Kyphuong Luong , Bucky K. Lozier , Camille L. Novis , Tammy L. Smith , Lauren M. Zuromski , Lisa K. Peterson
{"title":"比较三种检测肌肉特异性激酶抗体的方法。","authors":"Kyphuong Luong , Bucky K. Lozier , Camille L. Novis , Tammy L. Smith , Lauren M. Zuromski , Lisa K. Peterson","doi":"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compare 3 different methods for the detection of antibodies against muscle-specific kinase (MuSK).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>MuSK antibody testing was performed in 237 serum samples by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and fixed cell-based assay (f-CBA-IFA). One hundred and forty-eight (148) of the sera had previously been tested by RIA during clinical testing: 47 MuSK antibody positive and 101 MuSK antibody negative. Of the MuSK RIA negative antibodies, 46 tested positive for other neural antibodies. Additionally, 89 sera were subsequently tested by all three methods: 70 healthy controls and 19 sera positive for other neural antibodies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Qualitative inter-assay agreement based on tiered RIA values was 100% for results of 1.00 nmol/L or greater by both methods; 81% and 94% for results between 0.21 and 0.99 nmol/L by ELISA and f-CBA-IFA, respectively; and 0% for results of 0.04–0.20 nmol/L by both methods. Negative results showed 100% agreement between RIA and both ELISA and f-CBA-IFA (<em>n</em> = 55). None of the controls positive for other neural autoantibodies or healthy controls were positive in any assay.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, excellent agreement was observed between the 3 methods used to detect antibodies against MuSK. Both the f-CBA-IFA and ELISA performed comparably to RIA and exhibited excellent overall accuracy for MuSK IgG detection, with the f-CBA-IFA demonstrating higher agreement between positive samples with the RIA than the ELISA without identifying false positives in the control samples. Advantages of non-radioactive methods for the detection of MuSK antibodies include reduced handling and disposal of hazardous materials, potential for automation and the reagents having a longer shelf-life, reducing costs associated with both workflow and lot validations. Thus, commercially available ELISA and transfected cell-based assays are viable alternatives to the traditional radioactive assay used for serologic determination of MuSK IgG.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16000,"journal":{"name":"Journal of immunological methods","volume":"526 ","pages":"Article 113627"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of three methods for the detection of antibodies against muscle-specific kinase\",\"authors\":\"Kyphuong Luong , Bucky K. Lozier , Camille L. Novis , Tammy L. Smith , Lauren M. Zuromski , Lisa K. Peterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113627\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To compare 3 different methods for the detection of antibodies against muscle-specific kinase (MuSK).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>MuSK antibody testing was performed in 237 serum samples by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and fixed cell-based assay (f-CBA-IFA). One hundred and forty-eight (148) of the sera had previously been tested by RIA during clinical testing: 47 MuSK antibody positive and 101 MuSK antibody negative. Of the MuSK RIA negative antibodies, 46 tested positive for other neural antibodies. Additionally, 89 sera were subsequently tested by all three methods: 70 healthy controls and 19 sera positive for other neural antibodies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Qualitative inter-assay agreement based on tiered RIA values was 100% for results of 1.00 nmol/L or greater by both methods; 81% and 94% for results between 0.21 and 0.99 nmol/L by ELISA and f-CBA-IFA, respectively; and 0% for results of 0.04–0.20 nmol/L by both methods. Negative results showed 100% agreement between RIA and both ELISA and f-CBA-IFA (<em>n</em> = 55). None of the controls positive for other neural autoantibodies or healthy controls were positive in any assay.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, excellent agreement was observed between the 3 methods used to detect antibodies against MuSK. Both the f-CBA-IFA and ELISA performed comparably to RIA and exhibited excellent overall accuracy for MuSK IgG detection, with the f-CBA-IFA demonstrating higher agreement between positive samples with the RIA than the ELISA without identifying false positives in the control samples. Advantages of non-radioactive methods for the detection of MuSK antibodies include reduced handling and disposal of hazardous materials, potential for automation and the reagents having a longer shelf-life, reducing costs associated with both workflow and lot validations. Thus, commercially available ELISA and transfected cell-based assays are viable alternatives to the traditional radioactive assay used for serologic determination of MuSK IgG.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"volume\":\"526 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113627\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000127\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of immunological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000127","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of three methods for the detection of antibodies against muscle-specific kinase
Objectives
To compare 3 different methods for the detection of antibodies against muscle-specific kinase (MuSK).
Methods
MuSK antibody testing was performed in 237 serum samples by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and fixed cell-based assay (f-CBA-IFA). One hundred and forty-eight (148) of the sera had previously been tested by RIA during clinical testing: 47 MuSK antibody positive and 101 MuSK antibody negative. Of the MuSK RIA negative antibodies, 46 tested positive for other neural antibodies. Additionally, 89 sera were subsequently tested by all three methods: 70 healthy controls and 19 sera positive for other neural antibodies.
Results
Qualitative inter-assay agreement based on tiered RIA values was 100% for results of 1.00 nmol/L or greater by both methods; 81% and 94% for results between 0.21 and 0.99 nmol/L by ELISA and f-CBA-IFA, respectively; and 0% for results of 0.04–0.20 nmol/L by both methods. Negative results showed 100% agreement between RIA and both ELISA and f-CBA-IFA (n = 55). None of the controls positive for other neural autoantibodies or healthy controls were positive in any assay.
Conclusion
Overall, excellent agreement was observed between the 3 methods used to detect antibodies against MuSK. Both the f-CBA-IFA and ELISA performed comparably to RIA and exhibited excellent overall accuracy for MuSK IgG detection, with the f-CBA-IFA demonstrating higher agreement between positive samples with the RIA than the ELISA without identifying false positives in the control samples. Advantages of non-radioactive methods for the detection of MuSK antibodies include reduced handling and disposal of hazardous materials, potential for automation and the reagents having a longer shelf-life, reducing costs associated with both workflow and lot validations. Thus, commercially available ELISA and transfected cell-based assays are viable alternatives to the traditional radioactive assay used for serologic determination of MuSK IgG.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Immunological Methods is devoted to covering techniques for: (1) Quantitating and detecting antibodies and/or antigens. (2) Purifying immunoglobulins, lymphokines and other molecules of the immune system. (3) Isolating antigens and other substances important in immunological processes. (4) Labelling antigens and antibodies. (5) Localizing antigens and/or antibodies in tissues and cells. (6) Detecting, and fractionating immunocompetent cells. (7) Assaying for cellular immunity. (8) Documenting cell-cell interactions. (9) Initiating immunity and unresponsiveness. (10) Transplanting tissues. (11) Studying items closely related to immunity such as complement, reticuloendothelial system and others. (12) Molecular techniques for studying immune cells and their receptors. (13) Imaging of the immune system. (14) Methods for production or their fragments in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.
In addition the journal will publish articles on novel methods for analysing the organization, structure and expression of genes for immunologically important molecules such as immunoglobulins, T cell receptors and accessory molecules involved in antigen recognition, processing and presentation. Submitted full length manuscripts should describe new methods of broad applicability to immunology and not simply the application of an established method to a particular substance - although papers describing such applications may be considered for publication as a short Technical Note. Review articles will also be published by the Journal of Immunological Methods. In general these manuscripts are by solicitation however anyone interested in submitting a review can contact the Reviews Editor and provide an outline of the proposed review.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
