Cargando…

Variability in Exposure of Epitope G40-R43 of Domain I in Commercial Anti-Beta2-Glycoprotein I IgG ELISAs

BACKGROUND: A major problem for diagnosing the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is the high variability between commercial anti-β(2)glycoprotein I (β(2)GPI) assays. Predominantly antibodies reactive against cryptic epitope Glycine40-Arginine43 (G40-R43) in domain I are associated with an increased ri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pelkmans, Leonie, Kelchtermans, Hilde, de Groot, Philip G., Zuily, Stephane, Regnault, Veronique, Wahl, Denis, Pengo, Vittorio, de Laat, Bas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3741166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23951154
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071402
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: A major problem for diagnosing the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is the high variability between commercial anti-β(2)glycoprotein I (β(2)GPI) assays. Predominantly antibodies reactive against cryptic epitope Glycine40-Arginine43 (G40-R43) in domain I are associated with an increased risk for thrombosis. Upon interaction with anionic surfaces β(2)GPI opens up, thereby exposing G40-R43. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether suboptimal exposure of epitope G40-R43 explains the variations in results observed between commercial assays. METHODS: Two patient-derived monoclonal antibodies were tested on neutral versus anionic plates. Antibody P1-117 reacts with G40-R43 in the open conformation while P2-6 recognizes β(2)GPI irrespective of its conformation. These antibodies were tested in commercial anti-β(2)GPI assays (A–E). RESULTS: In assay A, both antibodies showed equal reactivity towards β(2)GPI, indicating that all the β(2)GPI exposes G40-R43. In other assays P1-117 displayed lower reactivity than P2-6, demonstrating reduced G40-R43 availability. To exclude influences of other assay features, reactivity was re-examined on plates of assay A and B using the protocol/reagents from each assay. In all combinations, reactivity of both antibodies on a plate was comparable to results obtained with its own protocol/reagents, suggesting that the coating, rather than other assay components, accounts for the observed differences. In two patient cohorts we demonstrated that a number of domain I-reactive samples are missed in assays characterized by a decreased exposure of epitope G40-R43. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure of epitope G40-R43 on β(2)GPI is highly variable between commercial anti-β(2)GPI assays. As a consequence, patients can be falsely assigned negative in assays characterized by a reduced exposure of G40-R43.