Abstract
Interest in the assessment of autoantibody specificity stems from the need for an autoantibody marker capable of predicting clinical events in autoimmune disorders. However, the multiplicity of epitopes present on autoantigenic particles, the quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity of autoantibodies, as well as the nature of the tests, mean that each of the assays used in their determination have different characteristics. The aim of this study was to compare the specificities of different ANAs using four commercial assays. The routine method used for the detection of ANA is indirect immunofluorescence on Hep‐2 cells. The assays used were: counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIE), enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and two immunoblotting assays. Kappa statistic was applied to evaluate the consistency between tests. Kappa index is a measure of agreement between categorical data. Kappa has a maximum of 1.00 when the agreement is perfect, a value of zero indicates no agreement better than chance, and negative values show worse than chance agreement.
For SS‐B antibodies, there was a good concordance between all four methods used (Kappa 0.66–0.74). For anti RNP antibodies, the results for CIE/ELISA (Kappa 0.60) were consistent as were the two immunoblot methods (Kappa 0.69). For anti Scl‐70 (topoisomerase I) antibody, results from the ELISA and CIE methods were totally consistent (Kappa 1.00). In spite of the high prevalence of anti SS‐A/Ro antibodies, the agreement between the methods was poor, without statistical significance. Finally, for Sm antibodies, more consistent results were obtained between CIE/ELISA (Kappa 0.51) and between one of the immunoblotting methods and ELISA (Kappa 0.54). In conclusion, CIE concurs mostly with ELISA for anti‐ RNP, Scl‐70, Sm and SS‐B antibodies, but with some disagreement for SS‐A antibodies. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 11:388–392, 1997. © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Keywords: antinuclear antibodies, enzyme immunoassay, immunoblotting, counterimmunoelectrophoresis
References
- 1. Saitta MR, Keene JD: Molecular biology of nuclear autoantigens. Rheum Dis North Am 18: 283–310, 1992. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Holman HR: Partial purification and characterization of an extractable nuclear antigen which reacts with SLE sera. Ann NY Acad Sci 124: 800–807, 1965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Schumacher HR Jr., Klippel JH, Koopman WJ: Primer on the Rheumatic Diseases. 10th edition, Atlanta, Georgia, Arthritis Foundation, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Altman DG: Practical statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall, London: 1991: 403–409. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Schur PH, DeAngelis D, Jackson JM: Immunological detection of nucleic acids and nuclear antigens by counterimmunoelectrophoresis. Clin Exp Immunol 17: 209–218, 1975. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Vham K, Keyser F, Verbruggen G, Vandenbossche M, Vanneubille B, D'Haese D, Veys EM: Detection and identification of antinuclear autoantibodies in the serum of normal blood donors. Clin Exp Rheumatol 11: 393–397, 1993. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Dier K, Lopez L: Laboratory management of antinuclear antibody testing. Clin Chem 41: S90, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Hoch SO: Application of protein blotting to the study of autoimmune disease In Protein Blotting: Methodology, Research and Diagnostic Applications. Baldo BA, Tovery ER, eds. Basel: S. Karger AG; 1989, p 140–164. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Craft J: Antibodies to snRNP1 in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Rheum Dis Clin North AM 18: 311–315, 1992. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Swaak AJG, Huysen V, Smeenk RJT: Antinuclear antibodies in routine analysis: The relevance of putative clinical associations. Annals Rheum Dis 52: 110–114, 1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Uyttenboroeck W, Correman W, Scharpe S: The presence of antibodies against extractable nuclear antigens in serum: A comparison of immunoblotting versus radial immunodiffusion. Ann Clin Biochem 30: 83–86, 1993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Combe B, Rucheton M, Graafland H, Lussiez V, Brunei C, Sany J: Clinical significance of anti‐RNP and anti‐Sm antibodies as determined by immunoblotting and immunoprecipitation in sera from patients with connective tissue disease. Clin Exp Immunol 75: 18–24, 1989. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Itoh Y, Reichlin M: Autoantibodies to the Ro/SS‐A antigen are conformation dependent. I. Anti‐60 kD antibodies are mainly directed to the native protein; Anti‐52 kD antibodies are mainly directed to the denatured protein. Autoimmunity 14: 57–70, 1994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Veldhoven CHA, Pruijn GJM, Meilof JF, Thijssen JPH, Van der Kemp AWCM, Van Venroij WJ, Smeenk RJT: Characterization of murine monoclonal antibodies against 60‐kD Ro/SS‐A and La/SS‐B autoanti‐bodies. Clin Exp Immunol 101: 45–54, 1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Rischmueller M, McNeilage LJ, McCluskey J, Gordon T: Human autoantibodies directed against the RNA recognition motif of LA (SS‐B) bind to a conformational epitope present on the intact La( SS‐B)/Ro(SS‐A) ribonucleoprotein particle. Clin Exp Immunol 101: 39–44, 1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. van Venrooij WJ, Charles P, Main RN: The consensus workshops for the detection of autoantibodies to intracellular antigens in rheumatic disease. J Immunol Methods 140: 507–511, 1992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Charles P, van Venrooij WJ, Maine RN: The consensus workshops for the detection of autoantibodies to intracellular antigens in rheumatic diseases: 1989–1992. Clin Exp Rheumatol 10: 507–511, 1992. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Nakamura RM, Bylund DJ, Eng MT: Current status of available standards for quality improvement of assays for detection of autoantibodies to nuclear and intracellular antigens. J Clin Lab Anal 8: 360–368, 1994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]