Scofield R H, Farris A D, Horsfall A C, Harley J B
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, and Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Oklahoma City 73104, USA.
Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Feb;42(2):199-209. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199902)42:2<199::AID-ANR1>3.0.CO;2-1.
The fine specificity of the Ro and La proteins has been studied by several techniques. In general, there is agreement in a qualitative sense that autoantibodies bind multiple epitopes. For some specific antibody binding, different studies agree quantitatively, for instance, the binding of the carboxyl terminus of 60-kd Ro as described by 2 studies using different techniques and the presence of an epitope within the leucine zipper of 52-kd Ro. In addition, there is general agreement about the location of a prominent epitope at the RRM motif region of the La molecule. On the other hand, the many specific epitope regions of the molecules differ among these studies. These discrepancies are likely the result of using different techniques, sera, and peptide constructs as well as a result of inherent advantages and disadvantages in the individual approaches. Several theories concerning the origin of not only the antibodies, but also the diseases themselves, have been generated from studies of the fine specificity of antibody binding. These include a theory of a primordial foreign antigen for anti-Ro autoimmunity, molecular mimicry with regard to La and CCHB, as well as the association of anti-Ro with HLA. These remain unproven, but are of continuing interest. An explanation for the association of anti-60-kd Ro and anti-52-kd Ro in the sera of patients has sprung from evaluating antibody binding. Data demonstrating multiple epitopes are part of a large body of evidence that strongly suggests an antigen-driven immune response. This means that the autoantigens are directly implicated in initiating and sustaining autoimmunity in their associated diseases. A number of studies have investigated the possibility of differences in the immune response to these antigens in SS and SLE sera. While several differences have been reported, none have been reproduced in a second cohort of patients. Furthermore, none of the reported differences may be sufficiently robust for clinical purposes, such as distinguishing between SS with systemic features and mild SLE, although some might be promising. For instance, in at least 3 groups of SLE patients, no binding of residues spanning amino acids 21-41 of 60-kd Ro has been found. Meanwhile, 1 of those studies found that 41% of sera from patients with primary SS bound the 60-kd Ro peptide 21-41. Perhaps future studies will elaborate a clinical role of such a difference among SS and SLE patients. Study of the epitopes of these autoantigens has, in part, led to a new animal model of anti-Ro and anti-La. Non-autoimmune-prone animals are immunized with proteins or peptides that make up the Ro/La RNP. Such animals develop an autoimmune response to the entire particle, not just the immunogen. This response has been hypothesized to arise from autoreactive B cells. In another, older animal model of disease, the MRL-lpr/lpr mouse, B cells have recently been shown to be required for the generation of abnormal, autoreactive T cells. Thus, there are now powerful data indicating that B cells that produce autoantibodies are directly involved in the pathogenesis of disease above and beyond the formation of immune complexes. Given that the autoreactive B cell is potentially critical to the underlying pathogenesis of disease, then studying these cells will be crucial to further understanding the origin of diseases associated with Ro and La autoimmunity. Hopefully, an increased understanding will eventually lead to improved treatment of patients. Progress in the area of treatment will almost surely be incremental, and studies of the fine specificity of autoantibody binding will be a part of the body of basic knowledge contributing to ultimate advancement. In the future, the animal models will need to be examined with regard to immunology and immunochemistry as well as genetics. The development of these autoantibodies has not been studied extensively because upon presentation to medical care, virtually all patients have a full-
已经通过多种技术研究了Ro和La蛋白的精细特异性。一般来说,在定性方面,自身抗体结合多个表位这一点是一致的。对于某些特定的抗体结合,不同的研究在定量上是一致的,例如,两项使用不同技术的研究描述了60-kd Ro羧基末端的结合,以及52-kd Ro亮氨酸拉链内一个表位的存在。此外,关于La分子RRM基序区域一个突出表位的位置也有普遍共识。另一方面,这些研究中分子的许多特定表位区域存在差异。这些差异可能是由于使用了不同的技术、血清和肽构建体,以及各方法本身固有的优缺点所致。关于抗体以及疾病本身起源的几种理论,是从抗体结合精细特异性的研究中产生的。这些理论包括抗Ro自身免疫的原始外来抗原理论、关于La和先天性心脏传导阻滞的分子模拟,以及抗Ro与HLA的关联。这些仍未得到证实,但仍具有持续的研究价值。通过评估抗体结合,已经对患者血清中抗60-kd Ro和抗52-kd Ro的关联做出了解释。证明存在多个表位的数据是大量证据的一部分,这些证据有力地表明了抗原驱动的免疫反应。这意味着自身抗原直接参与了其相关疾病中自身免疫的启动和维持。许多研究调查了干燥综合征(SS)和系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)血清中对这些抗原免疫反应差异的可能性。虽然已经报道了一些差异,但在另一组患者中均未得到重现。此外,所报道的差异可能都不够显著,无法用于临床目的,如区分有全身症状的SS和轻度SLE,尽管有些差异可能很有前景。例如,在至少三组SLE患者中,未发现60-kd Ro第21 - 41位氨基酸残基的结合。与此同时,其中一项研究发现,原发性SS患者血清中有41%能结合60-kd Ro肽21 - 41。也许未来的研究将阐明SS和SLE患者之间这种差异的临床作用。对这些自身抗原表位的研究部分促成了一种新的抗Ro和抗La动物模型。用构成Ro/La核糖核蛋白的蛋白质或肽对不易发生自身免疫的动物进行免疫。这类动物对整个颗粒产生自身免疫反应,而不仅仅是对免疫原产生反应。这种反应被推测源于自身反应性B细胞。在另一种较老的疾病动物模型MRL-lpr/lpr小鼠中,最近发现B细胞是产生异常自身反应性T细胞所必需的。因此,现在有强有力的数据表明,产生自身抗体的B细胞在疾病发病机制中的直接作用超出了免疫复合物的形成。鉴于自身反应性B细胞可能对疾病的潜在发病机制至关重要,那么研究这些细胞对于进一步理解与Ro和La自身免疫相关疾病的起源将至关重要。希望认识的提高最终能带来患者治疗的改善。治疗领域的进展几乎肯定是渐进的,自身抗体结合精细特异性的研究将是有助于最终进步的基础知识的一部分。未来,需要从免疫学、免疫化学以及遗传学方面对动物模型进行研究。这些自身抗体的产生尚未得到广泛研究,因为在就医时,几乎所有患者都已……