Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomic Profiling of Sonicate Fluid Differentiates Staphylococcus aureus Periprosthetic Joint Infection from Non-Infectious Failure: A pilot study

Cody R. Fisher, Kiran K. Mangalaparthi, Kerryl E. Greenwood-Quaintance, Matthew P. Abdel, Akhilesh Pandey, Robin Patel
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.28.22284010

ABSTRACT

Purpose This study aims to use proteomic profiling of sonicate fluid samples to compare host response during Staphylococcus aureus-associated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and non-infected arthroplasty failure (NIAF) and investigate novel biomarkers to increase diagnostic accuracy.

Experimental Design In this pilot study, eight sonicate fluid samples (four from NIAF and four from Staphylococcus aureus PJI) were studied. Samples were reduced, alkylated and trypsinized overnight, followed by analysis using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) on a high-resolution Orbitrap Eclipse mass spectrometer. MaxQuant software suite was used for protein identification, filtering, and label-free quantitation.

Results Principal component analysis of the identified proteins clearly separated S. aureus PJI and NIAF samples. Overall, 810 proteins were quantified in any three samples from each group and 35 statistically significant differentially abundant proteins (DAPs) were found (2-sample t-test p-values ≤0.05 and log2fold-change values ≥2 or ≤-2). Gene ontology pathway analysis found that microbial defense responses, specifically those related to neutrophil activation, were increased in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF samples.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance Proteomic profiling of sonicate fluid using LC-MS/MS, alone or in combination with complementary protein analyses, differentiated S. aureus PJI and NIAF in this pilot study.

1. INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major cause of arthroplasty failure after total knee or hip replacement surgery. Of the estimated 7 million Americans living with a total knee or hip arthroplasty as of 2010, about 1-2% will go on to get a PJI [1-5]. As the number of individuals who undergo arthroplasty surgery continues to rise, so will the number of PJIs, resulting in extended hospital stays, increased antimicrobial usage, and an estimated $1.85 billion in annual healthcare costs by 2030 [6-9]. Staphylococcus aureus is a common cause of PJI, associated with robust biofilm production, production of numerous virulence factors, and resistance to antimicrobial agents and the host immune response [1,2,10-15].

Some PJI cases can be difficult to differentiate from non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) [16-21]. Typically, arthroplasty failure is treated with resection of the failed implant and one- or two-stage revision surgery or debridement and implant retention, alongside an extended course of antimicrobial agents [1,22-24]. Microbial- and host-based assays are used to diagnose PJI. Microbial diagnostics may be limited by negative growth in culture or negative results of molecular diagnostics, or conversely, falsely-positive results as a result of detection of contaminants [25]. Additional host-derived biomarkers for PJI, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate in blood; nucleated cell count and neutrophil percentage in synovial fluid; and intraoperative tissue histology and purulence, can provide evidence of underlying infection [1,22,26]. Host proteomic profiling has also been shown to have the potential to differentiate PJI from NIAF, with increased expression of c-reactive protein, D-dimer, chemokine ligand 20 (CCL20), calprotectin, lipocalin, lactotransferrin, and many others, in PJI compared to NIAF patient samples [26-35]. Measurement of one protein, alpha-defensin, in synovial fluid has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration as an aid for the detection of PJI [33,36].

Multi-omics approaches have recently been investigated as potential alternatives to overcome limitations of currently used diagnostic tools [26,29,37-40]. Previous studies have shown that liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)-based profiling may be able to differentiate synovial fluid samples from PJI and NIAF patients [31,41]. Analysis of sonicate fluid, a sample-type that directly interrogates the site of infection - the implant surface -, may hypothetically allow for enhanced differentiation of infected and non-infected individuals and potentially PJI biomarker discovery [37,40,42-44]. Mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis provides an unbiased and in-depth overview of the protein expression alterations in biological samples. Our group has previously employed mass spectrometry-based proteomics in developing assays of potential diagnostic utility [45,46] and in studying host response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral infection [47,48]. This pilot study was aimed to evaluate the feasibility of proteomic analysis of sonicate fluid to reflect the host response to PJI. The advancement of proteomics-based profiling of patient samples during PJI could yield novel insights into underlying biological interactions.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 Sonicate fluid harvest and cohort

Sonicate fluid samples were collected between October 2013 and July 2017 from patients undergoing revision total hip or knee arthroplasty; arthroplasty components were removed and subjected to sonication for clinical purposes, as previously described; their use in this study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (09-000808) (23). Four NIAF and four S. aureus PJI sonicate fluid samples were analyzed. Infection status was determined by the 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society and International Consensus Meeting criteria [49].

2.2 Protein extraction and LC-MS/MS analysis

100 μl of sonicate fluid samples were adjusted to 0.2% Rapigest followed by heating at 90 °C for 5 minutes. Samples were then reduced with 5 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP) for 45 minutes at room temperature and alkylated with 20 mM Iodoacetamide for 25 minutes in the dark. Trypsin enzyme was added in the ratio of 1:20 for overnight digestion at 37 °C. Following C18 cleanup, 2 μg of peptides were subjected to quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis on a high-resolution Orbitrap Eclipse Tribrid mass spectrometer connected to UltiMate 3000 RSLC nano system (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA). Separation of peptides includes initial trapping on a trap column (PepMap C18, 2 cm × 100 μm, 100 Å, Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA) using 0.1% formic acid (solvent A) followed by gradient elution (3% to 28% to 40%) using acetonitrile, 0.1% formic acid (solvent B) on an analytical column (EasySpray 50 cm × 75 μm, C18 1.9 μm,100 Å, Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA). Each run was started with equilibration of both columns for 5 minutes and the overall time for each run was 240 minutes. As the peptides were eluting, the Orbitrap was operated in a data dependent mode with a cycle time of 2 seconds. Initially, the precursor MS scan was recorded for 350-1500 m/z using a normalized AGC target of 100%, injection time of 50 ms and 60,000 resolution. Precursors with a minimum intensity threshold of 20,000 and charge states 2-7 were taken for MS/MS starting from high intensity precursors. Monoisotopic precursor selection was also enabled. Quadrupole was used for precursor isolation with 1.6 m/z isolation width and fragmented with normalized HCD energy of 28% and resulting fragment ions was recorded in Orbitrap analyzer. Fragment ion spectrum was recorded at 15,000 resolution using normalized AGC target of 200% and maximum injection time of 120 ms. Dynamic exclusion of 30 seconds was used to prevent repeated fragmentation of the precursor ions.

2.3 LC-MS/MS raw data analysis

MaxQuant software suite (V 2.0.1.0) was used for protein identification and quantitation. Database searching was performed against human UniProt protein database with in silico trypsin digestion set to be specific and maximum of 2 missed cleavages allowed. Default mass tolerance settings of 20 pm for first search and 4.5 ppm for main search were used. Oxidation (Methionine) and protein N-terminal acetylation were used as dynamic modifications, whereas carbamidomethylation (cysteine) was used as static modification. Proteins were filtered at 1% protein-level false discovery rate (FDR). LFQ algorithm within MaxQuant was used for label-free quantitation and match between the runs option was enabled with match time window of 1 minute to reduce missing values. Finally, label-free quantified values were logarithmized and proteins not quantified in at least three samples in each group were eliminated.

2.4 Data organization and statistical analysis

Quantitative data were organized and graphed in RStudio v1.2.5042 [50] using the R-packages “ComplexHeatmap” [51] for heatmap creation and “Factoextra” [52] for principal component analysis. Protein-specific analyses were conducted, and a volcano plot created in Graphpad Prism 9 v9.2.0 (San Diego, CA). Enrichr was used for gene ontology pathway analysis [53-55]. Statistical significance was determined using 2-sample t-test with multiple hypothesis correction (p-values ≤0.05 and log2fold-change values ≥2 or ≤-2).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Cohort differential protein abundance characterization

In this study, quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis was used to characterize the host proteomic profile of four NIAF and four S. aureus PJI sonicate fluid samples and determine whether NIAF and S. aureus PJI-associated samples can be differentiated. Eight hundred and ten proteins were quantified in at least three of four samples each of S. aureus PJI and NIAF cases, of which 35 differentially abundant proteins (DAPs) were identified (Table 1, Figure 1). Fifteen DAPs were increased in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF samples, including lactotransferrin (LTF) [log2fold-change = 5.2], lipocalin-2 (LCN2) [log2fold-change = 5.0], myeloperoxidase (MPO) [log2fold-change = 4.9], calprotectin-A9 (S100A9 subunit) [log2fold-change = 4.5], calprotectin-A8 (S100A8 subunit) [log2fold-change = 4.0], cathepsin G (CTSG) [log2fold-change = 4.0], neutrophil elastase (ELANE) [log2fold-change = 3.8], eosinophil cationic protein (RNASE3) [log2fold-change = 3.6], endoplasmic reticulum to nucleus signaling 1 (ERN1) [log2fold-change = 3.2], matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9) [log2fold-change = 2.9], lysozyme C (LYZ) [log2fold-change = 2.7], haptoglobin (HP) [log2fold-change = 2.6], lamin-B1 (LMNB1) [log2fold-change = 2.5], glycogen phosphorylase, liver form (PYGL) [log2fold-change = 2.5], leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein (LRG1) [log2fold-change = 2.2] (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1. Proteins differentially abundant in Staphylococcus aureus periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) versus non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) sonicate fluid samples by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis.

Proteins with increased and decreased abundance in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF samples are unshaded and shaded, respectively. Statistical significance was determined using 2-sample t-test p-values ≤0.05 and log2fold-change values ≥2 or ≤-2. Data depicted are for NIAF (n=4) and S. aureus PJI (n=4) sonicate fluid samples.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Differential analysis of proteins identified in sonicate fluids from periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry analysis.

Volcano plot showing statistically significant proteins differentially abundant in sonicate fluid from PJI cases. Proteins with increased and decreased abundance were indicated in red and blue, respectively. The top five DAPs are labelled. Vertical dashed lines designate log2Fold-change value of ±2-fold and the horizontal dashed line designates a p-value = 0.05. Statistical significance was determined using 2-sample t-test with multiple hypothesis correction (p-values ≤0.05 and log2fold-change values ≥2 or ≤-2). Data depicted are of NIAF (n=4) and S. aureus PJI (n=4) sonicate fluid samples.

Twenty of the 35 DAPs were decreased in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF sonicate fluid samples (Table 1, Figure 1), including cartilage acidic protein 1 (CRTAC1) [log2fold-change = - 5.3], cell surface glycoprotein MUC18 (MCAM) [log2fold-change = -4.2], IFI30 lysosomal thiol reductase (IFI30) [log2fold-change = -2.8], osteopontin (SPP1) [log2fold-change = -2.7], beta-hexosaminidase subunit beta (HEXB) [log2fold-change = -2.6], proteoglycan 4 (PRG4) [log2fold-change = -2.6], ribonuclease pancreatic (RNASE1) [log2fold-change = -2.5], dermcidin (DCD) [log2fold-change = -2.5], CD44 antigen (CD44) [log2fold-change = -2.5], annexin A2 (ANXA2) [log2fold-change = -2.4], serpin B6 (SERPINB6) [log2fold-change = -2.4], branched-chain-amino-acid aminotransferase (BCAT1) [log2fold-change = -2.3], dihydrolipoamide S-succinyltransferase (DLST) [log2fold-change = -2.3], heat shock protein beta-1 (HSPB1) [log2fold-change = -2.1], early endosome antigen 1 (EEA1) [log2fold-change = -2.1], collagen alpha-2(I) chain (COL1A2) [log2fold-change = -2.1], fatty acid-binding protein, epidermal (FABP5) [log2fold-change = -2.1], fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase 1 (FBP1) [log2fold-change = - 2.0], fatty acid-binding protein, heart (FABP3) [log2fold-change = -2.0], cathepsin D (CTSD) [log2fold-change = -2.0].

Unsupervised clustering analysis of the DAPs showed distinct pattern of expression between S. aureus PJI and NIAF sonicate fluid samples. (Figure 2A). Differential clustering was also observed via principal component analysis, where S. aureus PJI and NIAF sonicate fluid samples were separated along dimension 1, accounting for 81.8% of the total variation of the dataset (Figure 2B).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Differential abundant proteins clearly segregate sonicate fluid samples with Staphylococcus aureus periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) from non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF).

(A) Heatmap visualization of protein expression z-scores in NIAF and S. aureus PJI samples, with differentially abundant proteins and patient samples clustered. (B) Principal component analysis of NIAF and S. aureus PJI samples, with ellipses corresponding with 85% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was determined using 2-sample t-test with multiple hypothesis correction (p-values ≤0.05 and log2fold-change values ≥2 or ≤-2). Data depicted are of NIAF (n=4) and S. aureus PJI (n=4) sonicate fluid samples.

3.2 Gene ontology analyses of differentially abundant proteins

To better understand the functional outcome of sonicate fluid DAPs in PJI versus NIAF, gene ontology analysis was conducted [53-55]. Unsurprisingly, biological processes related to neutrophil antimicrobial activity, such as activation and degranulation, were increased in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF sonicate fluid samples. Overall antimicrobial responses against bacteria and fungi were also increased in S. aureus PJI (Figure 3A). Next, molecular functions enriched among DAPs were examined. Inflammatory pathways, such as those related to peptidase activity and RAGE receptor binding were increased in S. aureus PJI samples. Metal ion-binding pathways were also increased in S. aureus PJI samples. In fact, many of the DAPs most increased in S. aureus PJI, such as LTF, LCN2, and S100A8/A9, are known metal ion sequestration proteins reported to be important for the antimicrobial nutritional immunity response in other infection types [56-58]. Though increases of metal ion binding proteins have recently been shown to be clinical biomarkers of PJI biomarkers [27,28,30,31,59,60], the functional role of nutritional immunity during PJI is an area needing further investigation.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Gene ontology analysis of proteins differentially abundant in S. aureus periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) versus non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) sonicate fluid samples.

(A) Biological processes and (B) Molecular functions enriched using the Gene Ontology 2021 knowledgebase. Gene ontology terms listed with those most statistically significant on top. Data depicted are of NIAF (n=4) and S. aureus PJI (n=4) sonicate fluid samples.

3.3 Further validation of differentially abundant proteins

While the mass-spectrometry-based proteomic profiling described here identified DAPs and differentiated S. aureus and NIAF sonicate fluid samples, the sample size was low, and further validation was necessary. To do so, results were compared to previous transcriptomic and proteomic analyses of sonicate fluid samples conducted by our group. Transcriptomic analysis of eight S. aureus PJI and forty NIAF sonicate fluid samples, including the eight that underwent LC-MS/MS here, has been recently reported [40]. Of the thirty-five DAPs found via LC-MS/MS, 18 had differentially expressed transcripts via RNA-sequencing. In all but one recapitulated case, whether the target was up- or downregulated in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF remained consistent. MMP9 was found to have increased protein abundance but decreased transcriptomic abundance in S. aureus PJI compared to NIAF samples.

Proteomic profiling of 200 sonicate fluid samples, including the eight that underwent LC-MS/MS, was recently reported using the proximity extension assay (PEA) platform from Olink Proteomics (Uppsala, Sweden) [34,61]. PEA showed that, of the 92 proteins included in the Olink Inflammation Panel, 37 DAPs were found when comparing PJI and NIAF samples [34]. Interestingly, there was no overlap across the 37 DAPs identified through PEA platform to the 35 DAPs identified by LC-MS/MS analysis. This lack of overlap is explained by specific characteristics of each platform. PEA is a targeted method that uses antibodies conjugated to oligonucleotides and PCR amplification to process and quantify proteins, allowing for assessment of low-concentration proteins. However, this analysis is limited to detection to the specific protein targets included in the panel [61]. In contrast, LC-MS/MS is an unbiased approach, which can quantify proteins in a global fashion that are above the detection limit [62]. Thus, a targeted approach like PEA is complementary to an LC-MS/MS approach. Thus, combining LC-MS/MS with PEA provides a holistic proteomic profile for protein biomarker discovery.

Lastly, results were compared to those found by Li et al. which analyzed 51 PJI and 66 non-PJI synovial fluid samples identified by LC-MS/MS [41]. Of the 35 DAPs found in sonicate fluid, 15, including LTF, MPO, S100A9, CTSG, S100A8, ELANE, MMP9, HP, PYGL, CTSD, FABP5, BCAT1, PRG4, HEXB, and CRTAC1, were also found in synovial fluid. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid revealed 281 DAPs, a higher number than identified herein in sonicate fluid, with the caveat that more patients and bacterial species causing PJI were analyzed in the synovial fluid study. That proteomic analyses of sonicate and synovial fluid were not fully concordant affirms the potential value of interrogating both sample types, though ideally synovial and sonicate fluids from the same patients, collected at the same time and analyzed using the same methods, should be analyzed.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Overall, results from this study indicate that proteomic profiling of sonicate fluid using mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis differentiates S. aureus PJI and NIAF samples. This study supports the concept of conducting larger and more thorough future proteomic profiling studies using combinational analyses and complementary sample-types.

Data Availability

The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the Proteome Xchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD038928.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of joint arthroplasty. There is no perfect assay for differentiating PJI from non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF). Although some studies have recently employed ‘omics technologies, further work is needed to discover novel and sensitive biomarkers and increase accuracy. A comprehensive proteomic analysis of sonicate fluid from PJI, a specimen derived from sonication of resected implants to sample their surfaces, is not yet reported.

PATIENT CONSENT STATEMENT

The study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (#09-000808).

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

CF’s roles were conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, writing – original draft, and writing – review & editing. KM’s roles were mass spectrometry analysis, data analysis and visualization, and writing – review & editing. KG’s roles were project administration, supervision, and writing – review & editing. MA’s roles were resource provision and writing – review & editing. AP’s roles were resource provision, supervision, and writing – review & editing. RP’s roles were conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, resource provision, supervision, and writing – review & editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

RP reports grants from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, and BioFire. RP is a consultant to PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Day Zero Diagnostics, Mammoth Biosciences, and HealthTrackRx; monies are paid to Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic and RP have a relationship with Pathogenomix. RP has research supported by Adaptive Phage Therapeutics. Mayo Clinic has a royalty-bearing know-how agreement and equity in Adaptive Phage Therapeutics. RP is also a consultant to Netflix, Abbott Laboratories, and CARB-X. In addition, RP has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued. RP receives honoraria from the NBME, Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course. MPA receives royalties from Stryker on certain hip and knee products and serve on the AAOS Board of Directors. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the Proteome Xchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD038928.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number NIH R01 AR056647. CF was supported by the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and the Ph.D. Training Grant in Basic Immunology (NIAID T32 AI07425-25). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. We would like to acknowledge Suzannah Schmidt-Malan, M.S., Melissa Karau, M.S., and the rest of the Mayo Clinic Infectious Diseases Research Laboratory for accessioning and maintaining the sonicate fluid biobank.

ABBREVIATIONS

PJI
periprosthetic joint infection
NIAF
non-infectious arthroplasty failure
DAPs
differentially abundant proteins
LC-MS/MS
liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
CCL20
chemokine ligand 20
SARS-CoV-2
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
LTF
lactotransferrin
LCN2
lipocalin-2
MPO
myeloperoxidase
S100A9
calprotectin-A9
S100A8
calprotectin-A8
CTSG
cathepsin G
ELANE
neutrophil elastase
RNASE3
eosinophil cationic protein
ERN1
endoplasmic reticulum to nucleus signaling 1
MMP9
matrix metalloproteinase-9
LYZ
lysozyme C
HP
haptoglobin
LMNB1
lamin-B1
PYGL
glycogen phosphorylase, liver form
LRG1
leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein
CRTAC1
cartilage acidic protein 1
MCAM
cell surface glycoprotein MUC18
IFI30
IFI30 lysosomal thiol reductase
SPP1
osteopontin
HEXB
beta-hexosaminidase subunit beta
PRG4
proteoglycan 4
RNASE1
ribonuclease pancreatic
DCD
dermcidin
CD44
CD44 antigen
ANXA2
annexin A2
SERPINB6
serpin B6
BCAT1
branched-chain-amino-acid aminotransferase
DLST
dihydrolipoamide S-succinyltransferase
HSPB1
heat shock protein beta-1
EEA1
early endosome antigen 1
COL1A2
collagen alpha-2(I) chain
FABP5
fatty acid-binding protein, epidermal
FBP1
fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase 1
FABP3
fatty acid-binding protein, heart
CTSD
cathepsin D
PEA
proximity extension assay
TCEP
tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine
FDR
false discovery rate

REFERENCES

  1. [1].↵
    Tande, A. J., & Patel, R. (2014). Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev, 27(2), 302–345. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00111-13
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. [2].↵
    Zimmerli, W. (2006). Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: Prosthetic-joint-associated infections. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 20(6), 1045–1063. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. [3].
    Trampuz, A., & Widmer, A. F. (2006). Infections associated with orthopedic implants. Curr Opin Infect Dis, 19(4), 349–356. doi: 10.1097/01.qco.0000235161.85925.e8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. [4].
    Shuman, E. K. A U., & Malani, P. N. (2012). Management and prevention of prosthetic joint infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am, 26(1):29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2011.09.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. [5].↵
    Maradit Kremers, H., Larson, D. R., Crowson, C. S., Kremers, W. K., Washington, R. E., Steiner, C. A., … Berry, D. J. (2015). Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 97(17), 1386–1397. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. [6].↵
    Kurtz, S., Ong, K., Lau, E., Mowat, F., & Halpern, M. (2007). Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 89(4), 780–785. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. [7].
    Gutowski, C. J., Chen, A. F., & Parvizi, J. (2016). The incidence and socioeconomic Impact of periprosthetic joint infection: United States perspective Periprosthetic Joint Infections (pp. 19–26): Springer.
  8. [8].
    Jason Akindolire, M., Morcos, M. W., Howard, J. L., Lanting, B. A., & Vasarhelyi, E. M. (2020). The economic impact of periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasty. Can J Surg, 63(1), E52–E56.
    OpenUrl
  9. [9].↵
    Premkumar, A., Kolin, D. A., Farley, K. X., Wilson, J. M., McLawhorn, A. S., Cross, M. B., & Sculco, P. K. (2021). Projected economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee in the United States. J Arthroplasty, 36(5), 1484–1489 e1483. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. [10].↵
    Benito, N., Franco, M., Ribera, A., Soriano, A., Rodriguez-Pardo, D., Sorlí, L., … Puente, A. (2016). Time trends in the aetiology of prosthetic joint infections: a multicentre cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect, 22(8), 732.e731–732.e738. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2016.05.004
    OpenUrl
  11. [11].
    Hsieh, P.-H., Lee, M. S., Hsu, K.-Y., Chang, Y.-H., Shih, H.-N., & Ueng, S. W. (2009). Gram-negative prosthetic joint infections: Risk factors and outcome of treatment. Clin Infect Dis, 49(7), 1036–1043. doi: 10.1086/605593
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. [12].
    Corvec, S., Portillo, M. E., Pasticci, B. M., Borens, O., & Trampuz, A. (2012). Epidemiology and new developments in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Int J Artif Organs, 35(10), 923–934. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. [13].
    Schilcher, K., & Horswill, A. R. (2020). Staphylococcal biofilm development: Structure, regulation, and treatment strategies. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 84(3), e00026–00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00026-19
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. [14].
    Arciola, C. R., Campoccia, D., & Montanaro, L. (2018). Implant infections: Adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol, 16(7), 397–409. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0019-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. [15].↵
    Stevoska, S., Himmelbauer, F., Stiftinger, J., Stadler, C., Pisecky, L., Gotterbarm, T., & Klasan, A. (2022). Significant difference in antimicrobial resistance of bacteria in septic revision between total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. Antibiotics, 11(2), 249. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11020249
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. [16].↵
    Bonnin, M., Deschamps, G., Neyret, P., & Chambat, P. (2000). [Revision in non-infected total knee arthroplasty: An analysis of 69 consecutive cases]. Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l’appareil moteur, 86(7), 694–706.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. [17].
    Kelmer, G., Stone, A. H., Turcotte, J., & King, P. J. (2021). Reasons for revision: Primary total hip arthroplasty mechanisms of failure. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 29(2), 78–87. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00860
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. [18].
    Mathis, D. T., Lohrer, L., Amsler, F., & Hirschmann, M. T. (2021). Reasons for failure in primary total knee arthroplasty - An analysis of prospectively collected registry data. J Orthop, 23, 60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.12.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. [19].
    Athanasou, N. A. (2016). The pathobiology and pathology of aseptic implant failure. Bone Joint Res, 5(5), 162–168. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.55.BJR-2016-0086
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. [20].
    Kenney, C., Dick, S., Lea, J., Liu, J., & Ebraheim, N. A. (2019). A systematic review of the causes of failure of revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop, 16(5), 393–395. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.04.011
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. [21].↵
    Gazendam, A., Wood, T. J., Tushinski, D., & Bali, K. (2022). Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: A scoping review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 15(3), 219–229. doi: 10.1007/s12178-022-09751-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. [22].↵
    Osmon, D. R., Berbari, E. F., Berendt, A. R., Lew, D., Zimmerli, W., Steckelberg, J. M., … America, I. D. S. o. (2013). Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis, 56(1), e1–e25. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis803
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. [23].
    Kuzyk, P. R., Dhotar, H. S., Sternheim, A., Gross, A. E., Safir, O., & Backstein, D. (2014). Two-stage revision arthroplasty for management of chronic periprosthetic hip and knee infection: techniques, controversies, and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 22(3), 153–164. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-22-03-153
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. [24].↵
    Li, C., Renz, N., & Trampuz, A. (2018). Management of periprosthetic joint infection. Hip Pelvis, 30(3), 138–146. doi: 10.5371/hp.2018.30.3.138
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. [25].↵
    Parvizi, J., Ghanem, E., Menashe, S., Barrack, R. L., & Bauer, T. W. (2006). Periprosthetic infection: what are the diagnostic challenges? The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 88 Suppl 4(suppl_4), 138–147. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00609
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. [26].↵
    Keemu, H., Vaura, F., Maksimow, A., Maksimow, M., Jokela, A., Hollmén, M., & Mäkelä, K. (2021). Novel biomarkers for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection from synovial fluid and serum. JBJS Open Access, 6(2).
  27. [27].↵
    Hantouly, A. T., Salameh, M., Toubasi, A. A., Salman, L. A., Alzobi, O., Ahmed, A. F., … Ahmed, G. (2022). Synovial fluid calprotectin in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: A meta-analysis. Int Ortho, 46(5), 971–981. doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05357-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. [28].↵
    Wouthuyzen-Bakker, M., Ploegmakers, J. J. W., Ottink, K., Kampinga, G. A., Wagenmakers-Huizenga, L., Jutte, P. C., & Kobold, A. C. M. (2018). Synovial calprotectin: An inexpensive biomarker to exclude a chronic prosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty, 33(4), 1149–1153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. [29].↵
    Sharma, K., Ivy, M., Block, D. R., Abdel, M. P., Hanssen, A. D., Beauchamp, C., … Patel, R. (2020). Comparative analysis of 23 synovial fluid biomarkers for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection detection. J Orthop Res, 38(12), 2664–2674. doi: 10.1002/jor.24766
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. [30].↵
    Vergara, A., Fernandez-Pittol, M. J., Munoz-Mahamud, E., Morata, L., Bosch, J., Vila, J., … Casals-Pascual, C. (2019). Evaluation of lipocalin-2 as a biomarker of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty, 34(1), 123–125. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.047
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. [31].↵
    Wang, C., Wang, Q., Li, R., Qin, J., Song, L., Zhang, Q., … Wang, C. (2019). LTF, PRTN3, and MNDA in synovial fluid as promising biomarkers for periprosthetic joint infection: Identification by quadrupole orbital-trap mass spectrometry. J Bone Joint Surg, 101(24).
  32. [32].
    Shahi, A., & Parvizi, J. (2017). The role of biomarkers in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. EFORT open reviews, 1(7), 275–278. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. [33].↵
    Pupaibool, J., Fulnecky, E. J., Swords, R. L., Jr.., Sistrunk, W. W., & Haddow, A. D. (2016). Alpha-defensin-novel synovial fluid biomarker for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Int Orthop, 40(12), 2447–2452. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3306-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. [34].↵
    Fisher, C. R., Salmons, H. I., Mandrekar, J., Greenwood-Quaintance, K. E., Abdel, M. P., & Patel, R. (2022). A 92 protein inflammation panel performed on sonicate fluid differentiates periprosthetic joint infection from non-infectious causes of arthroplasty failure in revision.
  35. [35].↵
    Huang, Z., Zhang, Z., Li, M., Li, W., Fang, X., & Zhang, W. (2022). Synovial fluid neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin can be used to accurately diagnose prosthetic joint infection. Int J Infect Dis, 123, 170–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.08.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. [36].↵
    Deirmengian, C., Madigan, J., Kallur Mallikarjuna, S., Conway, J., Higuera, C., & Patel, R. (2021). Validation of the alpha defensin lateral flow test for periprosthetic joint infection. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 103(2), 115–122. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00749
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. [37].↵
    Gomez, E., Cazanave, C., Cunningham, S. A., Greenwood-Quaintance, K. E., Steckelberg, J. M., Uhl, J. R., … Patel, R. (2012). Prosthetic joint infection diagnosis using broad-range PCR of biofilms dislodged from knee and hip arthroplasty surfaces using sonication. J Clin Microbiol, 50(11), 3501–3508. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00834-12
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. [38].
    Thoendel, M. J., Jeraldo, P. R., Greenwood-Quaintance, K. E., Yao, J. Z., Chia, N., Hanssen, A. D., … Patel, R. (2018). Identification of prosthetic joint infection pathogens using a shotgun metagenomics approach. Clin Infect Dis, 67(9), 1333–1338. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy303
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. [39].
    Korn, M. F., Stein, R. R., Dolf, A., Shakeri, F., Buness, A., Hilgers, C., … Schildberg, F. A. (2020). High-dimensional analysis of immune cell composition predicts periprosthetic joint infections and dissects its pathophysiology. Biomedicines, 8(9), 358. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines8090358
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. [40].↵
    Masters, T. L., Bhagwate, A. V., Dehankar, M. K., Greenwood-Quaintance, K. E., Abdel, M. P., Mandrekar, J. N., & Patel, R. (2022). Human transcriptomic response to periprosthetic joint infection. Gene, 825, 146400. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2022.146400
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. [41].↵
    Li, R., Song, L., Quan, Q., Liu, M.-W., Chai, W., Lu, Q., … Chen, J.-Y. (2021). Detecting periprosthetic joint infection by using mass spectrometry. J Bone Joint Surg, 103(20).
  42. [42].↵
    Trampuz, A., Piper, K. E., Jacobson, M. J., Hanssen, A. D., Unni, K. K., Osmon, D. R., … Patel, R. (2007). Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med, 357(7), 654–663. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061588
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. [43].
    Piper, K. E., Jacobson, M. J., Cofield, R. H., Sperling, J. W., Sanchez-Sotelo, J., Osmon, D. R., … Patel, R. (2009). Microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic shoulder infection by use of implant sonication. J Clin Microbiol, 47(6), 1878–1884. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01686-08
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. [44].↵
    Kobayashi, H., Oethinger, M., Tuohy, M. J., Procop, G. W., & Bauer, T. W. (2009). Improved detection of biofilm-formative bacteria by vortexing and sonication: A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 467(5), 1360–1364. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0609-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. [45].↵
    Mangalaparthi, K. K., Chavan, S., Madugundu, A. K., Renuse, S., Vanderboom, P. M., Maus, A. D., … Pandey, A. (2021). A SISCAPA-based approach for detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens from clinical samples. Clin Proteomics, 18(1), 25. doi: 10.1186/s12014-021-09331-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. [46].↵
    Renuse, S., Vanderboom, P. M., Maus, A. D., Kemp, J. V., Gurtner, K. M., Madugundu, A. K., … Pandey, A. (2021). A mass spectrometry-based targeted assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen from clinical specimens. eBioMedicine, 69, 103465. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103465
    OpenUrl
  47. [47].↵
    Vanderboom, P. M., Mun, D.-G., Madugundu, A. K., Mangalaparthi, K. K., Saraswat, M., Garapati, K., … Pandey, A. (2021). Proteomic signature of host response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the nasopharynx. Mole Cell Proteomics, 20. doi: 10.1016/j.mcpro.2021.100134
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. [48].↵
    Chavan, S., Mangalaparthi, K. K., Singh, S., Renuse, S., Vanderboom, P. M., Madugundu, A. K., … Pandey, A. (2021). Mass spectrometric analysis of urine from COVID-19 patients for detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen and to study host response. J Proteome Res, 20(7), 3404–3413. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.1c00391
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. [49].↵
    Parvizi, J., Tan, T. L., Goswami, K., Higuera, C., Della Valle, C., Chen, A. F., & Shohat, N. (2018). The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: An evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty, 33(5), 1309–1314 e1302. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. [50].↵
    Team”, R. C. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
  51. [51].↵
    Gu Z E. R., Schlesner M. (2016). Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Retrieved from https://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/ComplexHeatmap.html
  52. [52].↵
    Kassambara, A., & Mundt, F. (2020). factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses (Version R package version 1.0.7). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra
  53. [53].↵
    Chen, E. Y., Tan, C. M., Kou, Y., Duan, Q., Wang, Z., Meirelles, G. V., … Ma’ayan, A. (2013). Enrichr: Interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. BMC Bioinform, 14(1), 128. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. [54].
    Kuleshov, M. V., Jones, M. R., Rouillard, A. D., Fernandez, N. F., Duan, Q., Wang, Z., … Ma’ayan, A. (2016). Enrichr: A comprehensive gene set enrichment analysis web server 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res, 44(W1), W90–W97. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw377
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. [55].↵
    Xie, Z., Bailey, A., Kuleshov, M. V., Clarke, D. J. B., Evangelista, J. E., Jenkins, S. L., … Ma’ayan, A. (2021). Gene set knowledge discovery with Enrichr. Curr Protoc, 1(3), e90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpz1.90
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. [56].↵
    Hood, M. I., & Skaar, E. P. (2012). Nutritional immunity: Transition metals at the pathogen–host interface. Nat Rev Microbiol, 10(8), 525–537. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2836
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. [57].
    Zackular, J. P., Chazin, W. J., & Skaar, E. P. (2015). Nutritional immunity: S100 proteins at the host-pathogen interface. J Biol Chem, 290(31), 18991–18998. doi: https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.R115.645085
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. [58].↵
    Núñez, G., Sakamoto, K., & Soares, M. P. (2018). Innate nutritional immunity. J Immunol, 201(1), 11. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1800325
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. [59].↵
    Salari, P., Grassi, M., Cinti, B., Onori, N., & Gigante, A. (2020). Synovial fluid calprotectin for the preoperative diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty, 35(2), 534–537. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.052
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. [60].↵
    Peng, X., Zhang, H., Xin, P., Bai, G., Ge, Y., Cai, M., … Pang, Z. (2022). Synovial calprotectin for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a diagnostic meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res, 17(1), 2. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02746-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. [61].↵
    Assarsson, E., Lundberg, M., Holmquist, G., Björkesten, J., Thorsen, S. B., Ekman, D., … Fredriksson, S. (2014). Homogenous 96-plex PEA immunoassay exhibiting high sensitivity, specificity, and excellent scalability. PLoS One, 9(4), e95192–e95192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. [62].↵
    Jemal, M. (2000). High-throughput quantitative bioanalysis by LC/MS/MS. Biomed Chromatogr, 14(6), 422–429. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0801(200010)14:6<422::AID-BMC25>3.0.CO;2-I
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted December 30, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomic Profiling of Sonicate Fluid Differentiates Staphylococcus aureus Periprosthetic Joint Infection from Non-Infectious Failure: A pilot study
Cody R. Fisher, Kiran K. Mangalaparthi, Kerryl E. Greenwood-Quaintance, Matthew P. Abdel, Akhilesh Pandey, Robin Patel
medRxiv 2022.12.28.22284010; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.28.22284010
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area