Osnos M C, Cyna L, Haim T, Peltier A P, Kahn M F, Ryckewaert A
Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic. 1977 Feb;44(2):73-8.
Three methods of determination of anti-DNA antibodies were compared. The indirect immunofluorescence method after exposure to animal DNA (IF) and Farr's radio-immunological method with bacterial DNA labelled with C14, gave highly similar results, although there were some cases in which Farr's method gave a negative and the IF method a positive result. In part, this discordance appears to be accounted for by the variable affinity of the anti-DNA antibodies for DNA. The counter-immuno-electrophoresis method (CIEP) on the other hand, gave very different results: positive reactions in a large proportion of normal sera and a considerable proportion of false-positive and false-negative results in disseminated lupus erythematosus. It is concluded that until the CIEP method is made more reliable by technical refinement, determination of anti-DNA antibodies may be carried out by either the IF or the radio-immunological method, but a double-check, by application of the two methods at the same time, is highly advisable.
对三种抗DNA抗体的检测方法进行了比较。用动物DNA处理后的间接免疫荧光法(IF)和用C14标记细菌DNA的法尔放射免疫法,结果高度相似,尽管存在一些情况,即法尔法呈阴性而IF法呈阳性。部分这种不一致似乎是由于抗DNA抗体对DNA的亲和力不同所致。另一方面,对流免疫电泳法(CIEP)给出了非常不同的结果:在大部分正常血清中呈阳性反应,在播散性红斑狼疮中有相当比例的假阳性和假阴性结果。结论是,在通过技术改进使CIEP方法更可靠之前,抗DNA抗体的检测可以通过IF法或放射免疫法进行,但同时应用这两种方法进行双重检查是非常可取的。