OBJECTIVE: Serum rheumatoid factor (RF) and other heterophilic antibodies potentially interfere with antibody-based immunoassays by nonspecifically binding detection reagents. The purpose of this study was to assess whether these factors confound multiplex-based immunoassays, which are used with increasing frequency to measure cytokine and chemokine analytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We performed multiplex immunoassays using different platforms to measure analyte concentrations in RA patient samples. Samples were depleted of RF by column-based affinity absorption or were exposed to agents that block heterophilic binding activity. RESULTS: In RA patients with high-titer RF, 69% of analytes demonstrated at least a 2-fold stronger multiplex signal in non-RF-depleted samples as compared to RF-depleted samples. This degree of erroneous signal amplification was less frequent in low-titer RF samples (17% of analytes; P < 0.0000001). Signal amplification by heterophilic antibodies was blocked effectively by HeteroBlock (≥ 150 μg/ml). In 35 RA patients, multiplex signals for 14 of 22 analytes were amplified erroneously in unblocked samples as compared to blocked samples (some >100-fold), but only in patients with high-titer RF (P < 0.002). Two other blocking agents, heterophilic blocking reagent and immunoglobulin-inhibiting reagent, also blocked heterophilic activity. CONCLUSION: All multiplex protein detection platforms we tested exhibited significant confounding by RF or other heterophilic antibodies. These findings have broad-reaching implications in the acquisition and interpretation of data derived from multiplex immunoassay testing of RA patient serum and possibly also in other conditions in which RF or other heterophilic antibodies may be present. Several available blocking agents effectively suppressed this erroneous signal amplification in the multiplex platforms tested.
OBJECTIVE: Serum rheumatoid factor (RF) and other heterophilic antibodies potentially interfere with antibody-based immunoassays by nonspecifically binding detection reagents. The purpose of this study was to assess whether these factors confound multiplex-based immunoassays, which are used with increasing frequency to measure cytokine and chemokine analytes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We performed multiplex immunoassays using different platforms to measure analyte concentrations in RApatient samples. Samples were depleted of RF by column-based affinity absorption or were exposed to agents that block heterophilic binding activity. RESULTS: In RApatients with high-titer RF, 69% of analytes demonstrated at least a 2-fold stronger multiplex signal in non-RF-depleted samples as compared to RF-depleted samples. This degree of erroneous signal amplification was less frequent in low-titer RF samples (17% of analytes; P < 0.0000001). Signal amplification by heterophilic antibodies was blocked effectively by HeteroBlock (≥ 150 μg/ml). In 35 RApatients, multiplex signals for 14 of 22 analytes were amplified erroneously in unblocked samples as compared to blocked samples (some >100-fold), but only in patients with high-titer RF (P < 0.002). Two other blocking agents, heterophilic blocking reagent and immunoglobulin-inhibiting reagent, also blocked heterophilic activity. CONCLUSION: All multiplex protein detection platforms we tested exhibited significant confounding by RF or other heterophilic antibodies. These findings have broad-reaching implications in the acquisition and interpretation of data derived from multiplex immunoassay testing of RApatient serum and possibly also in other conditions in which RF or other heterophilic antibodies may be present. Several available blocking agents effectively suppressed this erroneous signal amplification in the multiplex platforms tested.
Authors: Darshana Jani; John Allinson; Flora Berisha; Kyra J Cowan; Viswanath Devanarayan; Carol Gleason; Andreas Jeromin; Steve Keller; Masood U Khan; Bill Nowatzke; Paul Rhyne; Laurie Stephen Journal: AAPS J Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Jeremy Sokolove; Dannette S Johnson; Lauren J Lahey; Catriona A Wagner; Danye Cheng; Geoffrey M Thiele; Kaleb Michaud; Harlan Sayles; Andreas M Reimold; Liron Caplan; Grant W Cannon; Gail Kerr; Ted R Mikuls; William H Robinson Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Katherine P Liao; Fina Kurreeman; Gang Li; Grant Duclos; Shawn Murphy; Raul Guzman; Tianxi Cai; Namrata Gupta; Vivian Gainer; Peter Schur; Jing Cui; Joshua C Denny; Peter Szolovits; Susanne Churchill; Isaac Kohane; Elizabeth W Karlson; Robert M Plenge Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2013-03
Authors: Bas W M van Balkom; Hendrik Gremmels; Liselotte S S Ooms; Raechel J Toorop; Frank J M F Dor; Olivier G de Jong; Laura A Michielsen; Gert J de Borst; Wilco de Jager; Alferso C Abrahams; Arjan D van Zuilen; Marianne C Verhaar Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: R Scrivo; P Conigliaro; V Riccieri; M Di Franco; C Alessandri; A Spadaro; R Perricone; G Valesini Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jan M Hughes-Austin; Kevin D Deane; Lezlie A Derber; Jason R Kolfenbach; Gary O Zerbe; Jeremy Sokolove; Lauren J Lahey; Michael H Weisman; Jane H Buckner; Ted R Mikuls; James R O'Dell; Richard M Keating; Peter K Gregersen; William H Robinson; V Michael Holers; Jill M Norris Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Christoph Kessel; Angela McArdle; Emely Verweyen; Toni Weinhage; Helmut Wittkowski; Stephen R Pennington; Dirk Foell Journal: Curr Rheumatol Rep Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 4.592