Jaskowski T D, Schroder C, Martins T B, Litwin C M, Hill H R
Associated Regional and University Pathologists (ARUP) Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, USA.
J Clin Lab Anal. 2001;15(3):108-11. doi: 10.1002/jcla.1011.
Recently, the endomysial antigen has been identified as the protein cross-linking enzyme known as tissue transglutaminase (tTG). Our objective was to compare a novel enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that detects IgA antibody against tTG to two standard IFA methods utilizing thin tissue sections of rat kidney/rat stomach (KS) and distal primate esophagus (PE) as substrates to detect IgA antibody against endomysium (EMA). Sera from 100 patients suspected of having gluten-sensitive enteropathy (GSE) and 23 sera possessing various antibodies used for EIA cross-reactivity studies were included. Additional tests, performed routinely in our laboratory, were utilized to further assess sera from patients suspected having GSE. These tests include anti-gliadin IgA antibody (AGA) and anti-reticulin IgA antibody (ARA) and are part of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (ESPGAN) revised criteria for diagnosing GSE. When compared to IFA using KS, the tTG EIA had a sensitivity of 87.5%, was 97.1% specific, and had an overall agreement of 94.0%. When compared to IFA using PE, the tTG EIA had a sensitivity of 92.6%, was 93.2% specific, and had an overall agreement of 93.0%. When the KS IFA was compared to the PE IFA for EMA, the KS IFA had a sensitivity of 96.3%, was 91.8% specific, and had an overall agreement of 93.0%. The majority of sera that were positive for tTG but were negative by IFA (KS, n = 2/PE, n = 5) possessed IgA antibodies against gliadin and/or reticulin. Five of six sera with negative results by PE IFA were positive by the KS IFA and possessed one or more antibodies to tTG and/or gliadin and/or reticulin. We conclude that the tTG EIA compares well to both KS and PE IFAs when detecting IgA antibody against endomysium. We do not recommend the use of PE to detect EMA primarily because of the inconsistencies (i.e., tissue selection, quality, and preparation) and limited availability of commercially prepared PE tissue.
最近,肌内膜抗原已被确定为一种名为组织转谷氨酰胺酶(tTG)的蛋白质交联酶。我们的目的是将一种检测抗tTG IgA抗体的新型酶免疫测定法(EIA)与两种标准免疫荧光法(IFA)进行比较,这两种免疫荧光法分别以大鼠肾脏/大鼠胃(KS)的薄组织切片和灵长类动物远端食管(PE)作为底物来检测抗肌内膜(EMA)IgA抗体。研究纳入了100例疑似患有麸质敏感性肠病(GSE)患者的血清以及23份具有各种用于EIA交叉反应性研究抗体的血清。我们实验室常规进行的其他检测被用于进一步评估疑似患有GSE患者的血清。这些检测包括抗麦醇溶蛋白IgA抗体(AGA)和抗网硬蛋白IgA抗体(ARA),它们是欧洲儿科胃肠病学和营养学会(ESPGAN)修订的GSE诊断标准的一部分。与使用KS的IFA相比,tTG EIA的敏感性为87.5%,特异性为97.1%,总体一致性为94.0%。与使用PE的IFA相比,tTG EIA的敏感性为92.6%,特异性为93.2%,总体一致性为93.0%。当将用于EMA检测的KS IFA与PE IFA进行比较时,KS IFA的敏感性为96.3%,特异性为91.8%,总体一致性为93.0%。大多数tTG检测呈阳性但IFA检测呈阴性的血清(KS组,n = 2;PE组,n = 5)含有抗麦醇溶蛋白和/或抗网硬蛋白IgA抗体。PE IFA检测结果为阴性的6份血清中有5份通过KS IFA检测呈阳性,并且含有一种或多种抗tTG和/或抗麦醇溶蛋白和/或抗网硬蛋白抗体。我们得出结论,在检测抗肌内膜IgA抗体时,tTG EIA与KS和PE IFA的检测效果相当。我们不建议主要使用PE来检测EMA,主要原因是存在不一致性(即组织选择、质量和制备)以及商业制备的PE组织供应有限。