This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Jaekel, H-P Articles by Werle, E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jaekel, H-P Articles by Werle, E Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Anti-dsDNA antibody subtypes and anti-C1q antibodies: toward a more reliable diagnosis and monitoring of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis

Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics, Microbiology and Transfusion Medicine, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Clinical Centre, Neubrandenburg, Germany, LAB{at}dbk-nb.de

A Trabandt

Clinic of Internal Medicine, Dept of Rheumatology, Hospital Demmin, Germany

N Grobe

Clinic of Internal Medicine I, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Clinical Centre, Neubrandenburg, Germany

E Werle

Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics, Microbiology and Transfusion Medicine, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Clinical Centre, Neubrandenburg, Germany

The putative distinct diagnostic and pathogenic potential of aDNA-Ab subtypes, differing in their affinity or epitope specificity, was subject of several studies with controversial results. Comparing five assays, characterized by different reaction conditions and nature/source of dsDNA, we investigated the abovementioned problem in a retrospective study on 100 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients and 100 controls (other CTD, autoimmune hepatopathies). As demonstrated, only assay 3 (Farrzyme, TBS, UK) and 5 (Farr-RIA, Trinity Biotech, Ireland) are really suitable to detect primarily high avidity aDNA-Ab. Both were significantly linked to lupus nephritis (specificity 84%) and highly specific for SLE (95 and 96%). Thereby, assay 3 was found to be the first solid phase ELISA probably suitable to replace the Farr-RIA. Classical ELISAs (assay 1, Orgentec, Germany, and 2, Bindazyme, TBS, UK), detecting aDNA-Ab more or less independent from their avidity, or tests with only intermediate specificity for high avidity Ab (assay 4, ELIAdn, Sweden Diagnostics, Germany), were less specific for SLE (83, 79, 91%, respectively) and not associated with renal involvement (specificity 54-57%). At least in the patients studied here, obvious antigen-related differences could not be observed. With slight differences, all assays were suitable to monitor disease activity and therapy in SLE, agreeing with the ECLAM score in about 70-80% of cases. For lupus nephritis, aC1q-Ab are as specific as high avidity aDNA-Ab and capable to close a diagnostic gap in some cases. Thus, to enhance the specificity (up to 98%) and to consider the distinct diagnostic/pathogenic potential of aDNA-Ab subtypes in SLE, under routine clinical laboratory conditions it should be recommended to combine a sensitive screening test with a more specific second assay.

Key Words: aC1q-Ab • aDNA-Ab • diagnostic/pathogenic potential • lupus nephritis • SLE

Lupus, Vol. 15, No. 6, 335-345 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0961203306lu2308oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B Bonaci-Nikolic, I Jeremic, S Andrejevic, M Sefik-Bukilica, N Stojsavljevic, and J Drulovic Anti-double stranded DNA and lupus syndrome induced by interferon-{beta} therapy in a patient with multiple sclerosis Lupus, January 1, 2009; 18(1): 78 - 80. [Abstract] [PDF]