
==== Front
JAMA Ophthalmol
JAMA Ophthalmol
JAMA Ophthalmology
2168-6165
2168-6173
American Medical Association

39145969
10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.2891
eoi240047
Research
Research
Original Investigation
Online First
Comments
Biomarker Detection and Validation for Corneal Involvement in Patients With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis
Biomarker Detection and Validation for Corneal Involvement in Patients With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis
Biomarker Detection and Validation for Corneal Involvement in Patients With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis
Seitzman Gerami D. MD 1 2
Prajna Lalitha MD PhD 3
Prajna N. Venkatesh MD 3
Sansanayudh Wiwan MD 4
Satitpitakul Vannarut MD 5 6
Laovirojjanakul Wipada MD 7
Chen Cindi MS 1
Zhong Lina BS 1
Ouimette Kevin BS 1
Redd Travis MD MPH 8
Deiner Michael C. PhD 2
Porco Travis C. PhD MPH 1 2 9 10
McLeod Stephen D. MD 1 2
Lietman Thomas M. MD 1 2 9 10
Hinterwirth Armin PhD 1
Doan Thuy MD PhD 1 2
for the SCORPIO Study Group
1 Francis I Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco
2 Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco
3 Department of Ocular Microbiology, Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India
4 Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
5 Center of Excellence for Cornea and Stem Cell Transplantation, Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
6 Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand
7 Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
8 Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
9 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco
10 Institute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco
Article Information

Group Information: The SCORPIO Study Group members appear in Supplement 2.

Accepted for Publication: June 10, 2024.

Published Online: August 15, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.2891

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Seitzman GD et al. JAMA Ophthalmology.

Corresponding Author: Thuy Doan, MD, PhD (thuy.doan@ucsf.edu), and Armin Hinterwirth, PhD (armin.hinterwirth@ucsf.edu), Francis I Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, 490 Illinois St, Floor 2, San Francisco, CA 94158.
Author Contributions: Drs Hinterwirth and Doan had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Seitzman, Ouimette, Lietman, Hinterwirth, Doan.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Seitzman, L. Prajna, N. Prajna, Sansanayudh, Satitpitakul, Laovirojjanakul, Chen, Zhong, Ouimette, Redd, Deiner, Porco, McLeod, Hinterwirth, Doan.

Drafting of the manuscript: Sansanayudh, Hinterwirth, Doan.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Seitzman, L. Prajna, N. Prajna, Satitpitakul, Laovirojjanakul, Chen, Zhong, Ouimette, Redd, Deiner, Porco, McLeod, Lietman, Hinterwirth, Doan.

Statistical analysis: Porco, Hinterwirth, Doan.

Obtained funding: Doan.

Administrative, technical, or material support: N. Prajna, Sansanayudh, Laovirojjanakul, Chen, Zhong, Ouimette, Deiner, Lietman, Doan.

Supervision: Seitzman, L. Prajna, Doan.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Seitzman reported consulting fees from Dompe Pharmaceuticals, Kedrion Biopharma, and Tarsus Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by grants R01EY032041 and K12EY031372 and EY002162 (Core Grant for Vision Research) from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Group Information: The SCORPIO Study Group members appear in Supplement 2.

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

15 8 2024
9 2024
15 8 2024
142 9 865871
25 3 2024
10 6 2024
Copyright 2024 Seitzman GD et al. JAMA Ophthalmology.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
jamaophthalmol-e242891.pdf

Key Points

Question

Can biomarkers that may be important to clinical outcomes in patients with infectious conjunctivitis be identified?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study that leveraged a combination of high-throughput sequencing, predictive algorithms, and various orthogonal validation approaches, apolipoprotein E (APOE) was identified as a biomarker associated with corneal involvement. APOE was highly discriminant between disease states in patients tested in India and Thailand.

Meaning

These findings suggest that relevant and minimally invasive ocular biomarkers can be identified to facilitate precision care.

This cross-sectional study evaluates potential biomarkers in patients with acute infectious conjunctivitis.

Importance

Infectious conjunctivitis can lead to corneal involvement and result in ocular morbidity. The identification of biomarkers associated with corneal involvement has the potential to improve patient care.

Objective

To identify biomarkers in patients with acute infectious conjunctivitis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study took place from December 2016 to March 2024. Analyses were performed in 3 phases. First, logistic regression and machine learning algorithms were used to predict the probability of demonstrating corneal involvement in patients with presumed infectious conjunctivitis. Second, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) was used to confirm the most important biomarker gene identified by the algorithm. Third, the biomarker gene was validated in prospectively collected conjunctival samples of adult patients from 3 outpatient centers in Thailand and 1 in India. Patients with signs and symptoms of infectious conjunctivitis and onset within less than 14 days were eligible. Exclusion criteria were the inability to consent, presumed toxicity, or allergic conjunctivitis.

Exposures

Acute infectious conjunctivitis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The identification and validation of ocular surface gene expression associated with corneal findings on slitlamp examination.

Results

Thirteen genes exhibited a 1.5–log2 fold change in expression in patients with corneal involvement compared to patients without corneal involvement. Using the 13 genes to train and cross validate, logistic regression produced the highest mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC; 0.85; 95% CI, 0.84-0.86) for corneal involvement. The removal of apolipoprotein E (APOE) from the gene ensemble led to a decline in predictive performance of the logistic regression classifier (from mean AUROC 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.86] to 0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.75]; adjusted P = .001 [Tukey test]). Orthogonal testing of APOE expression level with RT-qPCR showed that APOE expression was higher in patients with corneal involvement compared to patients without (median [IQR], 0.23 [0.04-0.47] vs 0.04 [0.02-0.06]; P = .004 [Mann-Whitney U test]). Using a Youden index of 0.23 Δ threshold cycle, APOE had a sensitivity of 56% (95% CI, 33-77) and a specificity of 88% (95% CI, 79-93) in 106 samples with conjunctivitis at Aravind, India (P < .001 [Fisher exact test]). When applied to a different patient population in Thailand, the same criteria could discriminate between disease states (58 samples; sensitivity, 47%; 95% CI, 30-64 and specificity, 93%; 95% CI, 77-99; P = .001 [Fisher exact test]).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results from this study suggest that the host conjunctival immune response can be meaningfully interrogated to identify biomarkers for ocular surface diseases.

National Eye InstituteResearch to Prevent Blindness
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Infectious conjunctivitis can lead to vision loss when the cornea becomes involved and inflamed and conjunctivitis outbreaks remain a major public health burden.1 The rate of corneal involvement with infectious conjunctivitis is variable, can affect any sociodemographic group, and may be pathogen and serotype dependent.2

Signs of corneal involvement with conjunctivitis can range from mild (ie, punctate epithelial erosions or keratopathy) to more severe, such as subepithelial corneal infiltrates (SEIs). Punctate epithelial erosions represent corneal epithelial cell loss while SEIs represent an overactive postinfectious inflammatory process that presents clinically as patchy opacification in the anterior corneal stroma just beneath the corneal epithelial layer. SEIs are the hallmark corneal manifestation of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis outbreaks. Here, the presumptive causative pathogens are viruses, commonly adenoviruses, and postviral SEIs can be chronic and recurrent.3 Postinfectious, visually significant SEIs may occur with other pathogens, including microsporidia (commonly preceded by raised epithelial lesions),4,5 herpes viridae,6,7 and SARS-CoV-2.8,9 Although some pathogens make SEI development more likely, there is presently no way to predict their occurrence. Therapeutic interventions for corneal involvement include the use of topical immunosuppressives, which may clear the opacities.3,10 Patients with corneal involvement may progress to vision loss. It is still unclear if preventive treatment can halt or minimize the occurrence and reoccurrence of corneal sequelae.

The term biomarker refers to an objective measure that can be used to predict a condition or disease. An effective biomarker allows for the prediction of both occurrence and severity of a disease and, ideally, identifies a population where treatment can be initiated to minimize the negative impact of a disease.11 Because infectious conjunctivitis causes an intense inflammatory response in a relatively accessible organ, the disease provides an ideal opportunity to characterize the local host immune response. Prior work12 has shown that we could identify transcriptome signatures associated with pathogen types. In addition, the output of metagenomic datasets is large, thus making machine learning potentially optimal for biomarker identification and prediction within these data repositories.13,14,15 The objective of this study was to use RNA-seq, various statistical classifier models, and directed quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to develop a model that can identify conjunctival biomarkers associated with corneal involvement in patients with acute infectious conjunctivitis.

Methods

Patient Selection

Conjunctival swabs were obtained from patients with presumed infectious conjunctivitis who presented to the Proctor Foundation at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); the Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India; Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand; and Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Inclusion criteria included having symptoms suggestive of infectious conjunctivitis for less than 14 days.12 Patients were excluded if suspected to have allergic or toxic conjunctivitis. Sex and age were self-reported. This study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The institutional review board of UCSF and the ethics review committees of Aravind Eye Hospital, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, and Khon Kaen University approved the study. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients and no incentives were given.

Sample Collection

The lower fornix of the affected eye was swept 2 times using a sterile polyester-tipped applicator (Puritan). The swab was placed in DNA/RNA-Shield (Zymo Research) to preserve the integrity of the nucleic acids in the sample. Samples from India and Thailand were stored at −20 °C until shipment to UCSF for long-term storage at −80 °C.

Patient Populations

Fifty-eight convenience samples from 54 presumed infectious conjunctivitis patients from Madurai, India, and San Francisco, California, collected between December 2016 and January 2020, were used for phases 1 and 2 (eTable 1 in Supplement 1). In phase 3, prospectively collected samples from patients enrolled in the Seasonal Conjunctivitis Outbreak Reporting for Prevention and Improved Outcomes (SCORPIO) study at Aravind Eye Hospital, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, and Khon Kaen University from April 2021 to December 2022 were included for analysis (eTable 3 in Supplement 1).

Laboratory Methods

Samples were deidentified and randomized prior to sample processing. Researchers processing and analyzing the samples were masked to deidentify patient information. Nucleic acid extraction and sequencing libraries were prepared and sequenced as previously described.12,16 In brief, total RNA was extracted from the conjunctival samples using the Quick-DNA/RNA Microprep Plus Kit (Zymo Research) per the manufacturer’s instructions. From each sample, 5 μL of extracted total nucleic acids were first converted to complementary DNA (cDNA), and sequencing libraries were prepared using the NEBNext RNA ULTRA IIp Kit (New England Biolabs) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and then amplified with 16 PCR cycles. Samples were sequenced on the NovaSeq system (NovaSeq 6000; Illumina) using 150 nucleotide–paired end sequencing.

Identification of Corneal Involvement

Patients seen at the outpatient clinic at the participating sites were examined using slitlamp biomicroscopy by trained ophthalmologists at presentation. For this study, the definition of corneal involvement is broad and includes abnormal corneal surface staining with fluorescein, raised corneal epithelial lesions, and SEIs.

Data Analysis

Differential host gene expression analysis was performed as previously described.17,18 Briefly, sequencing reads were quality filtered and aligned to the GRCh38 human genome assembly using HISAT2 version 2.1.0. Abundance of transcripts was calculated using the default parameters in stringtie2 version 1.3.4d and annotation of transcripts was based on ENSEMBL GRCh38.87. Gene count matrices were generated using stringtie2’s prepDE.py script according to the protocol found in the stringtie2 documentation (Python 3.6.7). Gene count data were analyzed in a set of 46 samples (eTable 1 in Supplement 1) with DESeq2 version 1.28.1 to evaluate for differences between patients with corneal involvement and those without corneal involvement. Genes for which DESeq2 reported an adjusted P value (false discovery rate) less than .05 and with at least a log2 fold change of 1.5 were considered notable.

RT-qPCR

Transcript expression for individual genes was quantified. RT-qPCR runs were performed in a Mic qPCR Cycler (Bio Molecular Systems). cDNA was synthesized using the SuperScript VILO cDNA Synthesis Kit (Invitrogen). Five microliters of RNA were added into a first-strand cDNA synthesis reaction per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Two microliters of cDNA were added to each PCR reaction mix (20 μL), containing 10 μL of 2X TaqMan Fast Advanced Master Mix (Applied Biosystems), 1 μL of ApoE 20X TaqMan Gene Expression Assay (Hs00171168_m1, Thermo Fisher) or 1 μL GAPDH 20X TaqMan Gene Expression Assay (Hs02786624_g1, Thermo Fisher), and 7 μL of nuclease-free water. The following protocol was used: an initial uracil-N-glycosylase incubation step at 50 °C for 2 minutes and a polymerase activation/cDNA denaturation step at 95 °C for 2 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 3 seconds and 60 °C for 30 seconds. All samples were processed in duplicates. Data were acquired using micPCR software version 2.6.5 (Bio Molecular Systems). APOE expression values were normalized to glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) levels using the following equation: 2(CT[GAPDH] − CT[APOE]).

Statistical Analyses

DESeq2-normalized counts of the differentially expressed genes of an expanded sample set (n = 58; eTable 1 in Supplement 1) were used to train and validate various classifier models (scikit-learn, Python library, version 1.4.1). Since the number of samples was small, we used a randomized subsampling approach to get a measure of the trainability of each model. In each of 1000 iterations, the set of samples was split 70/30 using the scikit-learn function StratifiedShuffleSplit, which preserves the percentage of samples for each class. Features were standardized using a default StandardScaler function, which removes the mean and scales to unit variance. Logistic regression, random forest, linear support vector machine, and decision tree models with the default parameters defined in scikit-learn were then trained on the training fold and validated on the validation fold. We used the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) to estimate the reliability of the performance metrics and compared the AUROCs using the method by Hanley and McNeil.19

To identify genes predictive of corneal involvement, we compared the predictive performance between a full model and one where that gene was held out.20 To assess the statistical significance of differences in the distributions of AUROC values across various scenarios, an analysis of variance test was conducted. P values for the multiple pairwise comparisons were calculated using Tukey procedure (statsmodel, Python library, version 0.14.1). In addition, SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values were calculated for each classifier model to rank the influence of each gene on the model output (SHAP library v0.45.1).

The fold changes of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) RT-qPCR results of phase 2 were fitted to a logistic regression model, and the Youden J statistic was used to determine the best fold change threshold to distinguish the 2 classes. For phase 3, the APOE RT-qPCR was performed on extracted RNA from conjunctival samples of patients who participated in the SCORPIO Study Group. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a 2 × 2 table (confusion matrix). The Fisher exact test was used to determine the discriminability of APOE RT-qPCR with clinical findings of corneal involvement (GraphPad version 10). This study adhered to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) reporting guideline.

Results

This study was conducted in 3 phases (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). The first phase was to identify a set of genes associated with patients who demonstrate corneal involvement with slitlamp biomicroscopy. To do this, we performed differential analysis on human transcripts using RNA-seq from conjunctival samples of 36 patients with presumed infectious conjunctivitis who presented to the Aravind Eye Hospital (eTable 1 in Supplement 1). Thirteen genes were found to be differentially expressed between patients with corneal involvement (n = 9) compared to those without (n = 27) (Figure 1A; eTables 1 and 2 in Supplement 1). We then used models to predict the probability of corneal involvement using the gene signatures. Models were trained and cross validated on data from 58 samples collected from 54 patients (20 samples with corneal involvement and 38 samples without corneal involvement) (eTable 1 and eFigure 2 in Supplement 1). Of the 4 models used, standard logistic regression produced the highest mean (95% CI) AUROC (0.85 [0.84-0.86]) compared to the support vector machine (0.82 [0.81-0.83]), random forest (0.80 [0.80-0.81]), and decision tree (0.68 [0.67-0.68]) models for corneal involvement (Figure 1B). The logistic regression classifier was chosen for further analysis. The model’s performance dropped after APOE was removed (mean AUROC, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.86] vs 0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.75]; adjusted P = .001 [Tukey test]), indicating APOE may be an important biomarker associated with corneal involvement (Figure 2). Similarly, APOE appeared to have the highest impact SHAP values (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1).

Figure 1. Phase 1 of the Analytic Protocol

A, Heatmap showing the top 13 DESeq2 differentially abundant genes in conjunctival samples from patients with presumed infectious conjunctivitis with and without corneal involvement. B, Training performance of logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, and linear support vector machine (SVM). AUROC indicates area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Figure 2. Phase 2 of the Analytic Protocol

A, Each data point represents the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of logistic regression models that left out the respective gene over 1000 randomized training and validation splits. The red dotted line represents the mean AUROC for all splits of the full model of all 13 genes. The blue dotted lines represent the 95% CIs of the full model. Error bars represent 95% CIs for the individual models. B, Validation of APOE in conjunctival samples of 48 patients with presumed acute infectious conjunctivitis using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis. APOE expression was normalized to glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase and expressed as Δ threshold cycle (Δ CT). P value was calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

In the second phase, we orthogonally validated that the expression of APOE was correlated with clinical findings in a subset of conjunctival samples used in training and validation. RT-qPCR was performed on 48 samples (13 with and 35 without corneal involvement) (eTable 1 in Supplement 1). The normalized expression of APOE was higher in the samples from patients with corneal involvement compared to samples from patients without corneal involvement (median [IQR], 0.23 [0.04-0.47] vs 0.04 [0.02-0.06]; P = .004 [Mann-Whitney U test]) (Figure 2B). From the same dataset, we generated a ROC curve to determine the optimal Δ threshold cycle for corneal involvement. The Youden index was a 0.23-fold change in APOE expression.

In the third phase, we validated the findings in patients whose samples were collected prospectively (eTable 3 in Supplement 1). These were patients who participated in the SCORPIO Study and their samples were not used for training or validation. SCORPIO is an international consortium to track pathogens for presumed acute infectious conjunctivitis. Sample collection and enrollment criteria for SCORPIO were the same as the prior patient cohort used in phases 1 and 2 of this analysis. We performed APOE RT-qPCR in patients enrolled in Aravind Eye Hospital in India and Phramongkutklao Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, and Khon Kaen University in Thailand (Figure 3). Using the threshold identified above, the sensitivity and specificity of APOE to classify corneal involvement for 106 patients in India was 56% (95% CI, 33-77) and 88% (95% CI, 79-93), respectively (P < .001 [Fisher exact test]). Similar sensitivity and specificity were observed in the patient cohort (n = 58) from 3 study sites in Thailand (47% [95% CI, 30-64] and 93% [95% CI, 77-99]; P = .001[Fisher exact test]).

Figure 3. Phase 3 of the Analytic Protocol

Performance of APOE as a marker for corneal involvement in the conjunctival samples of patients with presumed acute infectious conjunctivitis in India and Thailand. P values were calculated using the Fisher exact test. NPV indicates negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.

Discussion

In this cross-sectional study, we showed that we could identify a biomarker with high specificity for corneal involvement in patients with presumed infectious conjunctivitis by leveraging bulk RNA-seq, simple machine-learning approaches, and direct testing on multiple patient populations. Here, we found the expression level of APOE in the conjunctiva is associated with corneal involvement seen on examination.

APOE is a protein involved with the transport of lipids and cholesterol. APOE is the main cholesterol carrier in the brain, and the APOE4 variant a risk factor for the development of Alzheimer disease in some populations.21 There is a suggestion that APOE4 may worsen the inflammation caused by amyloid deposition.22 The role APOE plays in the cornea has not been well characterized. APOE may be associated with corneal dystrophies that involve visually significant lipid deposition into the cornea, such as Schnyder corneal dystrophy,23 as well as corneal dystrophies involving amyloid deposition.24 While APOE is associated with an increased risk of systemic herpes infections25 it is unclear if this risk extends to herpetic keratitis and its sequelae, although there is a suggestion of increased APOE2 variant in this population.26,27 When used topically in an animal model, APOE peptide mimetic appeared to exhibit some antiviral properties.28

SCORPIO is an ongoing international consortium that tracks pathogens causing conjunctivitis worldwide. This study revealed that the pathogens causing infectious conjunctivitis are diverse and largely dependent on geography. In southern India, the predominant organisms include the human adenovirus (HAdV) and the fungus Vittaforma corneae, both of which can result in corneal involvement. Indeed, for V corneae, a common clinical presentation is the stuck-on appearance of raised corneal epithelial lesions that stain with fluorescein. The set of samples used for dimension reduction, machine learning training, and validation was collected from patients with a pathogen identified (ie, HAdV or Vittaforma corneae) or without a pathogen identified (ie, negative on metagenomic sequencing). Thus, the analysis was agnostic of the causative agents and focused on the corneal involvement as an outcome. From a biomarker testing standpoint, this may serve as a strength, as the detection of sequelae of the disease is the main objective.

The prevalence of corneal involvement in infectious or epidemic conjunctivitis is not well established. It appears to be pathogen dependent and ranges from around 38% to 80%, although many patients are unlikely to have a slitlamp examination on presentation, as they usually present to urgent care or their primary care physicians instead of an ophthalmologist.29,30 From a clinical standpoint, the positive predictive and negative predictive values may be more inherently meaningful than the sensitivity and specificity of the test. While the sensitivity and specificity of APOE were similar for the patient populations in Thailand and southern India, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value are likely to be different, as these values are dependent on prevalence.

While the specificity of APOE for corneal involvement is high, the sensitivity reported here is modest. From a translational standpoint, given that a careful slitlamp examination can reveal corneal pathology, the utility of a biomarker associated with corneal pathology is helpful in a few settings. One is when a careful slitlamp eye examination is not available, particularly in resource-poor areas or when a patient presents to primary care or an emergency department lacking in ophthalmology services. Notably, most patients with conjunctivitis seek primary care, not subspecialty care. In these settings, subjective concerns of photophobia and decreased acuity are common in patients with conjunctivitis. One potential use of a biomarker associated with corneal findings may be to identify an at-risk population that would benefit from a timely referral for a specialized examination. Assuming the APOE marker can be adapted to a point-of-care test, a patient with presumed infectious conjunctivitis with a positive test result may be triaged to be seen by an optometrist or ophthalmologist earlier in their disease course. Given that most health care money is spent on follow-up care for conjunctivitis, the economic feasibility of this approach could balance the cost of a point-of-care test with the money saved on decreased follow-up visits.31

The association of APOE with an increased risk for corneal involvement also suggests future work investigating correlation with clinical severity, and ability to predict disease and affect clinical management. If APOE can predict the development of keratitis early in the conjunctivitis course, the potential for earlier or preventive measures can be initiated. The current treatment for corneal opacities associated with conjunctivitis is judicious anti-inflammatory treatment, but the choice of agents is controversial, and outcomes are variable.32 Both host and agent features are potentially important contributors to treatment outcomes, and APOE may play a role in host cornea response and in guiding treatment.

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this study is the combination of various approaches, including the mining of retrospective data, high-throughput sequencing, predictive algorithms (standard logistic regression and machine learning), verification at the bench, and then direct validation of the results on prospectively collected samples in multiple patient populations. This study also has limitations. First, we did not validate the performance of combinations of genes, such as APOE and GPR183 or APOE and BRX1 or other combinations, as this was not within the scope of the study. Thus, the modest sensitivity observed with just APOE could potentially be improved if used in combination with 1 or more genes. Feature ordering using machine learning models is likely to improve classification performance. The modest sensitivity of APOE observed here limits its use as a screening biomarker, although in the right context, its high specificity could still be useful in identifying patients who may benefit from a close examination by a specialist. Our definition of corneal involvement was broad, and subtypes (eg, punctate erosions, raised keratitis, and SEI) were not specified or studied separately. There was no follow-up examination information to evaluate for disease progression. The reported sensitivity and specificity may not extrapolate to regions of the world other than Thailand and India.

Conclusions

In summary, this proof-of-concept study suggests the feasibility of identifying biomarkers relevant to ocular surface diseases. For presumed infectious conjunctivitis, regardless of pathogen types, visible corneal involvement was associated with APOE, and this biomarker appeared to have high specificity in patients in India and Thailand. Similar approaches may be of relevance to the identification of other biomarkers in ophthalmology.

Supplement 1. eFigure 1. Analytic protocol schematics.

eFigure 2. Pathogens identified by RNA-seq in the samples of the patients included in Phase I and II.

eFigure 3. SHAP summary plot of the 13 features contributing to the logistic regression classifier (A) and the support vector machine classifier (B).

eTable 1. Characteristics of samples included in Phases I and II.

eTable 2. Differential gene expression between patients with and without corneal involvement.

eTable 3. Characteristics of samples included in Phase III.

Supplement 2. The SCORPIO Study Group members

Supplement 3. Data sharing statement
==== Refs
References

1 Smith AF, Waycaster C. Estimate of the direct and indirect annual cost of bacterial conjunctivitis in the United States. BMC Ophthalmol. 2009;9 :13. doi:10.1186/1471-2415-9-13 19939250
2 Van Gelder RN, Akileswaran L, Nakamichi K, Stroman D. Molecular and clinical characterization of human adenovirus E4-associated conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;233 :227-242. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2021.10.028 34740631
3 Labib BA, Minhas BK, Chigbu DI. Management of adenoviral keratoconjunctivitis: challenges and solutions. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14 :837-852. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S207976 32256043
4 Mohanty A, Mitra S, Das S, Priyadarshini S, Sahu SK. A prospective study on the clinical course and proposed morphological classification scheme of microsporidial keratoconjunctivitis. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36 (8 ):818-823. doi:10.1080/08820538.2021.1923762 34010100
5 Mohanty A, Mitra S, Mallick A, . Sequelae of microsporidial keratoconjunctivitis and its management. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69 (6 ):1537-1543. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1971_20 34011737
6 Soliman W, Nassr MA, Abdelazeem K, Al-Hussaini AK. Appearance of herpes simplex keratitis on anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39 (12 ):2923-2928. doi:10.1007/s10792-019-01142-4 31309437
7 Hirota A, Shoji J, Inada N, Adachi R, Tonozuka Y, Yamagami S. Rapid detection and diagnosis of herpetic keratitis using quantitative microfluidic polymerase chain reaction system for herpes simplex and varicella-zoster virus DNA: a case series. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023;23 (1 ):177. doi:10.1186/s12886-023-02938-w 37098507
8 Chen L, Deng C, Chen X, . Ocular manifestations and clinical characteristics of 535 cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a cross-sectional study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98 (8 ):e951-e959. doi:10.1111/aos.14472 32421258
9 Cheema M, Aghazadeh H, Nazarali S, . Keratoconjunctivitis as the initial medical presentation of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55 (4 ):e125-e129. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.03.003 32284146
10 Asena L, Dursun Altınörs D. Application of topical 2% cyclosporine A in inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43 (11 ):3943-3952. doi:10.1007/s10792-023-02796-x 37420126
11 Byrnes SA, Weigl BH. Selecting analytical biomarkers for diagnostic applications: a first principles approach. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18 (1 ):19-26. doi:10.1080/14737159.2018.1412258 29200322
12 Lalitha P, Seitzman GD, Kotecha R, . Unbiased pathogen detection and host gene profiling for conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology. 2019;126 (8 ):1090-1094. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.03.039 30953744
13 Wu J, Singleton SS, Bhuiyan U, Krammer L, Mazumder R. Multi-omics approaches to studying gastrointestinal microbiome in the context of precision medicine and machine learning. Front Mol Biosci. 2024;10 :1337373. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2023.1337373 38313584
14 Lin Y, Wang G, Yu J, Sung JJY. Artificial intelligence and metagenomics in intestinal diseases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;36 (4 ):841-847. doi:10.1111/jgh.15501 33880764
15 Shi Y, Zhang C, Pan S, . The diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: advancements in new technologies and machine learning algorithms. Front Microbiol. 2023;14 :1290746. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1290746 37942080
16 Doan T, Sahoo MK, Ruder K, . Comprehensive pathogen detection for ocular infections. J Clin Virol. 2021;136 :104759. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104759 33609933
17 Kaidonis G, Lamy R, Wu J, . Aqueous fluid transcriptome profiling differentiates between non-neovascular and neovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2023;64 (10 ):26. doi:10.1167/iovs.64.10.26 33201059
18 Seitzman GD, Keenan JD, Lietman TM, ; capriCORN Study Group. Human conjunctival transcriptome in acanthamoeba keratitis: an exploratory study. Cornea. Published online May 21, 2024. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000003545 33201059
19 Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148 (3 ):839-843. doi:10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708 6878708
20 Kanjilal S, Oberst M, Boominathan S, Zhou H, Hooper DC, Sontag D. A decision algorithm to promote outpatient antimicrobial stewardship for uncomplicated urinary tract infection. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12 (568 ):eaay5067. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aay5067 33148625
21 Lou T, Tao B, Chen M. Relationship of Apolipoprotein E with Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Neurological Disorders: An Updated Review. Neuroscience. 2023;514 :123-140. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2023.01.032 36736614
22 Friedberg JS, Aytan N, Cherry JD, . Associations between brain inflammatory profiles and human neuropathology are altered based on apolipoprotein E ε4 genotype. Sci Rep. 2020;10 (1 ):2924. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-59869-5 32076055
23 Gaynor PM, Zhang WY, Weiss JS, Skarlatos SI, Rodrigues MM, Kruth HS. Accumulation of HDL apolipoproteins accompanies abnormal cholesterol accumulation in Schnyder’s corneal dystrophy. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16 (8 ):992-999. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.16.8.992 8696964
24 Nishida K, Quantock AJ, Dota A, Choi-Miura NH, Kinoshita S. Apolipoproteins J and E co-localise with amyloid in gelatinous drop-like and lattice type I corneal dystrophies. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83 (10 ):1178-1182. doi:10.1136/bjo.83.10.1178 10502582
25 Chen F, Ke Q, Wei W, Cui L, Wang Y. Apolipoprotein E and viral infection: risks and mechanisms. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2023;33 :529-542. doi:10.1016/j.omtn.2023.07.031 37588688
26 Hill JM, Bhattacharjee PS, Neumann DM. Apolipoprotein E alleles can contribute to the pathogenesis of numerous clinical conditions including HSV-1 corneal disease. Exp Eye Res. 2007;84 (5 ):801-811. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2006.08.001 17007837
27 Lin WR, Tullo AB, Itzhaki RF. Apolipoprotein E and herpes virus diseases: herpes simplex keratitis. Eur J Hum Genet. 1999;7 (3 ):401-403. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200313 10234519
28 Bhattacharjee PS, Neumann DM, Hill JM. A human apolipoprotein E mimetic peptide effectively inhibits HSV-1 TK-positive and TK-negative acute epithelial keratitis in rabbits. Curr Eye Res. 2009;34 (2 ):99-102. doi:10.1080/02713680802647662 19219680
29 Omari AA, Mian SI. Adenoviral keratitis: a review of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29 (4 ):365-372. doi:10.1097/ICU.0000000000000485 29708932
30 Kanski JJ. Kanski’s Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2016.
31 Schneider JESC, Segall D, Sambursky R, Ohsfeldt RL, Lovejoy L. Epidemiology and economic burden of conjunctivitis: a managed care perspective. J Manag Care Med. 2014;18 (1 ):6.
32 Gouider D, Khallouli A, Maalej A, . Corticosteroids versus cyclosporine for subepithelial infiltrates secondary to epidemic keratoconjunctivitis: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Cornea. 2021;40 (6 ):726-732. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002589 33201059
