Literature DB >> 20179169

Diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus: new-generation immunoassays for measurement of anti-dsDNA antibodies are an effective alternative to the Farr technique and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test.

A Antico1, S Platzgummer, D Bassetti, N Bizzaro, R Tozzoli, D Villalta.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four new enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-double-stranded-DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, in comparison with the Farr assay and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To this purpose, sera from four patient groups were collected: 52 sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); 28 from patients with other connective tissue diseases (CTD); 36 from patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; and 24 from those with acute viral infection. All sera were tested for anti-dsDNA antibodies by four EIA methods using a different antigenic DNA source [synthetic oligonucleotide (Method A), circular plasmid (Method B), recombinant (Method C), and purified extracted (Method D)], and by CLIFT and Farr assays. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was as follows: 84.6% (Method A), 73% (B), 82.7% (C), 84.6% (D), 55.8% (CLIFT), and 78.8% (Farr). Specificity was 82.9% (A), 97.7% (B), 96.5% (C), 94.3% (D), 96.5% (CLIFT), and 90.9% (Farr). From these data, we can conclude that the new-generation EIA methods evaluated in this study have higher sensitivity than the CLIFT and Farr assays and, with the exception of Method A, have specificity similar to the CLIFT and slightly higher than the Farr assay. These findings suggest that EIA tests may replace CLIFT as a screening test and the Farr assay as a specific test, for anti-dsDNA antibody detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20179169     DOI: 10.1177/0961203310362995

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lupus        ISSN: 0961-2033            Impact factor:   2.911


  14 in total

1.  Analytical variability in the determination of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies: the strong need of a better definition of the old and new tests.

Authors:  Maria Infantino; M Manfredi; M Merone; V Grossi; M Benucci; F Li Gobbi; F Bandinelli; A Damiani; P Soda
Journal:  Immunol Res       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.829

2.  Autoantibodies to box A of high mobility group box 1 in systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  F Schaper; K de Leeuw; G Horst; F Maas; H Bootsma; P Heeringa; P C Limburg; J Westra
Journal:  Clin Exp Immunol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 3.  Biomarkers for kidney involvement in pediatric lupus.

Authors:  Beatrice Goilav; Chaim Putterman; Tamar B Rubinstein
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.851

4.  Immunoserological parameters in SLE: high-avidity anti-dsDNA detected by ELISA are the most closely associated with the disease activity.

Authors:  Sladjana Andrejevic; Ivica Jeremic; Mirjana Sefik-Bukilica; Milos Nikolic; Biljana Stojimirovic; Branka Bonaci-Nikolic
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Comparison and evaluation of different methodologies and tests for detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies on 889 Slovenian patients' and blood donors' sera.

Authors:  Polona Zigon; Katja Lakota; Sasa Cucnik; Tinka Svec; Ales Ambrozic; Snezna Sodin-Semrl; Tanja Kveder
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 1.351

6.  Clinical comparison of QUANTA Flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies.

Authors:  Maria Infantino; Francesca Meacci; Chelsea Bentow; Peter Martis; Maurizio Benucci; Antonella Afeltra; Amelia Rigon; Fabiola Atzeni; Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini; Mariangela Manfredi; Michael Mahler
Journal:  J Immunol Res       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 4.818

7.  Clinical phenotype associations with various types of anti-dsDNA antibodies in patients with recent onset of rheumatic symptoms. Results from a multicentre observational study.

Authors:  Michele Compagno; Ole P Rekvig; Anders A Bengtsson; Gunnar Sturfelt; Niels H H Heegaard; Andreas Jönsen; Rasmus Sleimann Jacobsen; Gro Ø Eilertsen; Christopher G Fenton; Lennart Truedsson; Johannes C Nossent; Søren Jacobsen
Journal:  Lupus Sci Med       Date:  2014-04-01

8.  Chemiluminescent immunoassay technology: what does it change in autoantibody detection?

Authors:  Luigi Cinquanta; Desré Ethel Fontana; Nicola Bizzaro
Journal:  Auto Immun Highlights       Date:  2017-06-24

Review 9.  The spectrum of anti-chromatin/nucleosome autoantibodies: independent and interdependent biomarkers of disease.

Authors:  Sonal Mehra; Marvin J Fritzler
Journal:  J Immunol Res       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 4.818

10.  Automated Evaluation of Crithidia luciliae Based Indirect Immunofluorescence Tests: A Novel Application of the EUROPattern-Suite Technology.

Authors:  Stefan Gerlach; Kai Affeldt; Lena Pototzki; Christopher Krause; Jörn Voigt; Johanna Fraune; Kai Fechner
Journal:  J Immunol Res       Date:  2015-10-25       Impact factor: 4.818

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.