Background: Random-sequence peptide libraries are a commonly used tool to identify novel ligands for binding antibodies, other proteins, and small molecules. It is often of interest to compare the selected peptide sequences to the natural protein binding partners to infer the exact binding site or the importance of particular residues. The ability to search a set of sequences for similarity to a set of peptides may sometimes enable the prediction of an antibody epitope or a novel binding partner. We have developed a software application designed specifically for this task. Results: GuiTope provides a graphical user interface for aligning peptide sequences to protein sequences. All alignment parameters are accessible to the user including the ability to specify the amino acid frequency in the peptide library; these frequencies often differ significantly from those assumed by popular alignment programs. It also includes a novel feature to align di-peptide inversions, which we have found improves the accuracy of antibody epitope prediction from peptide microarray data and shows utility in analyzing phage display datasets. Finally, GuiTope can randomly select peptides from a given library to estimate a null distribution of scores and calculate statistical significance. Conclusions: GuiTope provides a convenient method for comparing selected peptide sequences to protein sequences, including flexible alignment parameters, novel alignment features, ability to search a database, and statistical significance of results. The software is available as an executable (for PC) at http://www.immunosignature.com/software and ongoing updates and source code will be available at sourceforge.net.

Rationale: A molecular test to distinguish between sepsis and systemic inflammation of noninfectious etiology could potentially have clinical utility. Objectives: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a molecular host response assay (SeptiCyte LAB) designed to distinguish between sepsis and noninfectious systemic inflammation in critically ill adults. Methods: The study employed a prospective, observational, noninterventional design and recruited a heterogeneous cohort of adult critical care patients from seven sites in the United States (n = 249). An additional group of 198 patients, recruited in the large MARS (Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis) consortium trial in the Netherlands (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01905033), was also tested and analyzed, making a grand total of 447 patients in our study. The performance of SeptiCyte LAB was compared with retrospective physician diagnosis by a panel of three experts. Measurements and Main Results: In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SeptiCyte LAB had an estimated area under the curve of 0.82–0.89 for discriminating sepsis from noninfectious systemic inflammation. The relative likelihood of sepsis versus noninfectious systemic inflammation was found to increase with increasing test score (range, 0–10). In a forward logistic regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of the assay was improved only marginally when used in combination with other clinical and laboratory variables, including procalcitonin. The performance of the assay was not significantly affected by demographic variables, including age, sex, or race/ethnicity. Conclusions: SeptiCyte LAB appears to be a promising diagnostic tool to complement physician assessment of infection likelihood in critically ill adult patients with systemic inflammation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01905033 and NCT02127502)

(1) Background: SeptiCyte RAPID is a molecular test for discriminating sepsis from non-infectious systemic inflammation, and for estimating sepsis probabilities. The objective of this study was the clinical validation of SeptiCyte RAPID, based on testing retrospectively banked and prospectively collected patient samples. (2) Methods: The cartridge-based SeptiCyte RAPID test accepts a PAXgene blood RNA sample and provides sample-to-answer processing in ~1 h. The test output (SeptiScore, range 0–15) falls into four interpretation bands, with higher scores indicating higher probabilities of sepsis. Retrospective (N = 356) and prospective (N = 63) samples were tested from adult patients in ICU who either had the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), or were suspected of having/diagnosed with sepsis. Patients were clinically evaluated by a panel of three expert physicians blinded to the SeptiCyte test results. Results were interpreted under either the Sepsis-2 or Sepsis-3 framework. (3) Results: Under the Sepsis-2 framework, SeptiCyte RAPID performance for the combined retrospective and prospective cohorts had Areas Under the ROC Curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.82 to 0.85, a negative predictive value of 0.91 (sensitivity 0.94) for SeptiScore Band 1 (score range 0.1–5.0; lowest risk of sepsis), and a positive predictive value of 0.81 (specificity 0.90) for SeptiScore Band 4 (score range 7.4–15; highest risk of sepsis). Performance estimates for the prospective cohort ranged from AUC 0.86–0.95. For physician-adjudicated sepsis cases that were blood culture (+) or blood, urine culture (+)(+), 43/48 (90%) of SeptiCyte scores fell in Bands 3 or 4. In multivariable analysis with up to 14 additional clinical variables, SeptiScore was the most important variable for sepsis diagnosis. A comparable performance was obtained for the majority of patients reanalyzed under the Sepsis-3 definition, although a subgroup of 16 patients was identified that was called septic under Sepsis-2 but not under Sepsis-3. (4) Conclusions: This study validates SeptiCyte RAPID for estimating sepsis probability, under both the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 frameworks, for hospitalized patients on their first day of ICU admission.

Background: There is an urgent need to develop biomarkers that stratify risk of bacterial infection in order to support antimicrobial stewardship in emergency hospital admissions. Methods: We used computational machine learning to derive a rule-out blood transcriptomic signature of bacterial infection (SeptiCyte™ TRIAGE) from eight published case-control studies. We then validated this signature by itself in independent case-control data from more than 1500 samples in total, and in combination with our previously published signature for viral infections (SeptiCyte™ VIRUS) using pooled data from a further 1088 samples. Finally, we tested the performance of these signatures in a prospective observational cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with fever, and we used the combined SeptiCyte™ signature in a mixture modelling approach to estimate the prevalence of bacterial and viral infections in febrile ED patients without microbiological diagnoses. Results: The combination of SeptiCyte™ TRIAGE with our published signature for viral infections (SeptiCyte™ VIRUS) discriminated bacterial and viral infections in febrile ED patients, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90–1), compared to 0.79 (0.68–0.91) for WCC and 0.73 (0.61–0.86) for CRP. At pre-test probabilities 0.35 and 0.72, the combined SeptiCyte™ score achieved a negative predictive value for bacterial infection of 0.97 (0.90–0.99) and 0.86 (0.64–0.96), compared to 0.90 (0.80–0.94) and 0.66 (0.48–0.79) for WCC and 0.88 (0.69–0.95) and 0.60 (0.31–0.72) for CRP. In a mixture modelling approach, the combined SeptiCyte™ score estimated that 24% of febrile ED cases receiving antibacterials without a microbiological diagnosis were due to viral infections. Our analysis also suggested that a proportion of patients with bacterial infection recovered without antibacterials. Conclusions: Blood transcriptional biomarkers offer exciting opportunities to support precision antibacterial prescribing in ED and improve diagnostic classification of patients without microbiologically confirmed infections.

Valley fever (VF) is difficult to diagnose, partly because the symptoms of VF are confounded with those of other community-acquired pneumonias. Confirmatory diagnostics detect IgM and IgG antibodies against coccidioidal antigens via immunodiffusion (ID). The false-negative rate can be as high as 50% to 70%, with 5% of symptomatic patients never showing detectable antibody levels. In this study, we tested whether the immunosignature diagnostic can resolve VF false negatives. An immunosignature is the pattern of antibody binding to random-sequence peptides on a peptide microarray. A 10,000-peptide microarray was first used to determine whether valley fever patients can be distinguished from 3 other cohorts with similar infections. After determining the VF-specific peptides, a small 96-peptide diagnostic array was created and tested. The performances of the 10,000-peptide array and the 96-peptide diagnostic array were compared to that of the ID diagnostic standard. The 10,000-peptide microarray classified the VF samples from the other 3 infections with 98% accuracy. It also classified VF false-negative patients with 100% sensitivity in a blinded test set versus 28% sensitivity for ID. The immunosignature microarray has potential for simultaneously distinguishing valley fever patients from those with other fungal or bacterial infections. The same 10,000-peptide array can diagnose VF false-negative patients with 100% sensitivity. The smaller 96-peptide diagnostic array was less specific for diagnosing false negatives. We conclude that the performance of the immunosignature diagnostic exceeds that of the existing standard, and the immunosignature can distinguish related infections and might be used in lieu of existing diagnostics.