[Evaluation of Anti-dsDNA antibody tests: Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test, immunoblot, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, chemiluminescence immunoassay].

Jin-young Yang, Eun-Jee Oh, Yonggoo Kim, Yeon-Joon Park
{"title":"[Evaluation of Anti-dsDNA antibody tests: Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test, immunoblot, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, chemiluminescence immunoassay].","authors":"Jin-young Yang,&nbsp;Eun-Jee Oh,&nbsp;Yonggoo Kim,&nbsp;Yeon-Joon Park","doi":"10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.6.675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anti-double stranded DNA antibody (anti-dsDNA) test is useful for the diagnosis and monitoring of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although several methods are available, none of them is completely satisfactory and differences among them have been reported. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of 6 commercial kits for anti-dsDNA detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 142 sera (SLE [N=74], other systemic rheumatic diseases [N=50], other diseases [N=18]) were tested by 6 different assay kits using different antigenic sources of DNA: Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT), salmon testes (immunoblot, IB), human (ELISA I), salmon testes with nucleosome linker (ELISA II), plasmid (ELISA III), and synthetic oligonucleotides (chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With manufacturers' cut-off values, 6 test kits showed sensitivities of 55.4-91.9%. ELISA I had a greater sensitivity than the other five assays (P<0.001). The specificities of ELISA II, ELISA III, CLIA, and CLIFT were higher than those of ELISA I and IB (P<0.05). In ROC curve analysis, 3 ELISA kits and CLIA showed AUC values of 0.845-0.893, and revealed no significant differences among them (P>0.05). With cut-off values set at 95% of specificity, ELISA II had a higher sensitivity than ELISA III (63.5% vs. 41.9%, P<0.05). IB had poor concordance rates with other assays (42.0-65.0%). Pearson correlation coefficients among 4 quantitative assays were 0.667-0.798.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Six different assays showed various performances depending on the methods and cut-off values used. Except IB, the other five assays can be used for the detection of anti-dsDNA.</p>","PeriodicalId":17890,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":"30 6","pages":"675-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.6.675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: Anti-double stranded DNA antibody (anti-dsDNA) test is useful for the diagnosis and monitoring of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although several methods are available, none of them is completely satisfactory and differences among them have been reported. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of 6 commercial kits for anti-dsDNA detection.

Methods: A total of 142 sera (SLE [N=74], other systemic rheumatic diseases [N=50], other diseases [N=18]) were tested by 6 different assay kits using different antigenic sources of DNA: Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT), salmon testes (immunoblot, IB), human (ELISA I), salmon testes with nucleosome linker (ELISA II), plasmid (ELISA III), and synthetic oligonucleotides (chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA).

Results: With manufacturers' cut-off values, 6 test kits showed sensitivities of 55.4-91.9%. ELISA I had a greater sensitivity than the other five assays (P<0.001). The specificities of ELISA II, ELISA III, CLIA, and CLIFT were higher than those of ELISA I and IB (P<0.05). In ROC curve analysis, 3 ELISA kits and CLIA showed AUC values of 0.845-0.893, and revealed no significant differences among them (P>0.05). With cut-off values set at 95% of specificity, ELISA II had a higher sensitivity than ELISA III (63.5% vs. 41.9%, P<0.05). IB had poor concordance rates with other assays (42.0-65.0%). Pearson correlation coefficients among 4 quantitative assays were 0.667-0.798.

Conclusions: Six different assays showed various performances depending on the methods and cut-off values used. Except IB, the other five assays can be used for the detection of anti-dsDNA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
【抗dsdna抗体检测的评价:水仙免疫荧光法、免疫印迹法、酶联免疫吸附法、化学发光法】。
背景:抗双链DNA抗体(anti-dsDNA)检测对系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)的诊断和监测具有重要意义。虽然有几种方法可用,但没有一种方法是完全令人满意的,并且它们之间存在差异。我们评估了6种商用抗dsdna检测试剂盒的诊断性能。方法:采用6种不同的检测试剂盒,对142份血清(SLE [N=74],其他系统性风湿病[N=50],其他疾病[N=18])进行检测,采用不同的抗原DNA来源:水蛭免疫荧光试验(CLIFT),鲑鱼睾丸(免疫印迹,IB),人(ELISA I),带核小体连接体的鲑鱼睾丸(ELISA II),质粒(ELISA III)和合成寡核苷酸(化学发光免疫测定,CLIA)。结果:6种检测试剂盒的灵敏度为55.4 ~ 91.9%,采用厂家临界值。ELISA I的敏感性高于其他5种检测方法(P0.05)。在95%的特异性临界值下,ELISA II的敏感性高于ELISA III (63.5% vs. 41.9%)。结论:6种不同的检测方法和临界值不同,表现出不同的性能。除IB外,其他5种方法均可用于检测抗dsdna。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine 医学-医学实验技术
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Green urine – understanding its importance Use of tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening of 6 lysosomal storage disorders in a Korean population. Prevalence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance and its association with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase and AmpC beta-lactamase in Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrobial resistance determinants in imipenem-nonsusceptible Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex isolated in Daejeon, Korea. Serial interferon-gamma release assays for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection in patients treated with immunosuppressive agents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1