Cargando…
Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies
Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratori...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503053/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114570 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848 |
_version_ | 1783416343223074816 |
---|---|
author | Mahler, Michael Betteridge, Zoe Bentow, Chelsea Richards, Michaelin Seaman, Andrea Chinoy, Hector McHugh, Neil |
author_facet | Mahler, Michael Betteridge, Zoe Bentow, Chelsea Richards, Michaelin Seaman, Andrea Chinoy, Hector McHugh, Neil |
author_sort | Mahler, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46–0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6503053 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65030532019-05-21 Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies Mahler, Michael Betteridge, Zoe Bentow, Chelsea Richards, Michaelin Seaman, Andrea Chinoy, Hector McHugh, Neil Front Immunol Immunology Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA. Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2. Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46–0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE. Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6503053/ /pubmed/31114570 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848 Text en Copyright © 2019 Mahler, Betteridge, Bentow, Richards, Seaman, Chinoy and McHugh. http://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(s) 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 Mahler, Michael Betteridge, Zoe Bentow, Chelsea Richards, Michaelin Seaman, Andrea Chinoy, Hector McHugh, Neil Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies |
title | Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies |
title_full | Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies |
title_short | Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies |
title_sort | comparison of three immunoassays for the detection of myositis specific antibodies |
topic | Immunology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503053/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114570 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00848 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mahlermichael comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies AT betteridgezoe comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies AT bentowchelsea comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies AT richardsmichaelin comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies AT seamanandrea comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies AT chinoyhector comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies AT mchughneil comparisonofthreeimmunoassaysforthedetectionofmyositisspecificantibodies |