C S Hampe1, J R Radtke1, A Wester2, A Carlsson2, E Cedervall3, B Jönsson4, S A Ivarsson2, H Elding Larsson2, K Larsson5, B Lindberg2, J Neiderud6, O Rolandsson7, Å Lernmark2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University/CRC, Skåne University Hospital SUS, Malmo, Sweden. 3. Department of Paediatrics, Ängelholm Hospital, Ängelholm, Malmo, Sweden. 4. Department of Paediatrics, Ystad Hospital, Ystad, Sweden. 5. Department of Paediatrics, Kristianstad Hospital, Kristianstad, Sweden. 6. Department of Paediatrics, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden. 7. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Section of Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate whether the N-terminal truncated glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65) isoform is as well recognized by people with stiff person syndrome as it is by people with Type 1 diabetes, and whether conformational GAD65 antibody epitopes are displayed properly by the isoform. METHODS: GAD65 antibody-positive healthy individuals (n=13), people with stiff-person syndrome (n=15) and children with new-onset Type 1 diabetes (n=654) were analysed to determine binding to full-length GAD65 and the N-terminal truncated GAD65 isoform in each of these settings. GAD65 autoantibody epitope specificity was correlated with binding ratios of full-length GAD65/N-terminal truncated GAD65. RESULTS: The N-terminal truncated GAD65 isoform was significantly less recognized in GAD65Ab-positive people with stiff-person syndrome (P=0.002) and in healthy individuals (P=0.0001) than in people with Type 1 diabetes. Moreover, at least two specific conformational GAD65Ab epitopes were not, or were only partially, presented by the N-terminal truncated GAD65 isoform compared to full-length GAD65. Finally, an N-terminal conformational GAD65Ab epitope was significantly less recognized in DQ8/8 positive individuals with Type 1 diabetes (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In people with stiff person syndrome preferred binding to the full-length GAD65 isoform over the N-terminal truncated molecule was observed. This binding characteristic is probably attributable to reduced presentation of two conformational epitopes by the N-terminal truncated molecule. These findings support the notion of disease-specific GAD65Ab epitope specificities and emphasize the need to evaluate the applicability of novel assays for different medical conditions.
AIMS: To investigate whether the N-terminal truncated glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65) isoform is as well recognized by people with stiff person syndrome as it is by people with Type 1 diabetes, and whether conformational GAD65 antibody epitopes are displayed properly by the isoform. METHODS:GAD65 antibody-positive healthy individuals (n=13), people with stiff-person syndrome (n=15) and children with new-onset Type 1 diabetes (n=654) were analysed to determine binding to full-length GAD65 and the N-terminal truncated GAD65 isoform in each of these settings. GAD65 autoantibody epitope specificity was correlated with binding ratios of full-length GAD65/N-terminal truncated GAD65. RESULTS: The N-terminal truncated GAD65 isoform was significantly less recognized in GAD65Ab-positive people with stiff-person syndrome (P=0.002) and in healthy individuals (P=0.0001) than in people with Type 1 diabetes. Moreover, at least two specific conformational GAD65Ab epitopes were not, or were only partially, presented by the N-terminal truncated GAD65 isoform compared to full-length GAD65. Finally, an N-terminal conformational GAD65Ab epitope was significantly less recognized in DQ8/8 positive individuals with Type 1 diabetes (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In people with stiff person syndrome preferred binding to the full-length GAD65 isoform over the N-terminal truncated molecule was observed. This binding characteristic is probably attributable to reduced presentation of two conformational epitopes by the N-terminal truncated molecule. These findings support the notion of disease-specific GAD65Ab epitope specificities and emphasize the need to evaluate the applicability of novel assays for different medical conditions.
Authors: H L Schwartz; J M Chandonia; S F Kash; J Kanaani; E Tunnell; A Domingo; F E Cohen; J P Banga; A M Madec; W Richter; S Baekkeskov Journal: J Mol Biol Date: 1999-04-16 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Raghavanpillai Raju; Jefferson Foote; J Paul Banga; Tyler R Hall; Carolyn J Padoa; Marinos C Dalakas; Eva Ortqvist; Christiane S Hampe Journal: J Immunol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: O Rolandsson; E Hägg; C Hampe; E P Sullivan; M Nilsson; G Jansson; G Hallmans; A Lernmark Journal: Diabetologia Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Mohammed I Hawa; Hubert Kolb; Nanette Schloot; Huriya Beyan; Stavroula A Paschou; Raffaella Buzzetti; Didac Mauricio; Alberto De Leiva; Knud Yderstraede; Henning Beck-Neilsen; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Cinzia Sarti; Charles Thivolet; David Hadden; Steven Hunter; Guntram Schernthaner; Werner A Scherbaum; Rhys Williams; Sinead Brophy; Paolo Pozzilli; Richard David Leslie Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Petra M Pöllänen; Taina Härkönen; Jorma Ilonen; Jorma Toppari; Riitta Veijola; Heli Siljander; Mikael Knip Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 5.958