Comparison of printed glycan array, suspension array and ELISA in the detection of human anti-glycan antibodies

Anti-glycan antibodies represent a vast and yet insufficiently investigated subpopulation of naturally occurring and adaptive antibodies in humans. Recently, a variety of glycan-based microarrays emerged, allowing high-throughput profiling of a large repertoire of antibodies. As there are no direct approaches for comparison and evaluation of multi-glycan assays we compared three glycan-based immunoassays, namely printed glycan array (PGA), fluorescent microsphere-based suspension array (SA) and ELISA for their efficacy and selectivity in profiling anti-glycan antibodies in a cohort of 48 patients with and without ovarian cancer. The ABO blood group glycan antigens were selected as well recognized ligands for sensitivity and specificity assessments. As another ligand we selected P1, a member of the P blood group system recently identified by PGA as a potential ovarian cancer biomarker. All three glyco-immunoassays reflected the known ABO blood groups with high performance. In contrast, anti-P1 antibody binding profiles displayed much lower concordance. Whilst anti-P1 antibody levels between benign controls and ovarian cancer patients were significantly discriminated using PGA (p = 0.004), we got only similar results using SA (p = 0.03) but not for ELISA. Our findings demonstrate that whilst assays were largely positively correlated, each presents unique characteristic features and should be validated by an independent patient cohort rather than another array technique. The variety between methods presumably reflects the differences in glycan presentation and the antigen/antibody ratio, assay conditions and detection technique. This indicates that the glycan-antibody interaction of interest has to guide the assay selection

Shiga Toxin Binding to Glycolipids and Glycans

Background: Immunologically distinct forms of Shiga toxin (Stx1 and Stx2) display different potencies and disease outcomes, likely due to differences in host cell binding. The glycolipid globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) has been reported to be the receptor for both toxins. While there is considerable data to suggest that Gb3 can bind Stx1, binding of Stx2 to Gb3 is variable. Methodology: We used isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to examine binding of Stx1 and Stx2 to various glycans, glycosphingolipids, and glycosphingolipid mixtures in the presence or absence of membrane components, phosphatidylcholine, and cholesterol. We have also assessed the ability of glycolipids mixtures to neutralize Stx-mediated inhibition of protein synthesis in Vero kidney cells. Results: By ITC, Stx1 bound both Pk (the trisaccharide on Gb3) and P (the tetrasaccharide on globotetraosylceramide, Gb4), while Stx2 did not bind to either glycan. Binding to neutral glycolipids individually and in combination was assessed by ELISA. Stx1 bound to glycolipids Gb3 and Gb4, and Gb3 mixed with other neural glycolipids, while Stx2 only bound to Gb3 mixtures. In the presence of phosphatidylcholine and cholesterol, both Stx1 and Stx2 bound well to Gb3 or Gb4 alone or mixed with other neutral glycolipids. Pre-incubation with Gb3 in the presence of phosphatidylcholine and cholesterol neutralized Stx1, but not Stx2 toxicity to Vero cells