EN PL
ORIGINAL PAPER
An attempt to explain unsuccessful specification of autoantibody assessment in ANA-positive sera basing on analysis of particular antibody specificities present in circulating immune complexes
 
More details
Hide details
 
Online publication date: 2011-03-16
 
 
Reumatologia 2011;49(1):16-22
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Autoimmunity is a state of permanent persistence of the autoantibodies and autoreactive T lymphocytes in patients’ plasma engaged in pathomechanism of the connective tissue diseases (CTDs). Specific autoantibodies are recognized as “markers” for particular types of diseases. Such antibodies are known as anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) and are present in different percentages in CTD patients. However, in about 10-25% of tested sera from rheumatic patients, where the ANA test is positive, estimation of particular ANA specificities is unsuccessful. One of possible reasons for such seronegativity is complexemia, usually correlated with the acute phase of the disease. The goal of researches was the analysis of the CIC (PEG-6000 sediments) for the presence of “marker” autoantibodies in a group of these “trouble-making” sera. Researches cover a group of 588 sera originating from Clinics and Outpatient Clinic of Institute of Rheumatology. In the sera a titre and type of ANA pattern (IIF-method) and presence of selected auto-antibodies (done by ELISA and Western-blotting method) were estimated. In 69 (11.7%) ANA-positive (titre ≥ 1/160) sera, the autoantibody estimation gave a negative result. Then, we proposed a new methodological approach to the analysis of ANA-positive sera where classical methods of ANA specificity assessment was unsuccessful. The new approach is based on the analysis of the ANA specificity not in sera but in PEG-6000 sediments (or possibly in γ-fractions from PEG sediments), which are generally composed of different serum macroglobulins and also contain a concentrated circulating immune complexe (CIC) fraction. Using this new method it was possible to estimate autoantibody specificity in 84% of the sera formerly negative, where the standard methodology was useless. It is worth noting that in about 87% of PEG sediments more than one ANA specificity appears (Fig. 1). Among 133 antibody specificities found in 69 sera (on average, 2 different antibodies per serum), antibodies to chromatin antigens (anti-dsDNA, Hp) were positive in about 50% of all estimated autoantibodies, whereas antibodies to ENA-antigens were positive in 32% and in the case of residual autoantibodies, positivity was discovered only in 10.5% of all cases (Fig. 2). Additionally, in most (72%) PEG-6000 sediments tested for autoantibodies, the positive reaction (weakness of the lines on Western blots in relation to controls) after treatment (incubated with PEG sediment blots) with anti-human F(ab)2-IgG antiserum and in 30% after incubation with anti-h-Fc-IgG antiserum was observed. The effect of weakening of lines on the Western blots after incubation with anti-F(ab)2 and anti-Fc sera was similar, independently of ANA antibody specificity, what shows that autoantibodies are located on the surface of the immune complexes (Fig. 3, Table I). One can hope that a new methodological approach developed after necessary adjustment (simplification) needed for routine antibody diagnostics, will be useful in diagnosis of marker autoanti­bodies not only in connective tissue diseases.
 
REFERENCES (23)
1.
von Mühlen CA, Tan EM. Autoantibodies in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1995; 24: 323-358.  .
 
2.
Manual of Biological Markers of Disease. van Venrooij WJ, Maini RN (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, London 1994.  .
 
3.
Nielen MMJ, van Schaardenburg D, Reesink HW, et al. Specific autoantibodies precede the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50: 380.  .
 
4.
Vencovský J, Machácek S, Sedová L, et al. Autoantibodies can be prognostic markers of an erosive disease in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 427.  .
 
5.
Ząbek J. Podstawowe zasady racjonalnej serodiagnostyki autoprzeciwciał markerowych w układowych chorobach tkanki łącznej. Reumatologia 2005; 43: 335-340.  .
 
6.
Reis J. Współczesne metody szybkiej indykacji i immunodiagnostyki rozpuszczalnych antygenów bakteryjnych. Post Mikrobiol 1989; 28: 17.  .
 
7.
Ząbek J, Pyka J, Krzewska I i wsp. Autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Lublin – Polonia 2008; 43: 18-24.  .
 
8.
Haugbro K, Nossent JC, Winkler T, et al. Anti-dsDNA antibodies and diseases classification in antinuclear antibody positive patients: The role of analytical diversity. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 386-394.  .
 
9.
Świerczyńska Z, Rdułtowska H, Woźniczko-Orłowska G, Ząbek J. A New metod for the detection of circulating immune complexes by immunoelectrophoretic analysis. I. Studies on DNA-anti-DNA immune complexes prepared in vitro. Reumatologia 1979; 17: 269-277. .
 
10.
Gazda A, Ząbek J, Romicka AM i wsp. Występowanie przeciwciał antykardiolipinowych w krążących kompleksach immunologicznych u dzieci z młodzieńczym toczniem rumieniowatym i młodzieńczym idiopatycznym zapaleniem stawów. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2008; 118: 10-14. .
 
11.
Jabłońska J, Ząbek J, Kozłowska J, Krzewska I. Obecność przeciw­ciał antykardiolipinowych w krioglobulinach izolowanych z surowic pacjentów zakażonych wirusem zapalenia wątroby typu C. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2008; 118: 20-24. .
 
12.
Lisowski J. Metody fizykochemiczne stosowane w immunologii. W: Immunologia praktyczna. Ślopek S (red.). PZWL, Warszawa 1970. .
 
13.
Legatowicz-Koprowska M, Gziut I, Jezierski J i wsp. Borelioza serca – gorzka lekcja czy spóźniony sukces diagnostyczny? Opis przypadku. Kardiologia Polska 2007; 65: 1228-1230. .
 
14.
Youinou P, Dueymes M, Shoenfeld Y. Autoantibody subclasses. In: Autoantibodies. Shoenfeld Y, Gershwin ME, Meroni PL (eds.). Elsevier. Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo. Second Edition 2007; 61-67. .
 
15.
Smeenk R, Hylkema M. Detection of antibodies to DNA: a technical assessment. Mol Biol Reports 1992; 17: 71. .
 
16.
Ząbek J. Przyczyny niepowodzeń w identyfikacji swoistości autoprzeciwciał ANA w surowicach pobranych od pacjentów z układowymi chorobami tkanki łącznej. Reumatologia 2004; 42: 416-426. .
 
17.
Puszczewicz M. Przeciwciała przeciwjądrowe w diagnostyce różnicowej chorób układowych. Reumatologia 1998; 36: 30-41. .
 
18.
Szmyrka-Kaczmarek M, Dziemianko I, Szechiński J. Przeciw­ciała antycytrulinowe w reumatoidalnym zapaleniu stawów – znaczenie diagnostyczne i prognostyczne. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2003; 110: 915. .
 
19.
Ożóg-Sulikowska A. Przeciwciała przeciwjądrowe w układo­wych chorobach tkanki łącznej. Nowa Klinika. Reumatologia 2003; 8: 1144-1152. .
 
20.
Wańkowicz A. Zjawiska autoimmunologiczne. W: Immunologia. Jakóbisiak M (red.). PWN, Warszawa 1995; 499. .
 
21.
Welcker M. Clinical features of systemic lupus erythematosus. Elias Journal 2001; 2: 3-5. .
 
22.
Pernice W, Sedlacek HH. Antigen-specific detection of soluble immune complexes by a solid phase specific antibody system. J Immunol Methods 1979; 28: 33-40. .
 
23.
Agnello V. Immune complexes assays in rheumatic diseases. Human Pathol 1983; 14: 343-349.
 
Copyright: © Narodowy Instytut Geriatrii, Reumatologii i Rehabilitacji w Warszawie. This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
eISSN:2084-9834
ISSN:0034-6233
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top