value [32]. Similarly, Mattos et al. [6] found that the IgG response to 16 kDa was elevated after 1 month of treatment, whereas anti-ESAT-6 and CFP-10 IgG levels were higher before the initiation of treatment and elevated following anti-TB treatment, suggesting that the antibody response to cytosolic and secreted MTB antigens is different during chemotherapy.

An increase in antibody response during treatment could be due to a strong humoral response to MTB antigens released from dead bacilli, the disappearance of MTB antigens, which results in the release of antibodies from immune complexes, and the absence of inhibitory factors that stimulate the immune responses [33, 34]. In contrast, the levels of some antibodies decreased during TB treatment. As suggested by the authors, some MTB antigens correlate with the bacterial load better than others and could therefore be used to monitor treatment failure or success by serving as indirect biomarkers of reduced bacterial load following chemotherapy [34].

The role of antibodies in TB prophylaxis and therapy

It was initially thought that antibodies could not reach the inside of cells and therefore intracellular bacteria [35]. However, intracellular pathogens can be found in the extracellular space, suggesting that they could potentially be targeted by antibodies [36], and in fact several studies support this [37, 38]. Although the results published to date are inconsistent, the growing scientific literature supports the protective role of passive transfer of certain antibodies against TB [11]. If proven useful, passive antibody transfer could help shortening anti-TB treatment and reducing the rate of disease progression [39]. Although we did not find any evidence on human studies, neither in PubMed nor in the clinicaltrials.gov database, multiple reports are available on the TB protection achieved by the passive transfer of antibodies against TB in animal models [40].

The administration of human intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) to mice has been shown to protect against TB, mainly due to antibody responses against the BCG vaccine, LTBI or exposure to environmental mycobacteria (table 3) [41–43]. In pooled IVIg treatment of MTB-infected mice, a significant reduction in bacterial load in tissues was demonstrated [43]. In another study, passive transfer of intact but not de-glycosylated IVIg reduced lung bacillary load and pneumonia in a murine model, suggesting the importance of Fc glycosylation in protection against MTB [42].

View this table:
TABLE 3

The protective antibodies in tuberculosis (TB) upon passive transfer of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies

The protective effect of Ig has prophylactic as well as therapeutic advantages. Intranasal administration of human IgG to mice prior to MTB challenge resulted in a significant reduction in pulmonary bacterial load which lasted up to 2 months; the authors suggested that a certain immunomodulation of the T-cell immunity contributed to this protection [41]. Similarly, Guirado et al. [44] demonstrated in a severe combined immunodeficiency mouse model that hyperimmune sera, obtained from mice vaccinated with the RUTI vaccine, significantly reduced both the bacillary load and lung pathology compared to the control sera, and noted that MTB-specific antibodies protect against post-chemotherapy relapse independently of CMI.

Some antibodies found in LTBI subjects have also shown protection against MTB in animal models [13, 40]. Passive transfer of antibodies from healthcare workers with either confirmed LTBI or high MTB exposure showed a degree of protection in mice infected with MTB, and this protection correlated with the in vitro neutralisation of MTB [40]. Additional evidence shows that anti-PPD IgG from LTBI individuals exhibits a distinct glycosylation pattern, including higher sialic acid and galactose (with anti-inflammatory role) and less fucose (known to improve binding to FcγRIII) [31]. In support of the study by Olivares et al. [42], glycosylation differences have been shown to have a potential impact on the observed protection, which may allow for the development of effective monoclonal MTB-specific antibody-based immunotherapies in TB [31].

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) therapies available target cytokines (i.e. tumour necrosis factor or interleukin (IL)-1 or IL-6) that are actually crucial for TB containment and that if neutralised, may reactivate TB in those with LTBI. However, the use of certain mAbs has been shown to confer some degree of protection in mice. Intranasal inoculations with human mAb (2E9IgA1) against Acr antigen significantly reduced the bacterial burden in transgenic mice depending on FcαRI, suggesting the involvement of Fc receptors in antibody-mediated protection [39]. In another study, a 10-fold transient reduction in lung bacillary load was observed in mice after intranasal inoculation of monoclonal IgA (TBA61) against Acr [45]. Furthermore, coating BCG with mAbs against heparin-binding haemagglutinin adhesin (HBHA, an adhesin associated with extrapulmonary dissemination of MTB [46]) reduced bacterial dissemination in a mouse model [47]. Despite its promising potential as a vaccine candidate, passive immunisation of mAbs against HBHA failed to provide protection in an MTB challenge mouse model, suggesting that antibodies alone may not be sufficient to provide complete protection [46]. A mAb (SMITB14) directed against LAM also showed protection: anti-LAM IgG1 mAb inoculations resulted in increased survival, reduced weight loss and less bacillary load in tissues [48].

Several groups have identified different murine isotypes (IgM, IgG1, IgG3, and IgA) that show protection against MTB [37]. As such, antibody isotype appears to play a role in determining the protective function in antibodies in TB [49]. Specifically, a monoclonal anti-LAM and anti-HBHA IgA, but not IgG, reduced bacterial uptake by human lung epithelial cells (A549). Similarly, purified serum IgA from TB patients reduced the mycobacterial load in A549 cells, whereas purified polyclonal IgG increased MTB uptake by lung epithelial cells, thus indicating the superiority of IgA over IgG in mediating MTB protection. However, human lung epithelial cells (A549) only express neonatal Fc receptors rather than the conventional Fcγ receptors [49]. Therefore, the observed lack of protection by IgG might be due to the type of cells used, implying the need for a validation study with other types of cells expressing conventional Fc receptors. Another study supports the reduced performance of IgG in intranasal inoculation in mice, suggesting that the protection conferred by IgA is better than that for IgG upon internasal inoculation in a mouse model [45].

Antibody response in TB vaccines

The current TB vaccines under clinical development are designed to target CMI rather than humoral immunity [50]. However, a growing body of studies suggest that antibodies could be induced by some TB vaccines.

Antibody response in BCG vaccine

Several studies have shown that MTB-specific antibodies are induced by BCG (the only approved vaccine against TB), which could result in protection against MTB infection [51, 52]. Chen et al. [51] demonstrated the protective role of antibodies by using human sera collected pre- and post-BCG vaccination from UK and US patients, showing enhanced phagocytosis, phagolysosome fusion, and intracellular growth inhibition with post-vaccination sera but not with pre-vaccination sera. The observed effect correlated with reactive IgG titres to a few arabinomannan (AM) epitopes rich in mannose residues, and the authors suggested that these could play a protective role against mycobacterial infection [51]. Levels of mycobacterial cell lysate-specific IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3 were found to be significantly increased (but not IgE and IgG4) at month 2 after vaccination in the BCG-vaccinated group compared to the controls, suggesting Type one cytokine biased antibodies [53]. In another study, LAM-specific IgG were associated with enhanced phagocytosis, phagolysosome fusion, bacterial growth inhibition by neutrophils and macrophages, and enhanced mycobacteria-specific IFN-γ production. The authors pointed out that LAM-specific antibodies improve the quality of both innate immunity and CMI in the protection against mycobacterial infection [52]. However, large population studies containing different BCG strains are needed to support the observed protective role of antibodies in BCG.

Antibody response in TB vaccine candidates

There are currently 22 TB vaccine candidates in preclinical and clinical development [54], based on different strategies. Due to the lack of sufficient protection from induction of CMI alone, evidence supporting the role of antibodies in TB is attracting increasing attention [11]. Table 4 shows the current evidence for humoral immunity induced by the current TB vaccine candidates.

View this table:
TABLE 4

Antibody responses in current tuberculosis (TB) vaccine candidates

M72/AS01E, a subunit vaccine, has shown a 54% efficacy in preventing active PTB in South African adolescents [55] and induces M72-specific antibodies, which are sustained for 3 years [56]. However, larger sample size studies involving other populations, such as healthy non-exposed individuals, HIV-infected individuals, household contacts, and people from different origins, were recommended [57]. Moreover, the protection against PTB observed in the M72/AS01E vaccine may be due to antigen-specific antibodies but also might be enhanced by the adjuvant AS01E [57, 58].

A phase I trial conducted in BCG-primed South African individuals to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of three vaccines (H4:IC31, H56:IC31, and BCG revaccination) showed that all of them induced cellular and humoral immune responses [59]. H4:IC31 and H56:IC31 induced H4- and H56-specific IgGs. Anti-H4 IgG was observed on day 14 and significantly increased at day 70, whereas H56-specific IgG was detected at day 70. IgG1 and IgG3 were the predominant IgG subclass in both groups, and H4 and H56 antibody responses were not observed in the BCG revaccinated and placebo groups [59]. Nemes et al. [60] evaluated the efficacy of H4:IC31 and BCG revaccination in a phase II study in South Africa. Although both vaccines failed to prevent primary infection, sustained MTB infection was reduced by 45.4% and 30% for BCG and H4:IC31, respectively [60], suggesting that antigen-specific antibodies may play a role in the observed protection. Similar evidence has been obtained in a phase I clinical trial of the H56:IC31 vaccine also in South Africa. Primary vaccination induced anti-H56 IgG, and the levels thereof increased significantly after a subsequent booster dose [61]. In summary, H56- and H4-specific antibodies could play, together with CD4+ T-cells, a protective role in MTB infection, which promotes further studies to evaluate the protective efficacy of these vaccines.

Another novel subunit vaccine designed to prevent PTB in adults, ID93/GLA-SE, was evaluated in a phase I trial in South Africa, with ID93-specific IgG being detected even though the vaccine was designed to stimulate a T-helper cell (Th)1 response [62]. However, the detection of antigen-specific antibodies alone is no guarantee of protection. Two polysaccharide conjugate vaccines designed to induce humoral immunity, namely AM conjugated with Ag85B or with a protective antigen (PA) from Bacillus anthracis, elicited antibodies to AM conjugates with different specificity [63]. Mice vaccinated with AM-Ag85b and AM-PA conjugate showed a significant reduction in tissue bacterial load and longer survival when compared to the unvaccinated controls, suggesting that AM-specific antibodies could help to reduce bacterial dissemination and increase survival in infected mice [63]. Costello et al. [64] also demonstrated the pattern of anti-LAM IgG responses using serum samples obtained from children from the UK and India with or without local or disseminated TB. Low levels of anti-LAM IgG were associated with a disseminated form of mycobacterial disease, suggesting that anti-LAM and AM-specific IgG may play a role in protecting against dissemination, which has implications for the design of improved TB vaccines [64].

In summary, antibodies targeting structural components of MTB, such as AM or LAM, may be of interest for the development of new TB vaccines.

A different type of viral vector expressing one or more immunodominant mycobacterial antigens has been developed as vaccines (table 4). In a phase IIb study conducted in Gambia, MVA85A, designed to induce a T-cell response, failed to provide protection [65]. However, anti-Ag85A-specific IgG was associated with protection in terms of risk of TB in BCG-vaccinated infants in MVA85A vaccine trials [12]. In a phase I study, the novel vaccines MVA85A-IMX313 and MVA85A induced Ag85A-specific IgG [66]. Moreover, a ChAdOx185A prime–MVA85A booster vaccine trial was conducted to assess safety and immunogenicity in healthy adults in the UK. Vaccination with ChAdOx185A induced IgG and vaccination with MVA85A vaccine boosted the level of IgG response, thus suggesting that vector-based TB vaccines could induce antibodies with the potential to contribute to the observed protection against TB [67].

Although whole-cell TB vaccines have been designed to stimulate CMI, few of them also induce an antibody response. VPM1002, a recombinant live BCG vaccine, has proved to induce an antigen-specific antibody response (anti-PPD) in a study conducted in South Africa with significantly higher antibodies levels compared to unvaccinated subjects. This is likely due to the apoptosis induced by modification of the antigens in BCG, which results in the release of BCG-derived antigens and increases the possibility of the maturation of B-cells into antibody-producing plasma cells [68]. The gene expression related to the differentiated B-cell compartment was significantly overexpressed at a later time point, confirming their involvement in the vaccine-induced immune response, even if the B-cells signature did not seem to be influenced [68]. Similarly, DAR-901, which was designed to boost BCG vaccination and which has shown significant protection against TB in a phase III trial, induced antibodies specific to DAR-901 in mice and showed better protection against MTB than mice given BCG booster doses. Together with the observed IFN-γ response, antibodies may be involved in the protection of mice challenged with MTB [69]. Furthermore, in an immunogenicity study of the RUTI vaccine, a mixed Th1 and Th2 response with antigen-specific antibodies (IgG1, IgG2a, and IgG3) was observed [70].

Mechanism of antibody-mediated protection

Different protection mechanisms have been proposed in passive-transfer, vaccine, and in vitro studies (figure 1), with these mechanisms varying depending on MTB antigens, the glycosylation pattern, and route of inoculation [11, 71]. Anti-LAM IgG derived from post-BCG-vaccinated sera showed enhancement of MTB phagocytosis in macrophages and neutrophils. Mycobacteria-specific antibodies enhance the fusion of the phagolysosome and inhibit bacterial growth inside the phagocytic cells [51, 52]. In another study, extrapulmonary dissemination was reduced when mAbs against HBHA were used to coat wild-type BCG [47], suggesting that antibodies play a role by blocking the binding of the HBHA adhesin to the epithelial cells, thereby preventing bacterial dissemination. Moreover, antibodies also enhance CMI, as in the example of anti-LAM IgG, which enhances the proliferation and secretion of IFN-γ by MTB-specific CD4+ T-cells and the degranulation of CD8+ T-cells [52]. Furthermore, in vitro neutralisation of the bacilli was demonstrated using sera from LTBI and healthcare worker subjects [40]. Finally, antibodies have been shown to enhance antibody-dependant cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) by activating natural killer cells. Anti-PPD Ig from LTBI, but not active TB, enhanced ADCC and increased the co-localisation of MTB with lysosomes [13].

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Potential mechanisms of action of antibodies in tuberculosis: a) antibodies enhance phagocytosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) by neutrophils and macrophage via FcR binding; b) antibodies also enhance the fusion of phagosome and lysosome; c) antibodies activate CD4+ T-cells; d) antibodies enhance killing of infected macrophages by activating natural killer (NK) cells; e) antibodies facilitate direct neutralisation of the bacilli; f) antibodies block the binding of MTB to epithelial cells and prevent extrapulmonary dissemination of the bacteria. ADCP: antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis; CMI: cell-mediated immunity; ADCC: antibody-dependant cellular cytotoxicity; Ag: antigen; Ab: antibody; TCR: T-cell receptor; MHC: major histocompatibility complex.

Studies not showing the protective functions of antibodies

Not all studies support the protective role of antibodies in TB [71]. In a recent study, a rhesus cytomegalovirus-based TB vaccine failed to induce a significant antibody response in rhesus macaques, while protection was associated with the activation of tissue-resident memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells [72]. Moreover, the role of B-cells and antibody depletion is another ongoing debate in TB [71]. In a study by Khera et al. [73], there was no difference in vaccine-induced T-cell protection between B-cell knock-out and B-cell competent mice, with the authors highlighting the minimal role of B-cells in mucosal vaccine-induced T-cell protection against PTB. In another study showing the vaccine potential of HBHA, although serum antibodies specific to HBHA were elicited, passive immunisation of mAbs IgG against HBHA failed to protect against MTB challenge in mice. The lack of protection upon passive transfer might be due to the mAbs used being insufficient for protection; therefore, the authors suggested further studies using polyclonal anti-HBHA sera and IgA antibodies [46]. Moreover, passive-transfer studies of immune sera from different animals have shown variable efficacy in protection against TB [11]. However, due to a lack of information regarding the optimal antibody concentration required for protection and the heterogeneity of the humoral immunity to TB, any conclusion that the antibody response is not protective should be made with caution unless studied extensively [37]. On the other hand, literature on TB in patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is scarce, even though CVID is a rare type of primary immunodeficiency affecting one or more types of immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA, IgM) that makes the patients more prone to infections [74]. Also, there is no evidence linking the use of immunosuppressive drugs, such CD20 inhibitors blocking CD20 protein (widely expressed on B-cells), to an increased risk of TB progression [75, 76]. In our opinion, studies taking into account all these data could provide valuable information about the role of antibodies in TB and generate research questions to be answered in further studies.

Conclusion and perspectives

At present and despite of the existence of commercial kits, antibodies have no role in routine clinical diagnosis and therapy and still have very little role in TB vaccines in TB field. Further research is needed to address this topic. The humoral immune response against TB is heterogeneous, mainly due to the differential antigen expression at different stages of infection, and the use of multiple MTB antigens and different antibody isotypes for diagnosis has improved the accuracy of commercial serology. Most of the studies reviewed in this paper showed comparable sensitivity and specificity to the target set by the WHO for non-sputum culture-based TB biomarkers and might be used together with existing T-cell-based IGRA tests for both the screening and diagnosis of active TB. However, several limitations of currently published data have been encountered: the need for validation studies before routine use in clinical practice, lack of appropriate controls for comparison, exclusion of immunocompromised subjects, and lack of blinding to reduce unwanted bias. Future studies should consider improving these limitations. Unlike IGRAs, the differences in the antibody pattern for LTBI and active TB suggest the potential role of antibodies in identifying those LTBI cases at risk of developing active TB. Currently, there is no validated prognostic marker for monitoring treatment outcome in TB, and antibody response during intensive treatment has not been well investigated. As such, it would be of interest to evaluate further the potential use of antibodies against MTB antigens generated during the active and latent periods to assess anti-TB treatment response and identify slow and fast responders earlier, thus ensuring better TB management.

Despite the controversies concerning the protective role of the humoral immune response in TB, a growing body of literature suggests that antibodies could play a role. However, further research in different animal models is required. Evidence from clinical trials with TB vaccine candidates suggests that both cellular immunity alone and antibodies alone may not be sufficient to prevent TB infection and disease. Since antibodies have been shown to enhance cellular immunity, the combination of antibodies with T-cell immunity could improve the efficacy of TB vaccines. Finally, glycosylation seems to play a role in the protective function of antibodies in TB. As such, the development of mAbs by targeting the different glycosylation patterns may be of interest for TB immunotherapy. The development of antibody-based TB vaccine candidates would also be of interest, although further studies are needed to demonstrate the protective efficacy of antibodies in current TB vaccine candidates. Since the evidence generated with the mouse model is not always validated in human TB, studies investigating the mechanism of action and protective efficacy in other experimental animal models, such as guinea pigs and non-human primates, are recommended.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material ERR-0218-2021.SUPPLEMENT

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • This article has supplementary material available from err.ersjournals.com

  • Conflict of interest: S.T. Melkie reports support for the present manuscript: co-funded by the EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, award 2015–2323) of the European Commission, receives a scholarship from the EACEA. Registered in the EMJMD LIVE (Erasmus+ Mundus Joint Master Degree Leading International Vaccinology Education).

  • Conflict of interest: L. Arias has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Farroni has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Jankovic Makek reports receiving consulting fees from Insmed incorporated and Biomerieux outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Goletti has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Vilaplana reports support for the present manuscript received from CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias (CB06/06/0031), payment made to the institution. Grants or contracts received from Spanish Government-FEDER Funds through CPII18/00031, outside the submitted work. Other non-financial interests reported as follows: C. Vilaplana's lab hosts secondments from the EMJMD LIVE MsC students (Erasmus+ Mundus Joint Master Degree Leading International Vaccinology Education), co-funded by the EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, award 2015–2323).

  • Support statement: S.T. Melkie, registered in the EMJMD LIVE (Erasmus+ Mundus Joint Master Degree Leading International Vaccinology Education), co-funded by the EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, award 2015–2323) of the European commission, receives a scholarship from the EACEA. This work was also supported by the Spanish Government-FEDER Funds through CPII18/00031 and the CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias (CB06/06/0031). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and Innovation programme under grant agreement No 847762. The work was partially supported by the Italian ministry of Health, Ricerca Corrente, Linea 4. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received September 29, 2021.
  • Accepted December 30, 2021.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Global Tuberculosis Report 2021. 2021. www.who.int/teams/global-tuberculosis-programme/tb-reports/global-tuberculosis-report-2021
  2. ↵
    1. Ghiasi M,
    2. Pande T,
    3. Pai M
    . Advances in tuberculosis diagnostics. Curr Trop Med Reports 2015; 2: 54–61. doi:10.1007/s40475-015-0043-1
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Sulis G,
    2. Centis R,
    3. Sotgiu G, et al.
    Recent developments in the diagnosis and management of tuberculosis. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2016; 26: 16078. doi:10.1038/npjpcrm.2016.78
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Abraham PR,
    2. Devalraju KP,
    3. Jha V, et al.
    PPE17 (Rv1168c) protein of Mycobacterium tuberculosis detects individuals with latent TB infection. PLoS ONE 2018; 13: e0207787.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Awoniyi DO,
    2. Baumann R,
    3. Chegou NN, et al.
    Detection of a combination of serum IgG and IgA antibodies against selected mycobacterial targets provides promising diagnostic signatures for active TB. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 37525–37537. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.16401
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Mattos AMM,
    2. de Almeida CS,
    3. Franken KLMC, et al.
    Increased IgG1, IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha and IL-6 responses to Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens in patients with tuberculosis are lower after chemotherapy. Int Immunol 2010; 22: 775–782. doi:10.1093/intimm/dxq429
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Azhar GS
    . DOTS for TB relapse in India: a systematic review. Lung India 2012; 29: 147–153. doi:10.4103/0970-2113.95320
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Goletti D,
    2. Lee M-R,
    3. Wang J-Y, et al.
    Update on tuberculosis biomarkers: from correlates of risk, to correlates of active disease and of cure from disease. Respirology 2018; 23: 455–466. doi:10.1111/resp.13272
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Kurbatova EV,
    2. Cegielski JP,
    3. Lienhardt C, et al.
    Sputum culture conversion as a prognostic marker for end-of-treatment outcome in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a secondary analysis of data from two observational cohort studies. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3: 201–209. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00036-3
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Horne DJ,
    2. Royce SE,
    3. Gooze L, et al.
    Sputum monitoring during tuberculosis treatment for predicting outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2010; 10: 387–394. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70071-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kawahara JY,
    2. Irvine EB,
    3. Alter G
    . A case for antibodies as mechanistic correlates of immunity in tuberculosis. Front Immunol 2019; 10: 996. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.00996
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Fletcher HA,
    2. Snowden MA,
    3. Landry B, et al.
    T-cell activation is an immune correlate of risk in BCG vaccinated infants. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 11290. doi:10.1038/ncomms11290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Lu LL,
    2. Chung AW,
    3. Rosebrock TR, et al.
    A functional role for antibodies in tuberculosis. Cell 2016; 167: 433–443. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.072
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Cannas A,
    2. Calvo L,
    3. Chiacchio T, et al.
    IP-10 detection in urine is associated with lung diseases. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10: 333. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-10-333
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Petrone L,
    2. Cannas A,
    3. Aloi F, et al.
    Can blood or urine IP-10 discriminate between active and no active tuberculosis in children? Eur Respir J 2015; 46: Suppl. 59, PA3635. DOI:10.1183/13993003.congress-2015.PA3635
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Petrone L,
    2. Cannas A,
    3. Vanini V, et al.
    Blood and urine inducible protein 10 as potential markers of disease activity. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2016; 20: 1554–1561. doi:10.5588/ijtld.16.0342
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Maekura R,
    2. Kitada S,
    3. Osada-Oka M, et al.
    Serum antibody profiles in individuals with latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Microbiol Immunol 2019; 63: 130–138. doi:10.1111/1348-0421.12674
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Khaliq A,
    2. Ravindran R,
    3. Hussainy SF, et al.
    Field evaluation of a blood based test for active tuberculosis in endemic settings. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: e0173359. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173359
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Shete PB,
    2. Ravindran R,
    3. Chang E, et al.
    Evaluation of antibody responses to panels of M. tuberculosis antigens as a screening tool for active tuberculosis in Uganda. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: e0180122. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180122
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Steingart KR,
    2. Flores LL,
    3. Dendukuri N, et al.
    Commercial serological tests for the diagnosis of active pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1001062. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Baumann R,
    2. Kaempfer S,
    3. Chegou NN, et al.
    Serologic diagnosis of tuberculosis by combining Ig classes against selected mycobacterial targets. J Infect 2014; 69: 581–589. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2014.05.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . High-priority target product profiles for new tuberculosis diagnostics: report of a consensus meeting. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2014. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/135617
  23. ↵
    1. Ireton GC,
    2. Greenwald R,
    3. Liang H, et al.
    Identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens of high serodiagnostic value. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2010; 17: 1539–1547. doi:10.1128/CVI.00198-10
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Burbelo PD,
    2. Keller J,
    3. Wagner J, et al.
    Serological diagnosis of pulmonary Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection by LIPS using a multiple antigen mixture. BMC Microbiol 2015; 15: 205. doi:10.1186/s12866-015-0545-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. You X,
    2. Li R,
    3. Wan K, et al.
    Evaluation of Rv0220, Rv2958c, Rv2994 and Rv3347c of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for serodiagnosis of tuberculosis. Microb Biotechnol 2017; 10: 604–611. doi:10.1111/1751-7915.12697
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Ben-selma W,
    2. Harizi H,
    3. Marzouk M, et al.
    Evaluation of the diagnostic value of measuring IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies to mycobacterial A60 antigen in active tuberculosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2010; 68: 55–59. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.05.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Tasbiti AH,
    2. Bahrmand A,
    3. Shokrgozar MA, et al.
    Evaluation of antigen detection test (chromatographic immunoassay): potential to replace the antibody assay using purified 45-kDa protein for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis. J Clin Lab Anal 2013; 28: 70–76. doi:10.1002/jcla.21646
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Jones A,
    2. Pitts M,
    3. Al Dulayymi JR, et al.
    New synthetic lipid antigens for rapid serological diagnosis of tuberculosis. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: e0181414. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181414
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Ben-Selma W,
    2. Harizi H,
    3. Boukadida J
    . Immunochromatographic IgG/IgM test for rapid diagnosis of active tuberculosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2011; 18: 2090–2094. doi:10.1128/CVI.05166-11
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Petruccioli E,
    2. Scriba TJ,
    3. Petrone L, et al.
    Correlates of tuberculosis risk: predictive biomarkers for progression to active tuberculosis. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 1751–1763. doi:10.1183/13993003.01012-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Grace PS,
    2. Dolatshahi S,
    3. Lu LL, et al.
    Antibody subclass and glycosylation shift following effective TB treatment. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 679973. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.679973
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Baumann R,
    2. Kaempfer S,
    3. Chegou NN, et al.
    Serodiagnostic markers for the prediction of the outcome of intensive phase tuberculosis therapy. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2013; 93: 239–245. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2012.09.003
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Imaz MS,
    2. Zerbini E
    . Antibody response to culture filtrate antigens of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during and after treatment of tuberculosis patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000; 4: 562–569.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Azzurri A,
    2. Kanaujia GV,
    3. Sow OY, et al.
    Serological markers of pulmonary tuberculosis and of response to anti-tuberculosis treatment in a patient population in Guinea. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2006; 19: 199–208. doi:10.1177/205873920601900120
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Rao M,
    2. Ippolito G,
    3. Mfinanga S, et al.
    Latent TB infection (LTBI) – Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathogenesis and the dynamics of the granuloma battleground. Int J Infect Dis 2019; 80: S58–S61. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2019.02.035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Mahboub BH,
    2. Vats MG
    1. Acosta A,
    2. Lopez Y,
    3. Nor NM, et al.
    The role of antibodies in the defense against tuberculosis. In: Mahboub BH, Vats MG. Tuberculosis - Current Issues in Diagnosis and Management. London, IntechOpen Limited, 2013. doi:10.5772/53950
  37. ↵
    1. Achkar JM,
    2. Chan J,
    3. Casadevall A
    . B cells and antibodies in the defense against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Immunol Rev 2015; 264: 167–181. doi:10.1111/imr.12276
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Wahid R,
    2. Zafar SJ,
    3. McArthur MA, et al.
    Live oral Salmonella enterica serovar typhi vaccines Ty21a and CVD 909 induce opsonophagocytic functional antibodies in humans that cross-react with S. Paratyphi A and S. Paratyphi B. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2014; 21: 427–434. doi:10.1128/CVI.00786-13
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Balu S,
    2. Reljic R,
    3. Lewis MJ, et al.
    A novel human IgA monoclonal antibody protects against tuberculosis. J Immunol 2011; 186: 3113–3119. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1003189
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Li H,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Wang B, et al.
    Latently and uninfected healthcare workers exposed to TB make protective antibodies against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2017; 114: 5023–5028. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611776114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Olivares N,
    2. Puig A,
    3. Aguilar D, et al.
    Prophylactic effect of administration of human gamma globulins in a mouse model of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2009; 89: 218–220. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2009.02.003
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Olivares N,
    2. Marquina B,
    3. Mata-Espinoza D, et al.
    The protective effect of immunoglobulin in murine tuberculosis is dependent on IgG glycosylation. Pathog Dis 2013; 69: 176–183. doi:10.1111/2049-632X.12069
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Roy E,
    2. Stavropoulos E,
    3. Brennan J, et al.
    Therapeutic efficacy of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in mice. Infect Immun 2005; 73: 6101–6109. doi:10.1128/IAI.73.9.6101-6109.2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Guirado E,
    2. Amat I,
    3. Gil O, et al.
    Passive serum therapy with polyclonal antibodies against Mycobacterium tuberculosis protects against post-chemotherapy relapse of tuberculosis infection in SCID mice. Microbes Infect 2006; 8: 1252–1259. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2005.12.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Williams A,
    2. Reljic R,
    3. Naylor I, et al.
    Passive protection with immunoglobulin A antibodies against tuberculous early infection of the lungs. Immunology 2004; 111: 328–333. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2567.2004.01809.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Parra M,
    2. Pickett T,
    3. Delogu G, et al.
    The mycobacterial heparin-binding hemagglutinin is a protective antigen in the mouse aerosol challenge model of tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2004; 72: 6799–6805. doi:10.1128/IAI.72.12.6799-6805.2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Pethe K,
    2. Alonso S,
    3. Biet F, et al.
    The heparin-binding haemagglutinin of M. tuberculosis is required for extrapulmonary dissemination. Nature 2001; 412: 190–194. doi:10.1038/35084083
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Hamasur B,
    2. Haile M,
    3. Pawlowski A, et al.
    A mycobacterial lipoarabinomannan specific monoclonal antibody and its F(ab′)2 fragment prolong survival of mice infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clin Exp Immunol 2004; 138: 30–38. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2004.02593.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Zimmermann N,
    2. Thormann V,
    3. Hu B, et al.
    Human isotype-dependent inhibitory antibody responses against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. EMBO Mol Med 2016; 8: 1325–1339. doi:10.15252/emmm.201606330
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Scriba TJ,
    2. Coussens AK,
    3. Fletcher HA
    . Human immunology of tuberculosis. Microbiol Spectr 2017; 5. doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.TBTB2-0016-2016
  51. ↵
    1. Chen T,
    2. Blanc C,
    3. Eder AZ, et al.
    Association of human antibodies to arabinomannan with enhanced mycobacterial opsonophagocytosis and intracellular growth reduction. J Infect Dis 2016; 214: 300–310. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiw141
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. De Vallière S,
    2. Abate G,
    3. Blazevic A, et al.
    Enhancement of innate and cell-mediated immunity by antimycobacterial antibodies. Infect Immun 2005; 73: 6711–6720. doi:10.1128/IAI.73.10.6711-6720.2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Hoft DF,
    2. Kemp EB,
    3. Marinaro M, et al.
    A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of Mycobacterium-specific human immune responses induced by intradermal bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination. J Lab Clin Med 1999; 134: 244–252. doi:10.1016/S0022-2143(99)90204-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. TuBerculosis Vaccine Initiative
    . Pipeline of vaccines. 2020. www.tbvi.eu/what-we-do/pipeline-of-vaccines/
  55. ↵
    1. Penn-Nicholson A,
    2. Geldenhuys H,
    3. Burny W, et al.
    Safety and immunogenicity of candidate vaccine M72/AS01E in adolescents in a TB endemic setting. Vaccine 2015; 33: 4025–4034. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.088
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Kumarasamy N,
    2. Poongulali S,
    3. Beulah FE, et al.
    Long-term safety and immunogenicity of the M72/AS01E candidate tuberculosis vaccine in HIV-positive and -negative Indian adults: Results from a phase II randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e13120. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000013120
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Ji Z,
    2. Jian M,
    3. Chen T, et al.
    Immunogenicity and safety of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. Front Immunol 2019; 10: 2089. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.02089
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Moncunill G,
    2. De Rosa SC,
    3. Ayestaran A, et al.
    RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine induces memory and polyfunctional T cell responses in a pediatric African Phase III Trial. Front Immunol 2017; 8: 1008. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2017.01008
  59. ↵
    1. Bekker L-G,
    2. Dintwe O,
    3. Fiore-Gartland A, et al.
    A phase 1b randomized study of the safety and immunological responses to vaccination with H4:IC31, H56:IC31, and BCG revaccination in Mycobacterium tuberculosis-uninfected adolescents in Cape Town, South Africa. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 21: 100313. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100313
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    1. Nemes E,
    2. Geldenhuys H,
    3. Rozot V, et al.
    Prevention of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis by H4:IC31® vaccination or BCG revaccination in adolescents. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 138–149. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1714021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Luabeya AKK,
    2. Kagina BMN,
    3. Tameris MD, et al.
    First-in-human trial of the post-exposure tuberculosis vaccine H56:IC31 in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infected and non-infected healthy adults. Vaccine 2015; 33: 4130–4140. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.051
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Penn-Nicholson A,
    2. Tameris M,
    3. Smit E, et al.
    Safety and immunogenicity of the novel tuberculosis vaccine ID93+GLA-SE in BCG-vaccinated healthy adults in South Africa: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2018; 6: 287–298. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30077-8
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Prados-Rosales R,
    2. Carreño L,
    3. Cheng T, et al.
    Enhanced control of Mycobacterium tuberculosis extrapulmonary dissemination in mice by an arabinomannan-protein conjugate vaccine. PLoS Pathog 2017; 13: e1006250. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006250
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Costello AM,
    2. Kumar A,
    3. Narayan V, et al.
    Does antibody to mycobacterial antigens, including lipoarabinomannan, limit dissemination in childhood tuberculosis? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1992; 86: 686–692. doi:10.1016/0035-9203(92)90192-F
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Tameris MD,
    2. Hatherill M,
    3. Landry BS, et al.
    Safety and efficacy of MVA85A, a new tuberculosis vaccine, in infants previously vaccinated with BCG: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 1021–1028. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60177-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Minhinnick A,
    2. Satti I,
    3. Harris S, et al.
    A first-in-human phase 1 trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the candidate tuberculosis vaccine MVA85A-IMX313, administered to BCG-vaccinated adults. Vaccine 2016; 34: 1412–1421. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.062
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Wilkie M,
    2. Satti I,
    3. Minhinnick A, et al.
    A phase I trial evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of a candidate tuberculosis vaccination regimen, ChAdOx1 85A prime – MVA85A boost in healthy UK adults. Vaccine 2020; 38: 779–789. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Loxton AG,
    2. Knaul JK,
    3. Grode L, et al.
    Safety and immunogenicity of the recombinant Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine VPM1002 in HIV-unexposed newborn infants in South Africa. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2017; 24: e00439-16. doi:10.1128/CVI.00439-16
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Lahey T,
    2. Laddy D,
    3. Hill K, et al.
    Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the DAR-901 booster vaccine in a murine model of tuberculosis. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0168521. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168521
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Cardona PJ,
    2. Amat I,
    3. Gordillo S, et al.
    Immunotherapy with fragmented Mycobacterium tuberculosis cells increases the effectiveness of chemotherapy against a chronical infection in a murine model of tuberculosis. Vaccine 2005; 23: 1393–1398. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.09.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Tran AC,
    2. Kim M-Y,
    3. Reljic R
    . Emerging themes for the role of antibodies in tuberculosis. Immune Netw 2019; 19: e24. doi:10.4110/in.2019.19.e24
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Hansen SG,
    2. Zak DE,
    3. Xu G, et al.
    Prevention of tuberculosis in rhesus macaques by a cytomegalovirus-based vaccine. Nat Med 2018; 24: 130–143. doi:10.1038/nm.4473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Khera AK,
    2. Afkhami S,
    3. Lai R, et al.
    Role of B cells in mucosal vaccine–induced protective CD8+ T cell immunity against pulmonary tuberculosis. J Immunol 2015; 195: 2900–2907. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1500981
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Balwani MR,
    2. Kute VB,
    3. Shah PR, et al.
    Secondary renal amyloidosis in a patient of pulmonary tuberculosis and common variable immunodeficiency. J Nephropharmacology 2015; 4: 69–71.
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Cantini F,
    2. Niccoli L,
    3. Goletti D
    . Tuberculosis risk in patients treated with non-anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) targeted biologics and recently licensed TNF-α inhibitors: data from clinical trials and national registries. J Rheumatol Suppl 2014; 91: 56–64. doi:10.3899/jrheum.140103
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Buch MH,
    2. Smolen JS,
    3. Betteridge N, et al.
    Updated consensus statement on the use of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70: 909–920. doi:10.1136/ard.2010.144998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kapopoulou A,
    2. Lew JM,
    3. Cole ST
    . The MycoBrowser portal: a comprehensive and manually annotated resource for mycobacterial genomes. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2011; 91: 8–13. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2010.09.006
    OpenUrl
    1. Dewi DNSS,
    2. Mertaniasih NM,
    3. Soedarsono, et al.
    Characteristic profile of antibody responses to PPD, ESAT-6, and CFP-10 of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pulmonary tuberculosis suspected cases in Surabaya, Indonesia. Brazilian J Infect Dis 2019; 23: 246–253. doi:10.1016/j.bjid.2019.07.001
    OpenUrl
    1. Abebe F,
    2. Belay M,
    3. Legesse M, et al.
    IgA and IgG against Mycobacterium tuberculosis Rv2031 discriminate between pulmonary tuberculosis patients, Mycobacterium tuberculosis-infected and non-infected individuals. PLoS ONE 2018; 13: e0190989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190989
    OpenUrl
    1. Karbalaei Zadeh Babaki M,
    2. Soleimanpour S,
    3. Rezaee SA
    . Antigen 85 complex as a powerful Mycobacterium tuberculosis immunogene: biology, immune-pathogenicity, applications in diagnosis, and vaccine design. Microb Pathog 2017; 112: 20–29. doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2017.08.040
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Zvi A,
    2. Ariel N,
    3. Fulkerson J, et al.
    Whole genome identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine candidates by comprehensive data mining and bioinformatic analyses. BMC Med Genomics 2008; 1: 1. doi:10.1186/1755-8794-1-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bretl DJ,
    2. He H,
    3. Demetriadou C, et al.
    MprA and DosR coregulate a Mycobacterium tuberculosis virulence operon encoding Rv1813c and Rv1812c. Infect Immun. 2012; 80: 3018–3033. doi:10.1128/IAI.00520-12
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Email
Print
Citation Tools

The role of antibodies in tuberculosis diagnosis, prophylaxis and therapy: a review from the ESGMYC study group
Solomon Tibebu Melkie, Lilibeth Arias, Chiara Farroni, Mateja Jankovic Makek, Delia Goletti, Cristina Vilaplana
European Respiratory Review Mar 2022, 31 (163) 210218; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0218-2021
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

Subjects