Goncalves David, Benaiteau Marie, Rogemond Véronique, Closs Sterenn, Pinto Anne-Laurie, Dhairi Maroua, Villard Marine, Picard Géraldine, Fabien Nicole, Honnorat Jérôme
Service d'immunologie biologique, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France.
French Reference Centre on Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes and Autoimmune Encephalitis, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Neurologique, Bron, France.
Front Immunol. 2025 Apr 15;16:1563877. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1563877. eCollection 2025.
The detection of antibodies targeting neuronal antigens is a keystone for the diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis (AE) and paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS). This study aimed to compare the performance of a commercial tissue-based immunofluorescence assay (cIFA) to that of an inhouse IFA (hIFA) for the screening of autoantibodies targeting neuronal surface proteins in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and to compare the performance of commercial cell-based assays (cCBA) to that of in-house CBA (hCBA) in serum samples.
Between March and June 2021, 2135 CSF samples and 524 serum samples from 2283 patients referred to the French Reference Center on PNS and AE were prospectively included. CSF samples were all tested using 3 different assays: cIFA, hIFA, and cCBA. Serum samples were all tested using at least 1 cCBA and 1 hCBA for the detection of the following autoantibodies: CASPR2, GABABR, and LGI1.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION: Among the 2135 CSF tested, 93 (4.4%) were positive using both cIFA and hIFA, 1 (0.05%) was positive using only cIFA, and 6 (0.3%) were positive using only hIFA. Among the double-positive samples, 37 (39.8%) were positive using cCBA for the following autoantibodies: anti-NMDAR (n=16), -LGI1 (n=8), -CASPR2 (n=7), -GABABR (n=5), and -DPPX (n=1) autoantibodies. The remaining 56 (60.2%) double-positive samples were negative using cCBA and additional tests were performed to identify the autoantibodies according to the pattern observed on the IFA. The only sample positive using cIFA but negative using hIFA was positive for anti-LGI1 autoantibodies using cCBA. Among the 6 samples negative using cIFA but positive using hIFA, only one sample was positive with cCBA for anti-NMDAR autoantibodies. These data indicate that, in CSF, cIFA and hIFA performed similarly for the detection of autoantibodies targeting neuronal surface proteins.Regarding serum samples, cCBA and hCBA were both positive in 3 patients for CASPR2, 4 patients for LGI1, and 1 patient for GABABR. A positive cCBA and negative hCBA was observed in 2 patients for LGI1 and 4 patients for GABABR. A lack of specificity of GABABR cCBA is suspected as CSF explorations were negative in 3 of these patients and none presented clinical features highly suggestive of AE.
检测靶向神经元抗原的抗体是自身免疫性脑炎(AE)和副肿瘤性神经系统综合征(PNS)诊断的关键。本研究旨在比较商业组织免疫荧光检测法(cIFA)与内部免疫荧光检测法(hIFA)在筛查脑脊液(CSF)中靶向神经元表面蛋白的自身抗体方面的性能,并比较商业细胞检测法(cCBA)与内部细胞检测法(hCBA)在血清样本中的性能。
在2021年3月至6月期间,前瞻性纳入了来自2283名转诊至法国PNS和AE参考中心的患者的2135份CSF样本和524份血清样本。所有CSF样本均使用3种不同检测方法进行检测:cIFA、hIFA和cCBA。所有血清样本均使用至少1种cCBA和1种hCBA检测以下自身抗体:接触蛋白相关蛋白2(CASPR2)、γ-氨基丁酸B型受体(GABABR)和富含亮氨酸胶质瘤失活蛋白1(LGI1)。
在检测的2135份CSF样本中,93份(4.4%)使用cIFA和hIFA均呈阳性,1份(0.05%)仅使用cIFA呈阳性,6份(0.3%)仅使用hIFA呈阳性。在双阳性样本中,37份(39.8%)使用cCBA检测以下自身抗体呈阳性:抗N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸受体(抗-NMDAR,n = 16)、抗-LGI1(n = 8)、抗-CASPR2(n = 7)、抗-GABABR(n = 5)和抗二肽基肽酶样蛋白6(抗-DPPX,n = 1)自身抗体。其余56份(60.2%)双阳性样本使用cCBA呈阴性,并根据IFA上观察到的模式进行额外检测以鉴定自身抗体。仅使用cIFA呈阳性但使用hIFA呈阴性的唯一样本使用cCBA检测抗-LGI1自身抗体呈阳性。在6份使用cIFA呈阴性但使用hIFA呈阳性的样本中,只有1份样本使用cCBA检测抗-NMDAR自身抗体呈阳性。这些数据表明,在CSF中,cIFA和hIFA在检测靶向神经元表面蛋白的自身抗体方面表现相似。关于血清样本,cCBA和hCBA在3例患者中检测CASPR2呈阳性,4例患者中检测LGI1呈阳性,1例患者中检测GABABR呈阳性。在2例患者中检测LGI1时观察到cCBA呈阳性而hCBA呈阴性,在4例患者中检测GABABR时观察到这种情况。怀疑GABABR cCBA缺乏特异性,因为这些患者中有3例CSF检查为阴性,且无一例具有高度提示AE的临床特征。