Cargando…
Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing
Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) is considered by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the international consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP) the gold standard for the screening of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA). As conventional IIF is labor intensive, time-consuming, subjective, and poorly st...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946161/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29780386 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00927 |
_version_ | 1783322138898333696 |
---|---|
author | Ricchiuti, Vincent Adams, Joseph Hardy, Donna J. Katayev, Alexander Fleming, James K. |
author_facet | Ricchiuti, Vincent Adams, Joseph Hardy, Donna J. Katayev, Alexander Fleming, James K. |
author_sort | Ricchiuti, Vincent |
collection | PubMed |
description | Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) is considered by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the international consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP) the gold standard for the screening of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA). As conventional IIF is labor intensive, time-consuming, subjective, and poorly standardized, there have been ongoing efforts to improve the standardization of reagents and to develop automated platforms for assay incubation, microscopy, and evaluation. In this study, the workflow and performance characteristics of a fully automated ANA IIF system (Sprinter XL, EUROPattern Suite, IFA 40: HEp-20-10 cells) were compared to a manual approach using visual microscopy with a filter device for single-well titration and to technologist reading. The Sprinter/EUROPattern system enabled the processing of large daily workload cohorts in less than 8 h and the reduction of labor hands-on time by more than 4 h. Regarding the discrimination of positive from negative samples, the overall agreement of the EUROPattern software with technologist reading was higher (95.6%) than when compared to the current method (89.4%). Moreover, the software was consistent with technologist reading in 80.6–97.5% of patterns and 71.0–93.8% of titers. In conclusion, the Sprinter/EUROPattern system provides substantial labor savings and good concordance with technologist ANA IIF microscopy, thus increasing standardization, laboratory efficiency, and removing subjectivity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5946161 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59461612018-05-18 Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing Ricchiuti, Vincent Adams, Joseph Hardy, Donna J. Katayev, Alexander Fleming, James K. Front Immunol Immunology Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) is considered by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the international consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP) the gold standard for the screening of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA). As conventional IIF is labor intensive, time-consuming, subjective, and poorly standardized, there have been ongoing efforts to improve the standardization of reagents and to develop automated platforms for assay incubation, microscopy, and evaluation. In this study, the workflow and performance characteristics of a fully automated ANA IIF system (Sprinter XL, EUROPattern Suite, IFA 40: HEp-20-10 cells) were compared to a manual approach using visual microscopy with a filter device for single-well titration and to technologist reading. The Sprinter/EUROPattern system enabled the processing of large daily workload cohorts in less than 8 h and the reduction of labor hands-on time by more than 4 h. Regarding the discrimination of positive from negative samples, the overall agreement of the EUROPattern software with technologist reading was higher (95.6%) than when compared to the current method (89.4%). Moreover, the software was consistent with technologist reading in 80.6–97.5% of patterns and 71.0–93.8% of titers. In conclusion, the Sprinter/EUROPattern system provides substantial labor savings and good concordance with technologist ANA IIF microscopy, thus increasing standardization, laboratory efficiency, and removing subjectivity. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5946161/ /pubmed/29780386 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00927 Text en Copyright © 2018 Ricchiuti, Adams, Hardy, Katayev and Fleming. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Immunology Ricchiuti, Vincent Adams, Joseph Hardy, Donna J. Katayev, Alexander Fleming, James K. Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing |
title | Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing |
title_full | Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing |
title_fullStr | Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing |
title_short | Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing |
title_sort | automated processing and evaluation of anti-nuclear antibody indirect immunofluorescence testing |
topic | Immunology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946161/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29780386 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00927 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ricchiutivincent automatedprocessingandevaluationofantinuclearantibodyindirectimmunofluorescencetesting AT adamsjoseph automatedprocessingandevaluationofantinuclearantibodyindirectimmunofluorescencetesting AT hardydonnaj automatedprocessingandevaluationofantinuclearantibodyindirectimmunofluorescencetesting AT katayevalexander automatedprocessingandevaluationofantinuclearantibodyindirectimmunofluorescencetesting AT flemingjamesk automatedprocessingandevaluationofantinuclearantibodyindirectimmunofluorescencetesting |