| Literature DB >> 23675042 |
Denisa Zlacka1, Jiri Velek, Pavla Vavrincova, Ilona Hromadnikova.
Abstract
We screened the levels of antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and the 180-188 epitope by using ELISA in a cohort of 72 juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients and 38 healthy controls. We analysed an association between antibody levels and rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, human leukocyte antigen B27 and the severity and the duration of the disease. The majority of anti-hsp65 antibodies in a cohort of JIA patients were of the IgG isotype (54.2%) with IgM (13.9%) antibodies increased to a lesser degree. IgG antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 (P<0.001) and the 180-188 epitope (P<0.001) were significantly increased in all of three disease onset types when compared with healthy controls. The highest levels of IgG antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and its P180-188 epitope were observed in oligoarthritis and in patients with no X-ray changes and functional limitation, while the lowest antibody levels were detected in patients with the most severe stage of articular damage. When antibody levels to M. bovis hsp65 and the 180-188 epitope were examined within patient and control populations, significantly higher levels of IgG and IgM antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 were observed in both JIA (P<0.001) and healthy control (P<0.001) cohorts. These findings may suggest that the high levels of IgG antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and its P180-188 epitope would reflect the least serious cases of JIA. Since IgM antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and P180-188 M. bovis hsp65 epitope exceeded the control level in a few patients with JIA we believe they are not of concern.Entities:
Keywords: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; epitope; heat shock protein; juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Year: 2007 PMID: 23675042 PMCID: PMC3614686
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biomed Sci ISSN: 1550-9702
Figure 1(a), IgG antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 in patients with various subgroups of JIA and healthy individuals. Results are expressed as OD values. The horizontal line indicates the upper limit calculated as 2 SD above mean OD of the healthy controls; (b), IgM antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 in patients with various subgroups of JIA and healthy individuals. Results are expressed as OD values. The horizontal line indicates the upper limit calculated as 2 SD above mean OD of the healthy controls.
Figure 2(a), IgG antibodies to 180-188 sequence of M. bovis hsp65 (TFGLQLELT) in patients with various subgroups of JIA and healthy individuals. Results are expressed as OD values. The horizontal line indicates the upper limit calculated as 2 SD above mean OD of the healthy controls; (b), IgM antibodies to 180-188 sequence of M. bovis hsp65 (TFGLQLELT) in patients with various subgroups of JIA and healthy individuals. Results are expressed as OD values. The horizontal line indicates the upper limit calculated as 2 SD above mean OD of the healthy controls.
Figure 3(a), Comparison of IgG antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and 180-188 sequence of M. bovis hsp65 within JIA and control cohorts. Results are expressed as OD values. (b), Comparison of IgM antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and 180-188 sequence of M. bovis hsp65 within JIA and control cohorts. Results are expressed as OD values.
Influence of clinical characteristics on antibody response to M. bovis hsp65 and the 180-188 sequence of M. bovis hsp65
| total JIA cohort (Cut-off=mean+2SD of healthy controls) | RF pos. (14) | ANA pos. (14) | HLA-B27 pos. (11) | disease duration 0-2 (13) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| versus | versus | versus | vesrus | |
| RF neg. (58) | ANA neg. (58) | HLA-B27 neg. (54) | 3-45 (54) years | |
| OD mean values | ||||
| 0.86 vs. 0.69 | 0.74 vs.0.71 | 0.60 vs. 0.76 | 0.70 vs. 0.74 | |
| 0.37 vs. 0.21 | 0.25 vs. 0.23 | 0.21 vs. 0.25 | 0.21 vs. 0.25 | |
| 0.47 vs. 0.45 | 0.46 vs. 0.45 | 0.39 vs. 0.47 | 0.49 vs. 0.45 | |
| 0.15 vs. 0.19 | 0.18 vs. 0.18 | 0.18 vs. 0.18 | 0.18 vs. 0.18 | |
An association between antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and the 180-188 epitope and the severity of the disease evaluated on the base of Steinbrocker’s functional classification
| total JIA cohort (Cut-off=mean+2SD of healthy controls) No. | Steinbrocker’s functional classification | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OD mean values | ||||||
| stage I (33) | stage II (28) | stage III (10) | ||||
| Student’s t test | Mann-Whitney test | |||||
| 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.53 | I vs. III | <0.001 | 0.014 | |
| I vs. II+III | 0.056 | 0.25 | ||||
| (0.672) | II vs.vIII | 0.003 | 0.024 | |||
| 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.21 | I vs. III | 0.420 | 0.77 | |
| I vs. II+III | 0.060 | 0.20 | ||||
| (0.368) | II vs. III | 0.070 | 0.12 | |||
| 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.32 | I vs. III | <0.001 | 0.005 | |
| I vs. II + III | 0.010 | 0.05 | ||||
| (0.455) | II vs. III | 0.003 | 0.02 | |||
| 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.15 | I vs. III | 0.080 | 0.18 | |
| I vs. II + III | 0.080 | 0.19 | ||||
| (0.308) | II vs. III | 0.240 | 0.42 | |||
An association between antibodies to M. bovis hsp65 and the 180-188 epitope and the severity of the disease evaluated on the base of Steinbrocker’s rtg staging system
| total JIA cohort (Cut-off=mean+2SD of healthy controls) No. | Steinbrocker’s rtg staging system | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OD mean values | |||||||
| stage 0 (27) | stage I (13) | stage II (12) | stage III+IV (16) | ||||
| Student’s t test | Mann- Whitney test | ||||||
| 0.82 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0 vs. III + IV | 0.01 | 0.03 | |
| 0 vs. I | 0.03 | 0.03 | |||||
| 0 vs. I + II + III + IV | 0.007 | 0.02 | |||||
| I vs. II + III + IV | 0.36 | 0.53 | |||||
| II vs. III + IV | 0.10 | 0.20 | |||||
| 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0 vs. III + IV | 0.24 | 0.95 | |
| 0 vs. I | 0.14 | 0.11 | |||||
| 0 vs. I + II + III + IV | 0.34 | 0.68 | |||||
| I vs. II + III + IV | 0.05 | 0.16 | |||||
| II vs. III + IV | 0.44 | 0.57 | |||||
| 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.44 | 0.36 | 0 vs. III + IV | 0.002 | 0.02 | |
| 0 vs. I | 0.06 | 0.14 | |||||
| 0 vs. I + II + III + IV | 0.008 | 0.03 | |||||
| I vs. II + III + IV | 0.35 | 0.96 | |||||
| II vs. III + IV | 0.06 | 0.17 | |||||
| 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0 vs. III + IV | 0.009 | 0.05 | |
| 0 vs. I | 0.32 | 0.67 | |||||
| 0 vs. I + II + III + IV | 0.18 | 0.31 | |||||
| I vs. II + III + IV | 0.04 | 0.14 | |||||
| II vs. III + IV | 0.13 | 0.63 | |||||
The lowest levels of IgG anti-hsp65 and anti-hsp65 P180-188 epitope antibodies were found in JIA patients with the most severe rtg changes.