Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds & NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK.
University of Oviedo, Area of Immunology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Oviedo, Spain.
RMD Open. 2023 Mar;9(1). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002876.
To systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology.
Three databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology.
Of 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced.
Diverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No 'gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.
系统综述旨在评估 I 型干扰素 (IFN-I) 途径激活的分析方法,并协调相关术语。
在三个数据库中检索关于 IFN-I 和风湿性肌肉骨骼疾病的报告。提取并总结了评估 IFN-I 和真实测量的分析方法的性能指标信息。EULAR 工作组小组评估了可行性并制定了共识术语。
在 10037 篇摘要中,有 276 篇符合数据提取的入选标准。有些报告使用了不止一种技术来测量 IFN-I 途径的激活。因此,276 篇论文提供了 412 种方法的数据。IFN-I 途径的激活是通过以下方法测量的:qPCR(n=121)、免疫测定(n=101)、微阵列(n=69)、报告细胞测定(n=38)、DNA 甲基化(n=14)、流式细胞术(n=14)、细胞病变效应测定(n=11)、RNA 测序(n=9)、噬菌斑减少测定(n=8)、Nanostring(n=5)、亚硫酸氢盐测序(n=3)。为了内容有效性,总结了每种测定的原理。有 n=150/412 种测定报告了同时效度(与其他 IFN 测定的相关性)。可靠性数据各不相同,仅为 13 种测定提供了数据。基因表达和免疫测定被认为最可行。已经提出了用于定义 IFN-I 研究和实践不同方面的共识术语。
已经报道了多种方法作为 IFN-I 测定,这些方法在它们测量的 IFN-I 途径激活的元素或方面以及如何测量方面有所不同。没有“金标准”代表整个 IFN 途径,有些方法可能不是专门针对 IFN-I 的。关于可靠性或比较测定的资料有限,许多测定都存在可行性挑战。共识术语应提高报告的一致性。