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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahler, Michael, Betteridge, Zoe, Bentow, Chelsea, Richards, Michaelin, Seaman, Andrea, Chinoy, Hector, McHugh, Neil
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