Suppr超能文献

结缔组织病中同时检测自身抗体的不同检测系统的比较。

Comparison of different test systems for simultaneous autoantibody detection in connective tissue diseases.

作者信息

Eissfeller Petra, Sticherling Michael, Scholz Dietmar, Hennig Kirsten, Lüttich Tanja, Motz Manfred, Kromminga Arno

机构信息

MIKROGEN GmbH, Fraunhoferstrasse 20, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany.

出版信息

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Jun;1050:327-39. doi: 10.1196/annals.1313.035.

Abstract

The serological diagnosis of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) is based on the analysis of circulating autoantibodies to cytoplasmic and nuclear proteins (extractable nuclear antigens [ENAs]). The determination of autoantibody specificities supports the clinical diagnosis of the type of CTD and also often the prognosis of the disease. The former indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) technique still provides a useful screening method that currently is supplemented by a range of different techniques allowing the exact determination of single autoantibody specificities. These ENA profiling techniques include ELISA, immunoblotting, line-blot assays, and flow cytometric bead-based multiplex assays. The novel line immunoassay (LIA) from Mikrogen has been introduced in a recent study as a suitable technique for the simultaneous detection of autoantibodies in a routine clinical laboratory, providing comparable results as ELISA and ELiA (both from Pharmacia Diagnostics) (see Damoiseaux et al., this volume). In this study, LIAs from three different manufacturers were performed in 30 serum samples from patients with dermatological manifestations and 27 samples from SLE patients with renal involvement. The line assays from Mikrogen (recomLine ANA/ENA), Innogenetics (Inno-Lia ANA Update), and Imtec (ANA-LIA) were compared for antigen composition, handling, and statistical analysis including sensitivity and concordance. Autoantibody frequencies detected by the Mikrogen, Innogenetics, and Imtec line assays were 14.0%, 19.3%, and 15.8% for RNP; 14.0%, 22.8%, and 14.0% for Sm; 26.3%, 31.6%, and 40.3% for SSA; 3.5%, 12.3%, and 14.0% for SSB; and 3.5%, 14.0%, and 10.5% for histones. Our studies show that the line assay format is an easy-to-use, sensitive, and specific method for ENA antibody detection in human sera.

摘要

结缔组织病(CTD)的血清学诊断基于对循环中针对细胞质和核蛋白(可提取核抗原[ENA])的自身抗体的分析。自身抗体特异性的测定有助于CTD类型的临床诊断,也常常关乎疾病的预后。以前的间接免疫荧光(IIF)技术仍然是一种有用的筛查方法,目前有一系列不同技术作为补充,这些技术能准确测定单一自身抗体的特异性。这些ENA分析技术包括酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)、免疫印迹法、线性印迹分析以及基于流式细胞术微珠的多重分析。最近一项研究引入了Mikrogen公司的新型线性免疫测定法(LIA),作为在常规临床实验室同时检测自身抗体的合适技术,其结果与ELISA和ELiA(均来自Pharmacia Diagnostics)相当(见本卷Damoiseaux等人的文章)。在本研究中,对来自有皮肤表现患者的30份血清样本以及有肾脏受累的系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)患者的27份样本进行了三种不同厂家的LIA检测。对Mikrogen公司(recomLine ANA/ENA)、Innogenetics公司(Inno-Lia ANA Update)和Imtec公司(ANA-LIA)的线性分析在抗原组成、操作以及包括敏感性和一致性在内的统计分析方面进行了比较。Mikrogen、Innogenetics和Imtec线性分析检测到的核糖核蛋白(RNP)自身抗体频率分别为14.0%、19.3%和15.8%;史密斯(Sm)自身抗体频率分别为14.0%、22.8%和14.0%;抗干燥综合征A抗原(SSA)自身抗体频率分别为26.3%、31.6%和40.3%;抗干燥综合征B抗原(SSB)自身抗体频率分别为3.5%、12.3%和14.0%;组蛋白自身抗体频率分别为3.5%、14.0%和10.5%。我们的研究表明,线性分析形式是一种用于检测人血清中ENA抗体的简便、灵敏且特异的方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验