Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2022 Jun 6;16(6):e0009876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009876

Comparison of the Serion IgM ELISA and Microscopic Agglutination Test for diagnosis of Leptospira spp. infections in sera from different geographical origins and estimation of Leptospira seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous population from Colombia

Anou Dreyfus 1,2,3,*, Marie-Thérèse Ruf 1,2, Marga Goris 4, Sven Poppert 1,2, Anne Mayer-Scholl 5, Nadine Loosli 1,2, Nadja S Bier 5, Daniel H Paris 1,2, Tshokey Tshokey 6,7, John Stenos 8, Eliharintsoa Rajaonarimirana 3, Gustavo Concha 9, Jorge Orozco 10, Johana Colorado 11, Andrés Aristizábal 12, Juan C Dib 12,13, Simone Kann 14
Editor: Elsio Wunder Jr15
PMCID: PMC9223614  PMID: 35666764

Abstract

Leptospirosis is among the most important zoonotic diseases in (sub-)tropical countries. The research objective was to evaluate the accuracy of the Serion IgM ELISA EST125M against the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT = imperfect reference test); to assess its ability to diagnose acute leptospirosis infections and to detect previous exposure to leptospires in an endemic setting. In addition, to estimate the overall Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous population in North-East Colombia. We analysed serum samples from confirmed leptospirosis patients from the Netherlands (N = 14), blood donor sera from Switzerland (N = 20), and sera from a cross-sectional study in Colombia (N = 321). All leptospirosis ELISA-positive, and a random of negative samples from Colombia were tested by the MAT for confirmation. The ELISA performed with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 77% - 100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 83% - 100%) based on MAT confirmed Leptospira spp. positive and negative samples. In the cross-sectional study in Colombia, the ELISA performed with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 2–100%) and a specificity of 21% (95% CI 15–28%). Assuming a 5% Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in this population, the positive predictive value was 6% and the negative predictive value 100%. The Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwas tested by the ELISA was 39%; however, by MAT only 0.3%. The ELISA is suitable to diagnose leptospirosis in acutely ill patients in Europe several days after onset of disease. For cross-sectional studies it is not recommended due to its low specificity. Despite the evidence of a high leptospirosis prevalence in other study areas and populations in Colombia, the Wiwa do not seem to be highly exposed to Leptospira spp.. Nevertheless, leptospirosis should be considered and tested in patients presenting with febrile illness.

Author summary

Leptospirosis is among the most important zoonotic diseases in (sub-)tropical countries. The correct diagnosis of leptospirosis is very important to take a medical or public health decision. Therefore, we tested a serological test (ELISA) for its ability to correctly diagnose a negative sample as truly negative and a positive sample as truly positive. We tested the ELISA with European acute leptospirosis confirmed positive and negative samples and compared results with another serological test (microscopic agglutination test), which is the recognized reference test. Further, the ELISA was assessed for its ability to detect previous exposure to leptospires in serum samples from the indigenous Wiwa population from Colombia, where leptospirosis is expected to be endemic.

The ELISA performed very well with sera from patients with acute leptospirosis, however had difficulties to diagnose negative samples as truly negative in the Colombian field samples; hence unexposed persons were falsely diagnosed to be positive. Therefore, we recommend using the ELISA to detect acute leptospirosis several days after onset of illness in a non-endemic environment, but are not convinced of its usefulness to screen a population for previous Leptospira spp. exposure.

1. Introduction

Leptospirosis is a worldwide prevalent zoonotic disease and among the most widely spread endemic diseases in subtropical and tropical countries. Transmission follows exposure to urine or tissues of infected mammals, either through direct contact or via contaminated water or soil. Leptospira are spirochete bacteria that comprise currently 68 species and more than 250 different serovars [14]. A large range of mammalian hosts (i.e. rodents, cattle, dogs, pigs, etc.) carry host adapted serovars in their renal tubules and excrete them into the environment over months to years. A warm, humid environment with humans and animals in close vicinity of common water sources is the ideal setting for leptospires to become endemic. Humans may develop severe or even life-threatening illness following infection as accidental hosts [1,5,6].

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the worldwide annual incidence of leptospirosis at 1.03 million cases and 58,900 deaths [7] with the highest burden occurring in resource-poor tropical countries, including countries of Latin America [8] and Asia [9].

In this study we tested human sera for the presence of anti-leptospiral antibodies from three countries: the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Colombia with an IgM ELISA (Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM, Institut Virion\Serion GmbH, EST125M), in the text referred to as “ELISA”) and the reference Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT).

In the Netherlands, leptospirosis is endemic and has been a mandatory reportable disease since 1928. During 1925–2008, the average incidence was 0.25 cases/100,000 population [10]. In 2014 there was a marked increase to 0.57 cases/100,000 population [11], which more or less remained at this level up to 2020. The reported incidence likely represents the more severe end of the clinical spectrum for leptospirosis, because mild forms of this disease more commonly go unrecognized [1].

In Switzerland a mandatory reporting system for human leptospirosis is not in place and therefore the leptospirosis incidence and burden in Switzerland are unknown. However, if leptospirosis was prevalent at high levels, at least severe cases would have been recognized, as in general, infectious diseases with severe symptoms are followed up diagnostically. Sporadically, human case reports are published, such as the cluster of leptospirosis cases among river surfers in Northern Switzerland [12], or acute autochthonic leptospirosis in patients in Southern Switzerland [13].

In Colombia, human leptospirosis is under mandatory notification rule since 2007 [14]. In 2010, an incidence of 2.9 cases and in 2012 of 2.2 per 100,000 inhabitants was reported [15]. However, leptospirosis is most likely underreported due to unspecific symptoms, lack of awareness and reliable diagnostic tests.

Leptospires induce a serovar-specific immune response consisting of a cellular (type 1) and humoral (type 2) mediated immunity. Sero-conversion may occur after 2–10 days after onset of disease, therefore, serological antibody detecting tests will only become sensitive several days after onset of symptoms. IgM cass antibodies usually appear earlier than IgG class antibodies, and remain for months or years at a low detectable titre. IgG antibodies may not be detected at all, or for only a short period, or persist for several years [5,16]. The duration of detectable antibodies in humans after natural infection with Leptospira spp. varied substantially within and between studies, with sero-positive persons becoming sero-negative between 6 and 60 months after infection. Detection methods for leptospires are either direct, identifying Leptospira spp. antigen or genomic substances, or indirect, identifying host antibodies. Diagnosis of acute leptospirosis is increasingly made using PCR, as leptospires are present in blood and cerebrospinal fluid in the first week after onset of symptoms and then in urine until the third week [6]. PCR for detection of pathogenic leptospires is sensitive and specific in the acute phase, but not in the convalescent and cannot distinguish between serogroups or serovars, which is relevant for attributing a source in epidemiological studies. However, molecular methods to identify the genome species and to discriminate between infecting strains from DNA extracted directly from the primary sample [17,18], are increasingly important in epidemiological studies [19] and are continuously improved [20]. For human and veterinary serological studies, at present the gold standard remains the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT), which is not specific for any particular class of antibody, but differentiates between serogroups and serovars [5]. To diagnose an acute infection with Leptospira, either a MAT titre ≥400 (probable case) or a fourfold rise in titre between sera taken five to 10 days apart (confirmed case) is recommended. A single MAT titre is mainly useful to detect previous exposure in cross-sectional studies (MAT titre ≥100). The MAT has a poor sensitivity (22.6%) during the acute phase of disease [21,22]. As shown in a study by Goris et al., the sensitivity and specificity of the MAT improves with convalescent serum of patients, who found a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 98% [23]. The MAT can be adapted to any epidemiological situation and region, as its panel of serogroups and serovars may be modified for the local setting, if endemic serogroups are known. Unfortunately, the MAT is very laborious, cost intense and subjective. Therefore, it is usually only implemented in reference laboratories. Other laboratories prefer screening sera for anti-leptospiral antibodies by ELISA, subsequently confirming the positive samples by MAT in the reference laboratory. Serological assays like ELISAs and Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) share disadvantages of low sensitivity in the early phase of disease, however, in convalescent serum, accuracy becomes much better [24,25]. In addition, the performance of an ELISA or rapid diagnostic test may be hampered by the existence of different endemic Leptospira spp. serogroups, non-specific reactions or by other previous or current infections in the tested patient/study participant. It is therefore important to evaluate these tests for a specific epidemiological “setting”.

The objectives of our study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM using the MAT as imperfect reference test with patient sera from confirmed leptospirosis cases, blood donor sera, with sera from patients with other infections than leptospirosis (all European) and sera from a cross-sectional study in the indigenous population called “Wiwas” of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, North-east of Colombia.

In addition, we aimed at estimating the overall Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous tribe in Colombia.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Study settings

2.1.1 Patient sera from the Netherlands who suffered from acute leptospirosis (group A)

These sera were used to test the ability of the ELISA to diagnose clinical leptospirosis. Paired sera (including an admission and follow-up sample) from patients, suspected to suffer from leptospirosis, were submitted to the OIE (“World Organisation for Animal Health”) and National Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Leptospirosis (NLR), which is located at the Academic Medical Center, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University of Amsterdam and were analyzed by qPCR and/or culture and/or MAT for confirmation of leptospirosis (see case definition). General practitioners and consulting clinicians suspecting leptospirosis routinely send clinical specimens to the NRL for laboratory evaluation, where 99% of suspected cases are investigated.

Of these patients, 14 convalescent/follow-up samples were taken, 22 to 50 (median 32) days post onset of illness and sent to the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland (Swiss TPH) for the ELISA evaluation. The infecting serogroups were Icterohaemorrhagiae, Sejroe, Shermani, Bataviae or Pomona with a geometric mean of the corresponding (highest) MAT titre of 640 (range 160–5120). See Supporting Information for detailed characterizaition of these samples.

2.1.2 Sera from healthy blood donors from Switzerland (group B)

Twenty sera from healthy blood donors collected in Switzerland available at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) were included in the validation with the objective to test the ability to diagnose persons without leptospirosis diagnosis as negative. Sera were anonymized and no clinical, travel or occupational background was available. These sera were classified as originating from persons without clinical leptospirosis and most likely seronegative for Leptospira spp..

2.1.3 Patient sera with a confirmed diagnosis of another infection (group C)

In order to determine specificity and assess potential serological cross-reactivity of the ELISA, sera collected during routine diagnostics at the diagnostic center of the Swiss TPH were tested of patients with and without travel history. Included were sera reactive with antigens of different helminths, protozoan, bacterial and viral infections (see Table 1). The selection of these sera was based on availability and not on scientific evidence of cross-reactions between Leptospira spp. and these particular pathogens. These sera were classified as originating from persons without clinical leptospirosis and most likely seronegative for Leptospira spp..

Table 1. Sera from clinically ill patients with a confirmed parasitic, bacterial or viral infection tested by the Serion IgM ELISA (REF EST125M) for anti-leptospiral antibodies and partially confirmed by the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT).
Pathogen No of samples tested ELISA test result MAT test result
Toxocara canis 2 Negative (2/2) -
Fasciola hepatica 2 Negative (2/2) -
Echinococcus spp. 2 Negative (2/2) -
Filaria spp. 5 Negative (5/5) -
Schistosoma spp 5 Negative (5/5) -
Trichinella spiralis 3 Negative (3/3) -
Trichinella spiralis 2 Negative (2/2) Negative (2)
Strongyloides stercoralis 2 Negative (2/2) -
Entameoba histolytica 2 Negative (2/2) -
Leishmania spp. 5 Negative (5/5) Negative (1)
Trypanosoma cruzi 2 Negative (2/2) -
Plasmodium spp. 3 Negative (3/3) -
Dengue 5 Negative (5/5) -
Rickettsia spp. 1 Negative (1/1) -
Total 41

2.1.4 Sera from the Wiwa population, Colombia (group D)

These sera were used for two purposes: (i) to test the capacity of the ELISA to detect past Leptospira spp. exposure and (ii) to estimate the Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwa population. The sera were collected during a program against Chagas Disease in July and November 2014, hence in the rainy and dry season from an indigenous tribe called Wiwa [26]. The Wiwa live in retracted areas of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, north-east of Colombia. Since they usually remain inside their territory, little is known e.g. about their burden of leptospirosis. Their access to medical care is sparse and infectious diseases are very common, due to risk factors like climatic conditions, poor socioeconomic status, proximity to livestock, the lack of access to clean drinking water (river, unprotected wells) and sanitation, simple housing (mud walls, uncoated floor, palm roofs), traditional agriculture practices, etc. In total 489 serum samples from volunteers (healthy or ill) were collected, after obtaining written informed consent. Of these samples, a by village stratified random sample of 321 persons was drawn from the villages Tezhumake ((n = 119, 37%), Department Cesar), Ashintuwa (n = 66, 21%), Cherua (n = 61, 19%) and Seminke (n = 75, 23%) (Department La Guajira). The sera were stored at -20°C in the Laboratorio Salud Publica in Valledupar and transported by World Courier to the Julius Maximilian University, Wuerzburg, Germany. In 2019, the samples were shipped to the Swiss TPH to be tested for leptospiral antibodies by the ELISA and thereafter to the National Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Leptospirosis (NLR), University of Amsterdam to be tested by MAT as confirmatory test. During all shipments the cooling chain was maintained. Table 2 provides an overview of laboratories involved and diagnostic tests used.

Table 2. Overview of origin of serum samples, diagnostic tests and laboratories involved in the evaluation of the Serion IgM ELISA (REF EST125M), which was performed at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH), Basel, Switzerland.
Group Origin/ laboratory Data source/ study design Leptospirosis status No of samples tested by ELISA1 No of samples tested by MAT Laboratory conducting MAT Other diagnostic tests performed
A NLR, the Netherlands Leptospirosis patient sera from hospitals sent to the NLR Confirmed = “true positives” 14 14 NLR qPCR, culture or IgM In-house ELISA at NLR
B Swiss TPH, Switzerland Blood donor sera “Supposedly” negative 20 0 not done not specified
C Swiss TPH, Switzerland Sera of patients with confirmed infections “Supposedly” negative 41 3 NLR see Table 3
D MMI, Germany/ Colombia Cross-sectional study in Colombian Wiwa population Exposed and unexposed field samples 321 156 NLR not specified

1Serion IgM ELISA EST125M. Abbreviations: qPCR real time Polymerase Chain Reaction; MAT Microscopic Agglutination Test; ELISA Enzyme linked Immunosorbent Assay; NLR National Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Leptospirosis at the Academic Medical Centre, Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; MMI Medical Mission Institute, Wuerzburg, Germany

2.2 Ethical statement

The use of the sera from patients in the Netherlands (group A) was exempted from ethical review of human subject research by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam (written protocol W12_075#12.17.0092). All data have been anonymized and were not attributable to individual patients. For patient sera with a confirmed diagnosis of a viral, bacterial or parasitic infection (group C) a written permission to use the sera for test evaluations was obtained (“Unbedenklichkeitsbescheinigung”: “UBE-15/22”) from the Swiss ethics committee “Ethik Kommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz” (EKNZ). According to the EKNZ, based on the Swiss law on science in humans (“Humanforschungsgesetz”), the use of anonymized, bio banked sera (as the blood donor sera, group B) does not require an ethics agreement for the development and validation of diagnostic tests and was therefore not obtained. The cross-sectional study (group D) was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Santa Marta, Colombia (Acta No 032018) for the Colombian study population. For children, formal consent was obtained from the parent or legal guardian.

2.3 Serological testing

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the ELISA, we tested all sera by ELISA and thereafter all ELISA-positive and a random sample of the ELISA-negative sera by MAT for the above described study populations from Colombia. The serum collection from leptospirosis patients in the Netherlands had already been confirmed by MAT before being tested by the ELISA (S1 File). Table 2 provides an overview of laboratories involved and diagnostic tests used.

2.3.1 Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay

For the detection of anti-leptospiral IgM antibodies the Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM was used (Institut Virion\Serion GmbH, EST125M) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, for the detection of IgM antibodies a pre-incubation step to absorb the rheumatoid factor with Rf-absorbens for 15 min at room temperature is necessary. For the analysis, the required amount of pre-coated wells (sample(s) + negative control + standard 1 + standard 2 + substrate blank) is placed into the strip holder. Of the appropriate sample dilution 100 μl are added to the respective well for 60 minutes followed by four washing steps and the addition of 100 μl of the ready-to-use conjugate (alkaline phosphatase) for 30 minutes and again followed by 4 washing steps. Afterwards 100 μl of the p-Nitrophenylphospate substrate is added and again incubated for 30 min. Finally, 100 μl ready-to use stop-solution is added and the OD is measured at a wavelength of 405 nm against the substrate blank measured at a wavelength of 620 nm. For the evaluation, the specified calculation excel sheet from the manufacturer was used, interpreting the OD values automatically as positive, negative or ambiguous.

2.3.2 Microscopic agglutination test

The presence of antibodies against specific panels of pathogenic Leptospira spp. was assessed by MAT according to OIE standards [21,27]. Live cultures of Leptospira spp. reference strains were used (Table 3). The selection of the Leptospira test panel appropriate for the study regions is based on the published information and on the available isolated strains and serogroups at the reference laboratory from Colombia and the Netherlands and on commonly prevalent serogroups worldwide, recommended by WHO [28,29]. The sera were screened at a dilution of 1:20. Those with a positive reaction were titrated in a serial two-fold dilution to determine the end-point titre defined as the reciprocal of the highest serum dilution at which ≥ 50% of the leptospires remain agglutinated.

Table 3. Strains, serogroups and serovars of Leptospira spp. used as live antigens in the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT) for the populations in the Netherlands (N = 14), and Colombia (N = 156).
Genomspecies Serogroup Serovar Strains used for Colombia1 Strains used for the Netherlands1
L. biflexa Andaman Andamana - CH11
L. interrogans Australis Australis Ballico Ballico
L. interrogans Australis Bratislava - Jez Bratislava
L. interrogans Autumnalis Autumnalis Akiyami A
L. interrogans Autumnalis Rachmati - Rachmat
L. interrogans Bataviae Bataviae Swart Swart
L. interrogans Canicola Canicola Hond Utrecht IV Hond Utrecht IV
L. weilli Celledoni Celledoni - Celledoni
L. interrogans Hebdomadis Hebdomadis Hebdomadis Hebdomadis
L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Copenhageni M20 Wijnberg
L. interrogans Icterohaemorrhagiae Icterohaemorrhagiae RGA Kantorowic
L. interrogans Pomona Pomona Pomona Pomona
L. noguchii Pomona Proechimys - 1161 U
L. interrogans Pyrogenes Pyrogenes Salinem Salinem
L. interrogans Sejroe Hardjo type Prajitno Hardjoprajitno Hardjoprajitno
L. borgpetersenii Sejroe Hardjo type Bovis - Lely 607
L. borgpetersenii Ballum Ballum Castellon 3 Mus 127
L. borgpetersenii Javanica Javanica Veldrat Batavia 46 -
L. borgpetersenii Javanica Poi - Poi
L. interrogans Sejroe Saxkoebing - Mus 24
L. borgpetersenii Sejroe Sejroe M84 M 84
L. borgpetersenii Tarassovi Tarassovi Perepelitsin Perepelitsin
L. kirschneri Grippotyphosa Grippotyphosa Moskva V Duyster and Mandemakers
L. kirschneri Cynopteri Cynopteri 3522 C 3522 C
L. noguchii Djasiman Huallaga M7 -
L. santarosai Mini Ruparupae M3 -
L. borgpetersenii Mini Mini - Sari
L. noguchii Panama Panama CZ 214K CZ 214K
L. santarosai Sarmin Weaveri CZ 390 -
L. interrogans Sejroe Wolffi 3705 -
L. biflexa Semaranga Patoc Patoc I Patoc I
L. meyeri Semaranga Semaranga - Veldrat Sem 173
L. santarosai Shermani Shermani 1342 K 1342 K

1Tested at the National Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Leptospirosis at the Academic Medical Centre, Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2.3.3 Reproducibility and repeatability

In order to assess the reproducibility and repeatability the inter-assay variability was determined. For the inter-assay variability, the mean value, the standard deviation as well as the coefficient of variance was calculated for two samples, tested at eight different days.

2.4 Case definitions

The confirmation of suspected cases of acute leptospirosis in the Netherlands requires a fourfold rise in MAT titer between two samples taken approximately 10 days apart or a PCR and/or culture positivity and/or a leptospirosis diagnosis based on clinical symptoms combined with a MAT (titre ≥1:160). While in an endemic setting a MAT titer of ≥1:800 is required to confirm leptospirosis, in the Netherlands a MAT titre ≥1:160 is considered sufficient due to a low infection background in the Netherlands. This case definition was validated by the NLR on culture positive patients (M. Goris, personal communications) and was only used on the “Dutch sera” (group A).

For the sero-epidemiological studies from countries, where leptospirosis is considered endemic, sera with a single MAT titre of ≥ 100 were considered seropositive, i.e. indicating past exposure to leptospires [30], independent of the ELISA result.

ELISA-negative sera and those with a MAT titre <100 were defined seronegative (Fig 1).

Fig 1. The 321 sera of the Colombian study population were screened by the Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM (Institut Virion\Serion GmbH, REF EST125M).

Fig 1

All ELISA-positive (n = 124) and a random sample of the ELISA-negative samples (n = 32) were tested for confirmation by the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT = imperfect reference test) to assess the performance of the ELISA (in rose). Only one of the ELISA-positive serum samples tested Leptospira seropositive by the MAT, while 123 ELISA positive samples were negative in the MAT. All ELISA negative results, tested by MAT were confirmed by the MAT as negative.

2.5 Analysis

2.5.1 Sample size calculations

2.5.1.1 Validation of the ELISA in comparison to the MAT using sera from the cross-sectional study in the Colombian Wiwa population potentially exposed to Leptospira spp. For the validation of the ELISA in comparison to the MAT, we calculated the required sample size to detect a two-tailed statistically significant difference between two independent proportions (P = sensitivity or specificity) [31], using epitools from https://epitools.ausvet.com.au [32]. With P1 (specificity of MAT) being 90% [23] and P2 (specificity of ELISA) 50%, the confidence level 95% and the power 80, the required sample size was 50. With P1 (sensitivity of MAT) being 85% [23] and P2 (sensitivity of ELISA) 99%, the confidence level 95% and the power 80, the required sample size was 144.

2.5.1.2 Validation of the performance of the ELISA using confirmed leptospirosis positive and negative samples. When assessing the ELISA with samples for which the disease status had been confirmed by several diagnostic tests and clinical exam (Dutch patient samples) or where absence of disease was highly likely (blood donor samples), we applied the method described by Hajian-Tilaki [33] using the (epiR) package in R [34] (R code in S1 File) to determine the sample size. We estimated the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to be 99%, setting the disease prevalence at 40% (14/34, see Table 4), and the confidence at 95%. Further, we expected that our estimate of sensitivity or specificity was within 0.07 of the true population. To determine sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA in this setting, we estimated a sample size of 20, and 13, respectively.

Table 4. Performance of the Serion IgM ELISA (REF EST125M) tested with sera from persons from the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Colombia with different disease/exposure status compared to the results of the MAT, calculated by the MedCalc online tool (https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php).
Group Origin of study population N ELISA pos/neg MAT pos/neg Sens (%) 95% CI Spec (%) 95%
CI
PPV % 95% CI NPV
%
95% CI
A The Netherlands (clinical cases) and 14
14/0 14/0 100.0

-
76.8-100.0

-


100.0


83.2-100.0
NA2

-
-

-
-

NA 2
-

-
B Switzerland (blood donors) 20 0/20 not tested
C Switzerland (patients with other infections) 41 0/41 only 3 of 41 tested – these were negative NA2 NA2 100.08 91.4-100.0 NA2 - NA2 -
D
(i)
(ii)
Colombia (cross-sectional)
ELISA screening

3215

126/195

NA4

NA4

-

NA4

-

NA4

-

NA4

-
Confirmation by MAT 1565 124/327 1/155 100.0 2.5-100.0 20.6 14.6-27.9 6.21 5.8-6.7 100.01 -3

CI = Confidence interval; PPV = Positive Predictive Value; NPV = Negative Predictive Value, Sens = Sensitivity of ELISA; Spec = Specificity of ELISA; MAT Microscopic Agglutination Test; ELISA = Enzyme linked Immunosorbent Assay

1based on an estimated seroprevalence of 5%

2NA = not applicable, as only negative results (no cross-reactions) were found

3the MedCalc online tool did not impute a result

4NA = not applicable, as this row shows the ELISA screening test results

5 we tested 321 sera by the ELISA, of which 126 (39%) were ELISA positive, and 195 (61%) were negative. Of these 321 samples, a sample of 156 were tested by MAT, including 124 ELISA-positives and a random sample of the ELISA-negatives (n = 32); only one of the ELISA-positive serum samples tested Leptospira seropositive by the MAT, while 123 ELISA positive samples were negative in the MAT. All ELISA negative results were confirmed by the MAT as negative

7These samples were actively selected to be tested by the confirmatory test

8the specificity, was not calculated based on MAT results, but from diagnostic test results being negative for other pathogens.

2.5.1.3 Estimation of a single proportion: the Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwa population from Colombia. To estimate the Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwa population, we estimated a sample size of 139 participants for a precision of 0.05, a confidence of 0.95% and an estimated apparent 10% Leptospira spp. seroprevalence using epitools from https://epitools.ausvet.com.au [32].

2.5.2 Determination of the performance of the ELISA

We used the MedCalc online tool (https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php) [35] to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and 95% confidence intervals of the “ELISA” based on test results with sera from the Colombian study population (D) or “sera collections” (A-B) (Table 4).

2.5.3 Estimation of Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Colombian population

Data was recorded in Microsoft Excel and analyzed with Stata 15. Proportions of seropositive persons overall were calculated. Confidence intervals of proportions (95% CI) were calculated by the Fleiss Method [36].

3. Results

3.1 Performance of the “ELISA” assessing acute leptospirosis (group A and B)

We tested 14 sera from Dutch confirmed leptospirosis cases (“true positives”) with the ELISA and all resulted with a positive ELISA test. The 20 blood donor sera (“most likely negatives”) tested all negative. Hence, there were no false positive or false negative results, leading to a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 77% - 100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 83% - 100%). Therefore, the ELISA was classified/confirmed to be highly sensitive and specific when tested with European convalescent and negative sera (Table 4).

3.2 Cross-reactions with other pathogens (group C)

We then tested the ELISA for cross-reactivity with sera from 41 patients, which were clinically and diagnostically confirmed to have had either a parasitic, viral or bacterial infection but no diagnosis of leptospirosis (Table 1). These tested negative by ELISA, leading to a specificity of 100% (95% CI 91–100).

Hence, the ELISA did not cross-react with antibodies against other diseases listed in Table 1.

3.3 Performance of the “ELISA” assessing past exposure to Leptospira spp. with sera from the Wiwa population in the Sierra Nevada, Colombia (group D)

We tested 321 sera by the ELISA, of which 126 (39%) were ELISA positive, and 195 (61%) negative. We sent 156 of these samples to the NRL, including all ELISA-positives (n = 124), apart from two positives due to low serum quantity and a random sample of the ELISA-negatives (n = 32) to be confirmed by MAT.

Only one of the ELISA-positive serum samples tested Leptospira seropositive by the MAT, while 123 ELISA positive samples were negative in the MAT (MAT titre < 100, see Table 5), and hence classified as “false positives”. All ELISA negative results were confirmed by the MAT as negative, resulting with 32 “true negatives” and zero “false negatives”. If we consider the MAT as the reference test, the ELISA performed in the Colombian study population with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 2–100%) and a specificity of 21% (95% CI 15–28%). Assuming a 5% Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in this population, the PPV was 6% (95% CI 6–7) and the NPV 100% (Fig 1, Table 4).

Table 5. Distribution of Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT) antibody titer of 156 serum samples originating from the Colombian Wiwa tribe against the Leptospira serovar panel listed below (strains and serogroups are listed in Table 3).

A MAT titer cut-off of ≥1:100 was classified as seropositive. Given the large serovar panel, the quantity of serum was not always sufficient to test all samples against all serovars. The number and percentage of samples not tested for a given serovar are visible in the last column.

MAT Titer
Serovar 0 20 40 80 160 Not tested
Shermani N (%) 150 (96.1) 5 (3.2) 1 (0.6) - - -
Patoc N (%) 145 (92.9) 9 (5.8) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) - -
Wolffi N (%) 156 (100.0) - - - - -
Hardjo N (%) 155 (1.0) 1 (0.6) - - - -
Sejroe N (%) 155 (99.4) - - - - 1 (0.6)
Weaveri N (%) 156 (100.0) - - - - -
Pyrogenes N (%) 152 (97.4) 2 (1.3) 2 (1.3) - - -
Pomona N (%) 154 (98.7) 2 (1.3) - - - -
Panama N (%) 149 (95.5) 4 (2.6) 1 (0.6) 2 (1.3) - -
Ruparupae N (%) 98 (62.8) 1 (0.6) - - - 57 (36.5)
Javanica N (%) 98 (62.8) - 1.0 (0.6) - - 57 (36.5)
Icterohaemorrhagiae N (%) 152 (97.4) 4 (2.6) - - - -
Copenhageni N (%) 119 (76.2) - - - - 37 (23.7)
Hebdomadis N (%) 154 (98.7) 2 (1.3) - - - -
Grippotyphosa N (%) 150 (96.1) 2 (1.3) - - - 4 (2.6)
Huallaga N (%) 95 (60.9) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) - 57 (36.5)
Cynopteri N (%) 151 (96.8) 5 (3.3) - - - -
Canicola N (%) 152 (97.4) 3 (1.9) 1 (0.6) - - -
Bataviae N (%) 98 (62.8) 1 (0.6) - - - 57 (36.5)
Castelloni N (%) 156 (100.0) - - - - -
Autumnalis N (%) 115 (73.7) - - - - 41 (26.3)
Australis N (%) 150 (96.1) 4 (2.6) - 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) -

N Number of samples; % proportion of samples;—no sample in this category

3.4. Reproducibility and repeatability

The inter-assay coefficient of variance over eight measurements from different days and two different samples was 8% and 10% respectively with a standard deviation of 0.1 and 0.11.

3.5 Prevalence of leptospiral antibodies tested by ELISA and MAT with sera from the Wiwa population in the Sierra Nevada, Colombia (group D)

The seroprevalence against Leptospira spp. tested by the ELISA, was 39% (95% CI 35–46; 126/321). However, after confirmation of 156 samples in the MAT, seroprevalence (against any serovar) of the entire study population was much lower at 0.3% (95% CI 0.05–2; 1/319—two positive samples had insufficient serum quantity and could not be tested by MAT; therefore, the denominator was reduced from 321 to 319). The serogroup (sg) reacting in the MAT was sg Australis with a titer of 160. Several sera reacted with low MAT titers <100, however these were considered seronegative, as recommended by Levett [30]. Given the large serovar panel, the quantity of serum was not always sufficient to test all samples against all serovars. The number of samples tested by serovar are listed in Table 5.

4. Discussion

We evaluated a commercially available Leptospira IgM ELISA in variable epidemiological settings.

With the confirmed “leptospirosis patient sera” from the Netherlands (A) we tested the ability of the ELISA to detect clinically ill patients, and with the blood donor samples (B) the ability to diagnose most likely leptospirosis negative (i.e. without disease) persons as negative. The ELISA always detected a Leptospira spp. infection in convalescent serum of ill patients and was at all times negative when serum was tested from most likely Leptospira spp. negative Swiss/ European population. Hence the sensitivity and specificity were high and similar to the manufacturer`s documentation of a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of >99. A similar French study conducted by Trombert-Paolantoni et al. in 2009, revealed for the same commercial IgM ELISA using MAT confirmed negative (N = 49) and positive (N = 30) serological samples, a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 73–98) and specificity of 82% (95% CI 68–9) (the calculation of these performance parameters were made by us, as the authors only published the total and the number of positive and negative samples for the ELISA and the MAT)[37]. The data suggests, that the Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM is useful to diagnose leptospirosis in a setting with low likelihood of previous exposure as in acutely ill Europeans several days after onset of symptoms/disease. Nevertheless, a confirmatory test is always needed/recommended to verify the result.

With the Colombian (D) cross-sectional study population we evaluated the capacity of the ELISA to detect “past exposure” to leptospires. In this Latin-American “field setting”, the sensitivity remained high (100% (95% CI 2–100%)), however the specificity decreased strongly, being reduced to 20.6% (95% CI 15–28%) and having a positive predictive value of only 6%.

Hence, for cross-sectional studies this ELISA is not recommended, due to its low specificity. While the point estimate of the sensitivity of the ELISA was high in the Wiwa population, the very large 95% confidence interval of 2–100% indicates a large uncertainty. To correct for the high proportion of false positive results, a confirmatory test is a requirement, which represents a significant limitation and is economically not attractive, given the low PPV and the large number of false positive samples, which need confirmatory testing. The reason for those false-positive results may be due to the ELISA plates being coated with an L. biflexa antigen, a non-pathogenic Leptospira species found in the environment ubiquitously, leading to unspecific cross-reactions, as has been shown by Niloofa et al [38]. However, this cannot explain the entire problem. Given our evaluation results with the sera collections from the Netherlands and the Swiss TPH (donor sera and sera from patients with various bacterial, viral and parasitic infections), the “false positive” ELISA results of the Colombian sera cannot be attributed to a systematic error in the implementation of the diagnostic test.

Despite the high specificity demonstrated with the sera from patients infected by other pathogens, the high burden of other infectious diseases in the Wiwa study population might have contributed to non-specific reactions leading to the low specificity. Cross-reactions were shown in a validation study conducted by Trombert-Paolantoni et al., where one of 15 sera from patients with Influenza, 6/16 with Syphilis, 2/17 infected with EBV and 2/13 patients with Borreliosis reacted with a false positive result in the same IgM ELISA[37]. Moving the positivity cutoff for a positive ELISA result towards a higher optical density (OD) would reduce sensitivity, but increase specificity, which is not recommendable for a screening test. Other studies in endemic settings, reported as well low specificity for Leptospira IgM ELISAs. The “Standard Diagnostics Leptospira IgM ELISA” was assessed (2001–2003) for detection of acute leptospirosis in febrile adults admitted in Vientiane, Laos. Using the cut-off suggested by the manufacturer, the assay demonstrated limited diagnostic capacity with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 41% compared with the MAT [39]. Likewise, in a study in febrile patients in Thailand (2001–2002), the Panbio ELISA had, when using the cutoff value recommended by the manufacturer, a sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 55%, respectively[40]. A poor correlation between the MAT and an IgM ELISA was also observed by Hem et al. [41]; however, in patients with acute fever. The authors reasoned with missing serogroups in the MAT panel and with a higher sensitivity of the ELISA towards IgM antibodies. In our study, the MAT panel was large and specifically chosen for the study area and should not have contributed to the poor correlation.

The apparent prevalence of specific anti-leptospiral antibodies in the Wiwa population from Colombia was high when tested by the ELISA (39%) and very low when tested by MAT (0.3%). We assume, that the first value most likely is an over- and the second an underestimation. A strong discrepancy of tested prevalence of Leptospira-specific antibodies between this Serion ELISA and the MAT was also found in a cross-sectional study conducted in Bhutan, where an apparent Leptospira spp. seroprevalence of 18% (95% CI 15–20, 152/864) was measured by the same IgM ELISA and 2% (95% CI 1–3, 14/864 persons) by MAT. In this study population, the same ELISA performed with a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 57–98%) and a specificity of 63 (95% CI 57–67%), when compared to MAT [42]. The different ELISA specificities in the Colombian and Bhutanese population stress the importance of a robust validation for diagnostic tests in different populations and highlight that the positivity cutoff values may vary for different regions, settings or populations, and require adequate assessment.

It is challenging to get a precise picture on leptospirosis in Colombia, as research is concentrated on certain areas and not all published studies used recommended case definitions. A systematic literature review on the Leptospira spp. (sero-)prevalence in humans and animals in Colombia published between 2000 and 2012, using MAT (cut-offs not defined) and ELISA as diagnostic methods, found (sero-)prevalence to be between 6% and 35% in humans, 41% and 61% in cattle, 10% in pigs, 12% and 47% in canines, 23% in non-human primates, and between 25% and 83% in rodents [43]. A prospective study between 2012 and 2013 on undifferentiated tropical febrile illnesses (UTFI) in a tropical area of Cordoba, tested 100 fever patients for dengue, leptospirosis, hantavirus, malaria, rickettsia, brucellosis, hepatitis A and B. Leptospirosis was apparently the most common cause of UTFI with 27% testing positive by MAT. However, they did not show MAT results of all patients in the article and the titer cut-off chosen was too low to diagnose an acute infection in an endemic setting (1:160) [44]. Another study conducted from 2013 to 2014 in 100 hospital patients with non-malarial febrile syndrome from Meta Department in Villavicencio measured in 29% of paired sera a four-fold rise in MAT titer, with Canicola and Ballum being the most prevalent serogroups [45]. In Villeta, of 104 patients with UTFI, 24% were seropositive to Leptospira spp. (2011–2013) [46], however again with a very low MAT titre cut-off (1:20), and the article did not show the effective measured titres of each sample. A seroprevalence study from 2001–2002 in the Embera-Katio indigenous community found that the seropositivity to Leptospira spp. by MAT (cut-off not specified) was 18% [47]. Another seroprevalence study in 353 inhabitants of an urban district of Cali found a seroprevalence of 12% (MAT cut-off titer of ≥ 1:100)[48]. Despite this evidence of leptospirosis in other study areas and populations in Colombia and the favorable conditions for the development of leptospirosis in the Wiwa population, based on the results obtained in this study, the Wiwa do not seem to be highly exposed to Leptospira spp.. Nevertheless, efforts to further shed light into the leptospirosis burden in these communities should be pursued and testing for leptospirosis in acute febrile illness patients in (sub)tropical regions remains highly recommended.

4.1 Limitations

It is well-known that the MAT is an imperfect reference test with a sensitivity and specificity for acute serum of 55% and 97% for subclinical cases and 66% and 98% for clinical cases [49] and 88% and 98% respectively in convalescent serum [23]. Therefore, some of the ELISA false positives results may have actually been true positives (but not recognized by MAT). Hence, the low specificity of the ELISA in cross-sectional sera might be better than described here.

Ideally the samples would have been tested by another serological test and the ELISA then assessed by Bayesian latent class analysis, a method used when assessing the performance of a test with imperfect reference tests [25,50]. However, this was not possible due to budget limitations. In general, testing several available serological tests and identifying the most suitable one for a specific region, would be the ideal approach, but is usually not done due to budgetary reasons.

On the basis of previous ELISA test results at the medical diagnostic laboratory at the Swiss TPH [42], false negative results were not expected due to the high sensitivity of the ELISA, and therefore, not all ELISA-negative results were tested by MAT. Nevertheless, we counted them as true negatives in our seroprevalence estimation of the Colombian study population. Since all ELISA-negative sera, which were tested by the MAT were negative, we are confident of not having introduced error into our seroprevalence estimation. If only the 156 samples tested by the MAT would have been used to estimate seroprevalence, a selection bias would have been introduced (as we chose all positive ELISA results but only a random sample of the negative to be tested by the MAT).

The blood donor sera and the sera of patients with other infections but no diagnosis of leptospirosis were not tested by MAT due to budgetary reasons (with the exception of 3 samples). Nevertheless, we deem the sera suitable to be included in the ELISA evaluation as Leptospira spp. negative samples, as a recent clinical Leptospira spp. infection can most likely be ruled out. Because blood donors are healthy, leptospirosis is not endemic in Switzerland and patients with other infections than leptospirosis would have been tested for leptospirosis at the Swiss TPH if the disease had been suspected. Nevertheless, a low Leptospira spp. antibody titer cannot be ruled out 100%, given the lack of information on travel history from blood donors and a known travel history in some of the patients with other infections.

We generally associate IgM antibodies with acute disease and do not use them in diagnostics in cross-sectional studies in healthy populations. However, IgG antibody production is not always induced with a Leptospira spp. infection and IgM antibodies may last for several months to years [5]. Therefore, an IgM detection test can be useful in screening for Leptospira exposure in the recent past.

5. Conclusions

The Serion IgM ELISA is suitable to diagnose clinical leptospirosis in non-endemic settings such as in acutely ill Europeans several days after onset of disease, nevertheless a confirmatory test is always recommended. However, for cross-sectional studies, the ELISA is not recommended, due to its low specificity. Despite the evidence of a high prevalence of leptospirosis in other study areas and populations in Colombia and the favorable conditions for the development of leptospirosis in the Wiwa population, based on the results obtained in this study, the Wiwa do not seem to be highly exposed to Leptospira spp.. Nevertheless, leptospirosis should be considered and tested in patients presenting with febrile illness.

Informed consent statement

Written informed consent was obtained by each participant/patient/parent/legal guardian before participation in the study implemented in Colombia.

Supporting information

S1 File. Appendix A—Table with characterization of admission and follow-up serum samples from leptospirosis patients. Appendix B—R code for sample size calculation

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Klaus Reither for his constant support, Dr. Tracy Glass for statistical advice (both Swiss TPH) and Dr. Alba Luz-Luque Lommel for her support in Colombia. We also thank Professor Mark Stevenson (University of Melbourne) for providing the R code for the sample size calculation.

Data Availability

Data is available at: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/anousati/dreyfus-colombia-elisa-mat-results.

Funding Statement

The authors D.P., A.D., S.P. received funding from the R. Geigy Foundation: https://en.geigystiftung.ch. The authors S. K., A.D.received funding from the Else Kröner Fresenius-Stiftung: (EKFS), 2016_HA 190; https://www.ekfs.de/en The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hartskeerl R. A., Collares-Pereira M., and Ellis W. A. "Emergence, Control and Re-Emerging Leptospirosis: Dynamics of Infection in the Changing World." Clinical Microbiology and Infection 17, no. 4 (2011): 494–501. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03474.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Thibeaux Roman, Iraola Gregorio, Ignacio Ferrés Emilie Bierque, Girault Dominique, Marie-Estelle Soupé-Gilbert Mathieu Picardeau, and Goarant Cyrille. "Deciphering the Unexplored Leptospira Diversity from Soils Uncovers Genomic Evolution to Virulence." Microbial genomics 4, no. 1 (2018): e000144. doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ramadass P., Jarvis B. D. W., Corner R. J., Penny D., and Marshall R. B. "Genetic-Characterization of Pathogenic Leptospira Species by DNA Hybridization." International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 42, no. 2 (1992): 215–19. doi: 10.1099/00207713-42-2-215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Korba A. A., Lounici H., Kainiu M., Vincent A. T., Mariet J. F., Veyrier F. J., Goarant C., and Picardeau M. "Leptospira Ainlahdjerensis Sp. Nov., Leptospira Ainazelensis Sp. Nov., Leptospira Abararensis Sp. Nov. And Leptospira Chreensis Sp. Nov., Four New Species Isolated from Water Sources in Algeria." Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 71, no. 12 (2021): 005148. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.005148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Faine S., Adler B., Bolin C., and Perolat P. Leptospira and Leptospirosis. Vol. 2nd ed.,. Melbourne, Australia: MediSci, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Adler Ben., and Moctezuma Alejandro. de la Pena. "Leptospira and Leptospirosis." Veterinary Microbiology 140, no. 3–4 (2010): 287–96. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Costa Federico, Hagan José E., Calcagno Juan, Kane Michael, Torgerson Paul, Martinez-Silveira Martha S., Stein Claudia, Abela-Ridder Bernadette, and Ko Albert I. "Global Morbidity and Mortality of Leptospirosis: A Systematic Review." PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9, no. 9 (2015): e0003898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Torgerson P. R., Hagan J. E., Costa F., Calcagno J., Kane M., Martinez-Silveira M. S., Goris M. G. A., Stein C., Ko A. I., and Abela-Ridder B. "Global Burden of Leptospirosis: Estimated in Terms of Disability Adjusted Life Years." Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases 9, no. 10 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Victoriano A. F., Smythe L. D., Gloriani-Barzaga N., Cavinta L. L., Kasai T., Limpakarnjanarat K., Ong B. L., Gongal G., Hall J., Coulombe C. A., Yanagihara Y., Yoshida S., and Adler B. "Leptospirosis in the Asia Pacific Region." BMC Infect Dis 9 (2009): 147. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Goris Marga G. A., Boer Kimberly R., Duarte Tamara A. T. E., Kliffen Suzanne J., and Hartskeerl Rudy A. "Human Leptospirosis Trends, the Netherlands, 1925–2008." Emerging Infectious Diseases 19, no. 3 (2013): 371–78. doi: 10.3201/eid1903.111260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pijnacker R., Goris M. G., Te Wierik M. J., Broens E. M., van der Giessen J. W., de Rosa M., Wagenaar J. A., Hartskeerl R. A., Notermans D. W., Maassen K., and Schimmer B. "Marked Increase in Leptospirosis Infections in Humans and Dogs in the Netherlands, 2014." Euro Surveill 21, no. 17 (2016). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.17.30211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schreiber P. W., Aceto L., Korach R., Marreros N., Ryser-Degiorgis M. P., and Gunthard H. F. "Cluster of Leptospirosis Acquired through River Surfing in Switzerland." Open Forum Infect Dis 2, no. 3 (2015): 7. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofv102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bernasconi E., Gayer R., Busolini E., and Mombelli G. "Autochthonic and Imported Severe Leptospirosis in Southern Switzerland." Schweiz Med Wochenschr 130, no. 41 (2000): 1487–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gutierrez J. D., and Martinez-Vega R. A. "Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Human Leptospirosis and Its Relationship with Rainfall Anomalies in Colombia." Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 112, no. 3 (2018): 115–23. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/try032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gutiérrez J. D., Martínez-Vega R. A., Botello H., Ruiz-Herrera F. J., Arenas-López L. C., and Hernandez-Tellez K. D. "Environmental and Socioeconomic Determinants of Leptospirosis Incidence in Colombia." Cad Saude Publica 35, no. 3 (2019): e00118417. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00118417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.World Health Organisation. "Human Leptospirosis: Guidance for Diagnosis, Surveillance and Control." In World Health Organization 2003, 109, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Perez J., and Goarant C. "Rapid Leptospira Identification by Direct Sequencing of the Diagnostic Pcr Products in New Caledonia." BMC Microbiol 10 (2010): 325. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Weiss Sabrina., Angela. Menezes Kate. Woods Anisone. Chanthongthip Sabine. Dittrich Agatha. Opoku-Boateng Maimuna. Kimuli, and Victoria. Chalker. "An Extended Multilocus Sequence Typing (Mlst) Scheme for Rapid Direct Typing of Leptospira from Clinical Samples." Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases 10, no. 9 (2016): e0004996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ko Albert I., Goarant Cyrille, and Picardeau Mathieu. "Leptospira: The Dawn of the Molecular Genetics Era for an Emerging Zoonotic Pathogen." Nature Reviews Microbiology 7, no. 10 (2009): 736–47. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Guernier V., Allan K. J., and Goarant C. "Advances and Challenges in Barcoding Pathogenic and Environmental Leptospira." Parasitology 145, no. 5 (2018): 595–607. doi: 10.1017/S0031182017001147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Goris Marga G. A., and Hartskeerl Rudy A. "Leptospirosis Serodiagnosis by the Microscopic Agglutination Test." Current protocols in microbiology 32 (2014): 12E.5.1–12E.5.18. doi: 10.1002/9780471729259.mc12e05s32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Agampodi S. B., Dahanayaka N. J., Nöckler K., Mayer-Scholl A., and Vinetz J. M. "Redefining Gold Standard Testing for Diagnosing Leptospirosis: Further Evidence from a Well-Characterized, Flood-Related Outbreak in Sri Lanka." Am J Trop Med Hyg 95, no. 3 (2016): 531–36. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Goris M. "Diagnostic Tests for Human Leptospirosis." In Second meeting of the European Leptospirosis Society on Leptospirosis and other rodent borne hemorrhagic fevers. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Leptospirosis Society 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lubell Y., Althaus T., Blacksell S. D., Paris D. H., Mayxay M., Pan-Ngum W., White L. J., Day N. P., and Newton P. N. "Modelling the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Biomarker Tests as Compared with Pathogen-Specific Diagnostics in the Management of Undifferentiated Fever in Remote Tropical Settings." PloS one 11, no. 3 (2016): e0152420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lim C., Paris D. H., Blacksell S. D., Laongnualpanich A., Kantipong P., Chierakul W., Wuthiekanun V., Day N. P., Cooper B. S., and Limmathurotsakul D. "How to Determine the Accuracy of an Alternative Diagnostic Test When It Is Actually Better Than the Reference Tests: A Re-Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests for Scrub Typhus Using Bayesian Lcms." Plos One 10, no. 5 (2015): e0114930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kann Simone, Kunz Meik, Hansen Jessica, Sievertsen Jürgen, Crespo Jose J., Loperena Aristides, Arriens Sandra, and Dandekar Thomas. "Chagas Disease: Detection of Trypanosoma Cruzi by a New, High-Specific Real Time Pcr." Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 5 (2020). doi: 10.3390/jcm9051517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Office International des Epizooties (OIE),. "Leptospirosis." In Oie Terrestrial Manual, 251–64, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kmety E., and Dikken H. Classification of the Species Leptospira Interrogans and History of Its Serovars. Groningen, the Netherlands University Press Groningen, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.World Health, Organization. "Human Leptospirosis: Guidance for Diagnosis, Surveillance and Control." Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Levett P. N. "Leptospirosis." Clinical Microbiology Reviews 14, no. 2 (2001): 296–326. doi: 10.1128/CMR.14.2.296-326.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Li J., and Fine J. "On Sample Size for Sensitivity and Specificity in Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Studies." Stat Med 23, no. 16 (2004): 2537–50. doi: 10.1002/sim.1836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sergeant ESG. "Epitools Epidemiological Calculators." http://epitools.ausvet.com.au ( [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hajian-Tilaki K. "Sample Size Estimation in Diagnostic Test Studies of Biomedical Informatics." J Biomed Inform 48 (2014): 193–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Carstensen B., Plummer M., Laara E., and Hills M. "https://Cran.R-Project.Org/Package=Epi. Epi: A Package for Statistical Analysis in Epidemiology. R Package Version 2.44." ( [Google Scholar]
  • 35.MedCalc Software Ltd. "Diagnostic Test Evaluation Calculator." https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php (
  • 36.Fleiss J.L., ed. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Trombert-Paolantoni S., Thomas P., Hermet F., Clairet V., Litou N., and Maury L. "[Leptospirosis Screening: Performance of the Serion Elisa Classic Leptospira Igm Kit]." Pathol Biol (Paris) 58, no. 1 (2010): 95–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Niloofa R., Fernando N., de Silva N. L., Karunanayake L., Wickramasinghe H., Dikmadugoda N., Premawansa G., Wickramasinghe R., de Silva H. J., Premawansa S., Rajapakse S., and Handunnetti S. "Diagnosis of Leptospirosis: Comparison between Microscopic Agglutination Test, Igm-Elisa and Igm Rapid Immunochromatography Test." Plos One 10, no. 6 (2015): e0129236. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tanganuchitcharnchai Ampai, Smythe Lee, Dohnt Michael, Hartskeerl Rudy, Vongsouvath Manivanh, Davong Viengmone, Lattana Olay, Newton Paul N., and Blacksell Stuart D. "Evaluation of the Standard Diagnostics Leptospira Igm Elisa for Diagnosis of Acute Leptospirosis in Lao Pdr." Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 106, no. 9 (2012): 563–66. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2012.06.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Desakorn Varunee, Wuthiekanun Vanaporn, Thanachartwet Vipa, Sahassananda Duangjai, Chierakul Wirongrong, Apiwattanaporn Apichat, Day Nicholas P., Limmathurotsakul Direk, and Peacock Sharon J. "Accuracy of a Commercial Igm Elisa for the Diagnosis of Human Leptospirosis in Thailand." Am J Trop Med Hyg 86, no. 3 (2012): 524–27. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hem Sopheak, Ly Sowath, Votsi Irene, Vogt Florian, Asgari Nima, Buchy Philippe, Heng Seiha, Picardeau Mathieu, Sok Touch, Ly Sovann, Huy Rekol, Guillard Bertrand, Cauchemez Simon, and Tarantola Arnaud. "Estimating the Burden of Leptospirosis among Febrile Subjects Aged Below 20 Years in Kampong Cham Communities, Cambodia, 2007–2009." Plos One 11, no. 4 (2016): e0151555–e55. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dreyfus Anou, Ruf Marie-Thérèse, Anne Mayer-Scholl Theresa Zitzl, Loosli Nadine, Nadja Seyhan Bier Stephanie Hiereth, Ulrich Sebastian, Poppert Sven, Straubinger Reinhard K., Stenos John, and Tshokey Tshokey. "Exposure to Leptospira Spp. And Associated Risk Factors in the Human, Cattle and Dog Populations in Bhutan." Pathogens 10, no. 3 (2021): 308. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10030308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Carreño L. A., Salas D., and Beltrán K. B. "Prevalencia De Leptospirosis En Colombia: Revisión Sistemática De Literatura." Rev. salud pública. 19, no. 2 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mattar S., Tique V., Miranda J., Montes E., and Garzon D. "Undifferentiated Tropical Febrile Illness in Cordoba, Colombia: Not Everything Is Dengue." J Infect Public Health 10, no. 5 (2017): 507–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2016.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lerma L. Sánchez, Vargas C. J. García, Velilla S. Mattar, and González I. Rodríguez. "Seroprevalencia De Leptospirosis En Pacientes Con Síndrome Febril No Palúdico " Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical. 70, no. 1: 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Faccini-Martinez A. A., Ramirez-Hernandez A., Barreto C., Forero-Becerra E., Millan D., Valbuena E., Sanchez-Alfonso A. C., Imbacuan-Pantoja W. O., Cortes-Vecino J. A., Polo-Teran L. J., Yaya-Lancheros N., Jacome J., Palomar A. M., Santibanez S., Portillo A., Oteo J. A., and Hidalgo M. "Epidemiology of Spotted Fever Group Rickettsioses and Acute Undifferentiated Febrile Illness in Villeta, Colombia." American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 97, no. 3 (2017): 782–88. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Restrepo B., Rodas J. D., Montoya-Ruiz C., Zuluaga A. M., Parra-Henao G., and Agudelo-Florez P. "Serological Evidence of Leptospira Spp., Dengue, Hantavirus and Arenavirus Infection in Embera-Katio Indigenous Population, Colombia." Revista Chilena De Infectologia 33, no. 4 (2016): 472–73. doi: 10.4067/S0716-10182016000400015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Escandón-Vargas K., Lyda L. Osorio, and M. Astudillo-Hernández. "Seroprevalence and Factors Associated with Leptospira Infection in an Urban District of Cali, Colombia." Cadernos de Saúde Pública 33 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schlichting D., Nöckler K., Bahn P., Luge E., Greiner M., Müller-Graf C., and Mayer-Scholl A. "Estimation of the Sensitivity and Specificity of a Leptospira Spp. In-House Elisa through Bayesian Modelling." Int J Med Microbiol 305, no. 7 (2015): 756–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2015.08.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pepe Margaret Sullivan, and Janes Holly. "Insights into Latent Class Analysis of Diagnostic Test Performance." Biostatistics 8, no. 2 (2006): 474–84. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009876.r001

Decision Letter 0

Claudia Munoz-Zanzi, Elsio Wunder Jr

19 Jan 2022

Dear Dr. Dreyfus,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Leptospira spp. seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous population from Colombia and the comparison of the Serion IgM ELISA and Microscopic Agglutination Test for diagnosis of Leptospira spp. infections in human sera from different geographical origins" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

As some reviewers pointed out, the objectives, methods and analysis needs to be consistent and aligned to answer the research question. This manuscript's objective is to evaluate the performance of the Serion ELISA, therefore, sample size and methods need to focused on that objective. As diagnostic tests need to be evaluated for their specific use, clearly separate the evaluation for i) clinical diagnosis and for ii) prior exposure detection.

For each one these sub-objectives, method and results need to reflect the standard practices for reporting diagnostic test evaluation:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting

https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard/

Additionally, considering the small sample size of the evaluation for the clinical diagnosis, more details regarding its contribution and comparison with several others papers evaluating the same kit are needed under the rationale for the study.

The sub-objective evaluating the accuracy to detect prior exposure needs a better description of the design and analytical approach as MAT is a reference test but not a perfect "gold" standard and results correspond to relative SE and SP. Authors can consider analytical methods for evaluation of diagnostic tests with no gold standard and two populations. The effective sample size are the number of samples with both ELISA and MAT results.

The goal of estimating sero-prevalence in the Colombian study population is a secondary outcome of the accuracy study, and stated, most of the report should be focused on the diagnostic test evaluation study following recommended guidelines.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Claudia Munoz-Zanzi

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Elsio Wunder Jr

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

As some reviewers pointed out, the objectives, methods and analysis needs to be consistent and aligned to answer the research question. This manuscript's objective is to evaluate the performance of the Serion ELISA, therefore, sample size and methods need to focused on that objective. As diagnostic tests need to be evaluated for their specific use, clearly separate the evaluation for i) clinical diagnosis and for ii) prior exposure detection.

For each one these sub-objectives, method and results need to reflect the standard practices for reporting diagnostic test evaluation:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting

https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard/

Additionally, considering the small sample size of the evaluation for the clinical diagnosis, more details regarding its contribution and comparison with several others papers evaluating the same kit are needed under the rationale for the study.

The sub-objective evaluating the accuracy to detect prior exposure needs a better description of the design and analytical approach as MAT is a reference test but not a perfect "gold" standard and results correspond to relative SE and SP. Authors can consider analytical methods for evaluation of diagnostic tests with no gold standard and two populations. The effective sample size are the number of samples with both ELISA and MAT results.

The goal of estimating sero-prevalence in the Colombian study population is a secondary outcome of the accuracy study, and stated, most of the report should be focused on the diagnostic test evaluation study following recommended guidelines.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The authors described the study objectives clearly. The study design, including sample size, population sources, and statistical analysis, were explained well. However, the approvals of the Human Research Ethics committee on using serum samples from Group A and B are not described. And I need a rationale on why the study using Bhutanese specimens was granted by the Human Research Ethics committee of the University of Newcastle, Australia, only.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

1.- Objectives can be clearly summarized and stated. Lines 148-162 may be better included in the materials and methods

Material and methods

2.- Line 181, indicate in the first time what “TPH” means

3.- Line 295. What is an ambiguous result? Why an ambiguous result is considered negative? There were duplicates that could be made to disambiguate

Reviewer #3: inclusion of all groups is not clear according with objetive of study: compare two diagnoses test and the seroprevalence of Wiwa population.

Two different topics. Sample size should be different: test for a test or population survey.

Ethical OK

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The authors demonstrate results and the data analysis pretty clearly and entirely as the study objectives. The Figures and Tables are tidy and easy to read. In Table 4, the "N" for Group E should be 156 instead of 321. To fulfil more on the study objectives, the accuracy of the "Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM" test inferring seroprevalence in sera Group D and E--the endemic areas. Additional positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ELISA test in Table 4 (MAT used the reference) will directly point out the failure of using ELISA to investigate the seroprevalence in the endemic areas.

Reviewer #2: results

4.- In the table 4, groups A + B should have a single value of "N" (34) to maintain congruence with the other data in the table.

5.- In group C, why can't the 95% CI for specificity be calculated?

6.- In group E, the reference test was carried out in 156 people and not in 321.

7.-Line 359. In this section, authors should not incorporate sensitivity in the interpretation, because in group C only specificity is evaluated.

8.-Figure 1. Were some of the random samples considered MAT (+)? If any were, it would not be correct to include all the "ELISA negative" (476 or 163) in the sero-negative group, because in theory the ELISA-negative have 2X or 5X with respect to the random sample and if they have some MAT + in the random sample group, there would also be some MAT + in the "ELISA negative" group. With this, the sero-prevalence could be re-calculated.

9.-The paragraph on lines 441-451 corresponds to the limitations of the study. They must be sent to the corresponding section.

Reviewer #3: Table 4 should include total, positives by MAT and ELISA.

the use of the term seroprevalence of the study is not clear because are different populations, different countries and sample size, not methodological correct.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The authors conclude the study reasonably, including all limitations of the analysis and study design.

Reviewer #2: 9.- The first paragraph (lines 416-424) is part of the objectives and methodology that has already been explained. It is recommended to start the discussion with the main results obtained.

10.- Lines 458-479 support the over and underestimation assumption. Therefore, they must be linked to the sentence that mentions it.

11.-Line 494. Has the hypothesis of low specificity been evidenced in other studies of leptospira or other spirochetes? If so, include those studies as references.

Reviewer #3: It is inconsistent with the introduction the profile of risk of Wiwa population and the conclusion presented.

The statement "ELISA is technically working well..." should include the concrete arguments for that.

The discrepancy between MAT and ELISA should be analice from the theory more than make comparisons with results from other species.

conclusions about seroprevalence in Wiwa population should be discuss and evaluate in a future with comorbilities from the region as other febrile syndromes from infectious diseases.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: I suggest a Minor Revision for this manuscript. My significant comments are as follows:

1. show IRB approval for study Group A & B and IRB multi-centre or Bhutanese IRB approval for study Group D

2. correct the "N" number in Table 4 for Group E

3. add PPV (95%CI) and NPV (95%PI) in Table 4 for Group D and E.

Reviewer #2: Be congruent with the number of decimal places to include in the percentages.

In Abstract: Maintain the same units at the conclusion of the% seroprevalence (line 59)

Reviewer #3: Maybe a figure (a different figure than a diagram) to show some results will be more easy to understand (388-399).

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: Some significant results were published in Pathogens; the whole story is still beneficial for Leptospira diagnosis or seroprevalence study. It emphasizes the essential test validation before use in disease-endemic areas.

Reviewer #2: This study has the strength of having investigated the performance of a serological test for leptospirosis in a non-endemic setting (after onset of disease) and in an endemic setting where further research is still necessary.

Reviewer #3: I think that more importance should be done to wiwa results. And as secondary results should be comparisons with other populations. That implies more emphases at those results and to begin with Wiwa populations context, methodology and results.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Antonio Flores

Reviewer #3: Yes: Janeth Perez-Garcia

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009876.r003

Decision Letter 1

Elsio Wunder Jr

26 Mar 2022

Dear Dr. Dreyfus,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Comparison of the Serion IgM ELISA and Microscopic Agglutination Test for diagnosis of Leptospira spp. infections in sera from different geographical origins and estimation of Leptospira seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous population from Colombia" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Elsio Wunder Jr, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Authors describe the objectives of each experiment clearly. The primary aims are evaluating the analysis sensitivity and specificity of the Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM using a) 14 confirmed leptospirosis cases originated from Netherland, b) 20 healthy blood donors, c) 41 confirmed other infections originated from Switzerland, d) 321/489 sera from volunteers (healthy or ill) originated from Colombia.

The objectives of the group d investigation (line 191-193) are arguable. In basic immunology, IgG antibody screenings are usually performed for investigating seroprevalence. The IgM ELISA was used for seroprevalence of leptospirosis in this study. Authors should describe reasons for use this unexpected study design. Previous studies on validating IgM and IgG for Leptospira seroprevalence in comparison are recommended in the Introduction section. Emphasizing using MAT on single sera for the seroprevalence (not diagnosis) as a reference method should be done to remind readers.

The study design of the seroprevalence in group d is questionable. There is a cross-sectional study design that perform a reference test first and then performing case-control sampling (based on the reference test results) to further perform index test (the ELISA test in this study). Authors should describe the type of the cross-sectional designs selected in this study and the reason of selections.

PPV and NPV are not needed for group a, b or c.

In my personal opinion, all a,b, c and d should be done for only one primary aim: to investigating the accuracy of the ELISA test in survey sero-prevalence (both past and current infection) compared to MAT using single sera collected during leptospiremia, leptospirurea, and no Leptospira in bodies.

Reviewer #2: objectives.

Please to include the text suggested for the author:

"“The objectives of our study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the commercially

available Serion ELISA classic Leptospira IgM using the MAT as imperfect reference test with patient

sera from confirmed leptospirosis cases, blood donor sera, with sera from patients with other

infections than leptospirosis (all European) and sera from a cross-sectional study in the indigenous

population called “Wiwas” of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, North-east of Colombia..."

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Figure 1--It is not correct to pool ELISA and MAT results (called sero-positive and sero-negative).

Table 4 --the 124/32 (instead of NA) should be add in the ELISA (pos/neg) column in row D ii

Estimating sero-prevalence based on the ELISA in Wiwa population were less accuracy as the significant low specificity compared to those estimated by MAT. Combination results from samples having ELISA results only might be another kind of bias.

Reviewer #2: Table 4.

specificity values of Group B are incorrectly added within the group A row. (Group A are cases, there are no "negative samples", so it should not have any specificity value)

In group C, please indicate what the value of 100% specificity corresponds to. At 3 MAT-/ELISA- ? if so, clarify it in the legend below

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Authors conclude that the IgM ELISA test was less accuracy when use for Leptospira seroprevalence compared to MAT. Authors argue on the less sensitivity of MAT (single sera) when use as a diagnosis tool (line 479-483). However, I did not see the relevant to the group d experiment.

Even the results clearly show low accuracy of the IgM ELISA test, authors insist that ".. IgM detection test can be useful in screening for Leptospira exposure in the recent past.." (510-517) based on a citation of book reference. Serious discussion with previous reports on this issue are lacking.

Reviewer #2: Discussion: About your hypothesis in lines 422-424, It is Ok after your feedback.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: none

Reviewer #3: 5 In the title could be more accurate to use leptospirosis seroprevalence

51 Sensitivity value at cross sectional study in Colombia is missing in the abstract

184 “most likely seronegative for Leptospira spp..” could means doubt about leptospirosis diagnoses and cannot be objective to evaluate cross reaction.

254 Should be interesting pointed the reason to use OIE standards for human test, and not WHO.

278 If you referred to “endemic places” to Colombia, should be better to describe it explicitly, because its methodology of the study.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: I concerns on the objectives and study designs used in this study. It might be better that authors present a major and accuracy key message to readers with evidence based style. The manuscripts can be confusing as the ELISA was evaluated as a diagnosis tool and a sero-prevalence in the same article. As a reader of PLoS NTD, I eager to know if IgM ELISA (using non-pathogen Leptospira antigen) is useful for seroprevalence in the low income countries with leptospirosis endemic areas or not.

I am confused by Abstract. And please check the information accuracy in the abstract as well.

Reviewer #2: none

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Antonio Flores

Reviewer #3: Yes: Janeth Perez-Garcia

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009876.r005

Decision Letter 2

Elsio Wunder Jr

22 Apr 2022

Dear Dr. Dreyfus,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Comparison of the Serion IgM ELISA and Microscopic Agglutination Test for diagnosis of Leptospira spp. infections in sera from different geographical origins and estimation of Leptospira seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous population from Colombia' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

There are one minor suggestion for change in the text. On page 80, the authors mention that the Leptospira genus has 64 species. A recent publication (PMID: 34914572) has identified 4 new species for the genus, bringing the total to 68.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Elsio Wunder Jr, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009876.r006

Acceptance letter

Elsio Wunder Jr

30 May 2022

Dear Dr. Dreyfus,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Comparison of the Serion IgM ELISA and Microscopic Agglutination Test for diagnosis of Leptospira spp. infections in sera from different geographical origins and estimation of Leptospira seroprevalence in the Wiwa indigenous population from Colombia," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Appendix A—Table with characterization of admission and follow-up serum samples from leptospirosis patients. Appendix B—R code for sample size calculation

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 220204_ReviewLeptoELISA_ResponsetoReviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 220411_Review2_reply_author.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data is available at: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/anousati/dreyfus-colombia-elisa-mat-results.


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES