Premium
Evaluation of the antibody response to the EBV proteome in EBV‐associated classical Hodgkin lymphoma
Author(s) -
Liu Zhiwei,
Jarrett Ruth F.,
Hjalgrim Henrik,
Proietti Carla,
Chang Ellen T.,
Smedby Karin E.,
Yu Kelly J.,
Lake Annette,
Troy Sally,
McAulay Karen A.,
Pfeiffer Ruth M.,
Adami HansOlov,
Glimelius Bengt,
Melbye Mads,
Hildesheim Allan,
Doolan Denise L.,
Coghill Anna E.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.32741
Subject(s) - epstein–barr virus , immunology , serology , antibody , nodular sclerosis , elispot , bzlf1 , biology , immune system , lymphoma , ccl17 , virus , population , immunoglobulin g , virology , chemokine , medicine , herpesviridae , t cell , viral disease , hodgkin lymphoma , chemokine receptor , environmental health
The humoral immune response to Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) stratified by EBV tumor status is unclear. We examined IgG and IgA antibody responses against 202 protein sequences representing 86 EBV proteins using a microarray and sera from 139 EBV‐positive cHL cases, 70 EBV‐negative cHL cases and 141 population‐based controls frequency matched to EBV‐positive cHL cases on sex and age by area (UK, Denmark and Sweden). We leveraged existing data on the proportion of circulating B‐cells infected by EBV and levels of serum CCL17, a chemokine secreted by cHL tumor cells, from a subset of the cHL cases in the UK. Total IgG but not IgA response level was significantly different between EBV‐positive cHL cases and controls. The distinct serological response included significant elevations in 16 IgG antibodies and 2 IgA antibodies, with odds ratios highest vs . lowest tertile > 3 observed for the following EBV proteins: LMP1 (oncogene), BcLF1 (VCAp160, two variants) and BBLF1 (two variants). Our cHL IgG signature correlated with the proportion of circulating EBV‐infected B‐cells, but not serum CCL17 levels. We observed no differences in the anti‐EBV antibody profile between EBV‐negative cHL cases and controls. BdRF1(VCAp40)‐IgG and BZLF1(Zta)‐IgG were identified as the serological markers best able to distinguish EBV‐positive from EBV‐negative cHL tumors. Our results support the hypothesis that differences in the EBV antibody profile are specific to patients with EBV‐positive cHL and are not universally observed as part of a systematically dysregulated immune response present in all cHL cases.