BACKGROUND: Antiepiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid is a mucosal-predominant subepidermal blistering disease associated with an increased relative risk of cancer. In contrast to prior reports showing that anti-laminin (L)-332 autoantibodies are a reliable marker for patients with antiepiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid, a recent report suggested that as many as 40% of patients with bullous pemphigoid (BP) have IgG reactive with this laminin isoform. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether patients with BP possess circulating IgG anti-L-332 autoantibodies. METHODS: Sera from 100 adults with BP were analyzed by indirect immunofluorescence testing of intact skin, immunoblot studies of human keratinocyte (HK) extracts, and a new L-332 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Sera showing reactivity suggestive of anti-L-332 autoantibodies in these assays were further analyzed in immunoblot studies of HK extracellular matrix and immunoprecipitation studies of biosynthetically radiolabeled HK extracts. RESULTS: IgG from all patients with BP bound intact epidermal basement membrane by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy and immunoblotted bullous pemphigoid antigen-1, -2, or both in HK extracts. None of these sera immunoblotted L-332 in HK extracts, although 13 did score above the cut point of a new IgG(4) L-332 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (sensitivity = 0.91, specificity = 0.98, Youden index = 0.89). Further analysis of sera from these 13 patients found: (1) all had IgG that bound the epidermal side of 1 mol/L NaCl split skin by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy; (2) none immunoblotted L-332 purified from HK extracellular matrix; and (3) none immunoprecipitated L-332 from biosynthetically radiolabeled HK extracts. LIMITATIONS: The basis of false-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay determinations for anti-L-332 IgG among patients with BP is unknown. CONCLUSION: Anti-L-332 autoantibodies remain a reliable marker for patients with antiepiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid.
BACKGROUND: Antiepiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid is a mucosal-predominant subepidermal blistering disease associated with an increased relative risk of cancer. In contrast to prior reports showing that anti-laminin (L)-332 autoantibodies are a reliable marker for patients with antiepiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid, a recent report suggested that as many as 40% of patients with bullous pemphigoid (BP) have IgG reactive with this laminin isoform. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether patients with BP possess circulating IgG anti-L-332 autoantibodies. METHODS: Sera from 100 adults with BP were analyzed by indirect immunofluorescence testing of intact skin, immunoblot studies of human keratinocyte (HK) extracts, and a new L-332 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Sera showing reactivity suggestive of anti-L-332 autoantibodies in these assays were further analyzed in immunoblot studies of HK extracellular matrix and immunoprecipitation studies of biosynthetically radiolabeled HK extracts. RESULTS: IgG from all patients with BP bound intact epidermal basement membrane by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy and immunoblotted bullous pemphigoid antigen-1, -2, or both in HK extracts. None of these sera immunoblotted L-332 in HK extracts, although 13 did score above the cut point of a new IgG(4) L-332 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (sensitivity = 0.91, specificity = 0.98, Youden index = 0.89). Further analysis of sera from these 13 patients found: (1) all had IgG that bound the epidermal side of 1 mol/L NaCl split skin by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy; (2) none immunoblotted L-332 purified from HK extracellular matrix; and (3) none immunoprecipitated L-332 from biosynthetically radiolabeled HK extracts. LIMITATIONS: The basis of false-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay determinations for anti-L-332 IgG among patients with BP is unknown. CONCLUSION: Anti-L-332 autoantibodies remain a reliable marker for patients with antiepiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid.
Authors: Alexander J Chamberlain; Susan M Cooper; Jill Allen; Diane Dean; Kay F Baxter; Mark J D Goodfield; Fenella Wojnarowska Journal: Australas J Dermatol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.875
Authors: P Verrando; C Blanchet-Bardon; A Pisani; L Thomas; F Cambazard; R A Eady; O Schofield; J P Ortonne Journal: Lab Invest Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: M M Jourdan; A Lopez; E B Olasz; N E Duncan; M Demara; W Kittipongdaja; B L Fish; M Mäder; A Schock; N V Morrow; V A Semenenko; J E Baker; J E Moulder; Z Lazarova Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Sandra Saschenbrecker; Ingolf Karl; Lars Komorowski; Christian Probst; Cornelia Dähnrich; Kai Fechner; Winfried Stöcker; Wolfgang Schlumberger Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Stephanie Goletz; Federica Giurdanella; Maike M Holtsche; Miranda Nijenhuis; Barbara Horvath; Gilles F H Diercks; Detlef Zillikens; Takashi Hashimoto; Enno Schmidt; Hendri H Pas Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: E Schmidt; H Rashid; A V Marzano; A Lamberts; G Di Zenzo; G F H Diercks; S Alberti-Violetti; R J Barry; L Borradori; M Caproni; B Carey; M Carrozzo; G Cianchini; A Corrà; F G Dikkers; C Feliciani; G Geerling; G Genovese; M Hertl; P Joly; J M Meijer; V Mercadante; D F Murrell; M Ormond; H H Pas; A Patsatsi; S Rauz; B D van Rhijn; M Roth; J Setterfield; D Zillikens; G Zambruno; B Horváth; F Caux Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 6.166