Comparison of Different Laboratory Methods in the Detection of Anti-dsDNA Antibodies and Their Diagnostic Utility

IF 0.2 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY Turkish Journal of Immunology Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.25002/tji.2020.1157
C. T. Dalgıç, E. Gökmen, A. Sin
{"title":"Comparison of Different Laboratory Methods in the Detection of Anti-dsDNA Antibodies and Their Diagnostic Utility","authors":"C. T. Dalgıç, E. Gökmen, A. Sin","doi":"10.25002/tji.2020.1157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: We aimed to analyze the positivity of Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence tests (CLIFT), to compare CLIFT with ANA-IFA (antinuclear antibody–immunofluorescence assay), ANA-IB (immunoblot), and ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoassays), and to determine the relevant method to test anti-dsDNA in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study between January 1st, 2015 and January 1st, 2016. We focused on the positive CLIFT results firstly, then, we compared the ANA-IFA, ELISA, and ANA-IB results to diagnose SLE. Demographic features were obtained from the hospital records. Results: To analyse CLIFT, 3242 seras were tested, and 72 (2.2%) were positive. Among CLIFT positivity [n=64; 57 female, 7 male (mean, range; 41.96, 11–82)]; 73% (n=47) had SLE. Out of 61 patients were analyzed by ANA-IFA, 36 had peripheral (n=1) and homogenous (n=35) patterns; 83% (n=30) had SLE. Out of 46 patients were analyzed by ANA-IB, 30 had dsDNA; 73% (n=22) had SLE. Out of 25 patients who were analyzed by ELISA, 18 had dsDNA; 83% (n=15) had SLE. In the two-sided correlations, CLIFT positivity (≥grade 2) was found to be statistically significantly associated with having SLE (p=0.005, r [64]=0.92); CLIFT positivity was also statistically significantly associated with ANA-IFA (p=0.003, r=0.85). In order to exclude SLE diagnosis, CLIFT positivity was statistically significantly correlated with ANA-IB (p=0.002, r=0.90). Conclusion: CLIFT can not be used instead of ELISA and ANA-IB, but it can reduce their usage. We recommend to use CLIFT and ANA-IFA for first-line screening; and ANA-IB and ELISA for confirmation and identification of dsDNA.","PeriodicalId":41088,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Immunology","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25002/tji.2020.1157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to analyze the positivity of Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence tests (CLIFT), to compare CLIFT with ANA-IFA (antinuclear antibody–immunofluorescence assay), ANA-IB (immunoblot), and ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoassays), and to determine the relevant method to test anti-dsDNA in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study between January 1st, 2015 and January 1st, 2016. We focused on the positive CLIFT results firstly, then, we compared the ANA-IFA, ELISA, and ANA-IB results to diagnose SLE. Demographic features were obtained from the hospital records. Results: To analyse CLIFT, 3242 seras were tested, and 72 (2.2%) were positive. Among CLIFT positivity [n=64; 57 female, 7 male (mean, range; 41.96, 11–82)]; 73% (n=47) had SLE. Out of 61 patients were analyzed by ANA-IFA, 36 had peripheral (n=1) and homogenous (n=35) patterns; 83% (n=30) had SLE. Out of 46 patients were analyzed by ANA-IB, 30 had dsDNA; 73% (n=22) had SLE. Out of 25 patients who were analyzed by ELISA, 18 had dsDNA; 83% (n=15) had SLE. In the two-sided correlations, CLIFT positivity (≥grade 2) was found to be statistically significantly associated with having SLE (p=0.005, r [64]=0.92); CLIFT positivity was also statistically significantly associated with ANA-IFA (p=0.003, r=0.85). In order to exclude SLE diagnosis, CLIFT positivity was statistically significantly correlated with ANA-IB (p=0.002, r=0.90). Conclusion: CLIFT can not be used instead of ELISA and ANA-IB, but it can reduce their usage. We recommend to use CLIFT and ANA-IFA for first-line screening; and ANA-IB and ELISA for confirmation and identification of 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
不同实验室方法检测抗dsdna抗体的比较及其诊断应用
摘要:本研究旨在分析水银花免疫荧光检测(CLIFT)的阳性情况,并将其与抗核抗体免疫荧光法(ANA-IFA)、免疫印迹法(ANA-IB)、酶联免疫法(ELISA)进行比较,探讨系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)患者抗dsdna检测的相关方法。材料与方法:我们于2015年1月1日至2016年1月1日进行回顾性横断面研究。我们首先关注CLIFT阳性结果,然后比较ANA-IFA、ELISA和ANA-IB结果来诊断SLE。从医院记录中获得人口统计学特征。结果:共检测血清3242份,阳性72份(2.2%)。CLIFT阳性组[n=64;女性57人,男性7人(平均,范围;41.96, 11 - 82)];73% (n=47)患有SLE。通过ANA-IFA分析的61例患者中,36例有外周型(n=1)和均匀型(n=35);83% (n=30)患有SLE。通过ANA-IB分析的46例患者中,30例有dsDNA;73% (n=22)患有SLE。ELISA分析的25例患者中,18例有dsDNA;83% (n=15)有SLE。在双侧相关中,CLIFT阳性(≥2级)与SLE有统计学显著相关(p=0.005, r [64]=0.92);CLIFT阳性与ANA-IFA也有统计学意义(p=0.003, r=0.85)。为了排除SLE诊断,CLIFT阳性与ANA-IB有统计学意义相关(p=0.002, r=0.90)。结论:CLIFT不能替代ELISA和ANA-IB,但可减少其使用。我们推荐使用CLIFT和ANA-IFA进行一线筛查;用ANA-IB和ELISA进行dsDNA的确认和鉴定。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
In Silico Comparative Expression Analyses of Pattern Recognition Receptors in Human Eosinophil Cell Lines and Primary Eosinophils Immune Response Profile Induced by Combined Alum and Glycyrrhizin Liposomes in Balb/c Mice Immunized with Ovalbumin Computational Repurposing of Certain Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Expression of High Mobility Group Box 1 and Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products in the Gingival Tissues of Periodontitis Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Ayurveda and Allopathic Therapeutic Strategies in Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura: An Overview
×
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