Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Fürst Medical Laboratory, Oslo, Norway.
Front Immunol. 2020 Oct 6;11:569234. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.569234. eCollection 2020.
One cannot discuss anti-dsDNA antibodies and lupus nephritis without discussing the nature of Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). SLE is insistently described as a prototype autoimmune syndrome, with anti-dsDNA antibodies as a central biomarker and a pathogenic factor. The two entities, "SLE" and "The Anti-dsDNA Antibody," have been linked in previous and contemporary studies although serious criticism to this mutual linkage have been raised: Anti-dsDNA antibodies were first described in bacterial infections and not in SLE; later SLE, viral and parasitic infections and in malignancies. An increasing number of studies on classification criteria for SLE have been published in the aftermath of the canonical 1982 American College of Rheumatology SLE classification sets of criteria. Considering these studies, it is surprising to observe a nearby complete absence of fundamental critical/theoretical discussions aimed to explain how and why the classification criteria are linked in context of etiology, pathogenicity, or biology. This study is an attempt to prioritize critical comments on the contemporary definition and classification of SLE and of anti-dsDNA antibodies in context of lupus nephritis. Epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, and measures of therapy efficacy are implemented as problems in the present discussion. In order to understand whether or not disparate clinical SLE phenotypes are useful to determine its basic biological processes accounting for the syndrome is problematic. A central problem is discussed on whether the clinical role of anti-dsDNA antibodies from principal reasons can be accepted as a biomarker for SLE without clarifying what we define as an anti-dsDNA antibody, and in which biologic contexts the antibodies appear. In sum, this study is an attempt to bring to the forum critical comments on the contemporary definition and classification of SLE, lupus nephritis and anti-dsDNA antibodies. Four concise hypotheses are suggested for future science at the end of this analytical study.
在讨论抗双链 DNA 抗体和狼疮肾炎时,不能不讨论系统性红斑狼疮 (SLE) 的性质。SLE 被顽固地描述为一种自身免疫综合征的原型,抗双链 DNA 抗体作为一种中心生物标志物和致病因素。尽管对此相互关联提出了严重的批评,但在以前和当代的研究中,这两个实体“SLE”和“抗双链 DNA 抗体”已经联系在一起:抗双链 DNA 抗体最初是在细菌感染中而不是在 SLE 中描述的;后来在 SLE、病毒和寄生虫感染以及恶性肿瘤中也有描述。在经典的 1982 年美国风湿病学会 SLE 分类标准集之后,发表了越来越多关于 SLE 分类标准的研究。考虑到这些研究,令人惊讶的是,在解释分类标准如何以及为何在病因学、致病性或生物学方面相关联的基本批判性/理论讨论中几乎完全没有。本研究试图优先考虑对狼疮肾炎背景下 SLE 和抗双链 DNA 抗体的当代定义和分类的批判性评论。流行病学、病因学、发病机制和治疗效果评估被作为本讨论中的问题来实施。为了了解不同的临床 SLE 表型是否有助于确定其基本生物学过程是否能解释该综合征,这是一个有问题的。讨论的一个核心问题是,抗双链 DNA 抗体是否可以从主要原因接受为 SLE 的生物标志物,而无需澄清我们将抗双链 DNA 抗体定义为何物,以及在哪些生物学背景下出现抗体。总之,本研究试图为当代 SLE、狼疮肾炎和抗双链 DNA 抗体的定义和分类带来批判性评论。在这项分析研究结束时,提出了四个关于未来科学的简明假设。