Indirect immunofluorescence of inactive centromeres as indicator of centromeric function

1986 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diletta Peretti ◽  
Paola Maraschio ◽  
Simonetta Lambiase ◽  
F. Lo Curto ◽  
Orsetta Zuffardi
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Centromeric Function

Combining multi-antigenic immunodot with indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells improves the diagnosis of systemic sclerosis

2021 ◽  
pp. 108774
Author(s):  
Bost Chloé ◽  
Fortenfant Françoise ◽  
Antoine Blancher ◽  
Pugnet Grégory ◽  
Renaudineau Yves
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Indirect Immunofluorescence

scholarly journals Evaluation of the performance of immunoblot and immunodot techniques used to identify autoantibodies in patients with autoimmune diseases

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-244
Author(s):  
Youssef EL Hassouni ◽  
Mohammed Bourhia ◽  
Ahmed Bari ◽  
Riaz Ullah ◽  
Hafiz Majid Mahmood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune System ◽  
Autoimmune Diseases ◽  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Antinuclear Antibodies ◽  
Pathological Conditions ◽  
Nuclear Antigens ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
U1 Snrnp

Abstract Autoimmune diseases are pathological conditions in which the immune system mistakenly attacks its own tissues. This study evaluates the performance of two techniques, which are identifiers of autoantibody specifics: immunoblot and immunodot. This study was conducted in 300 patients of whom 62 were tested positive for antinuclear antibodies. The patients were initially screened for antinuclear antibodies using indirect immunofluorescence. Then, the identification of specific autoantibodies such as anti-extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs) was carried out using the immunoblot and immunodot techniques. The results showed that immunoblot and immunodot did not present a significant difference in their sensitivity against anti-SSA/52, SSB, CENP-B, PCNA, U1-snRNP, Jo-1, Pm-scl, and Mi-2 (p > 0.05). However, the two techniques showed a significant difference in their sensitivity toward autoantibodies anti-DNAn, anti-histone, anti-SmD1, and anti-ds-DNA (p < 0.05). The immunoblot data were in complete accordance with the immunodot data (100%) regarding the detection of autoantibodies such as anti SSA/52, SSB, CENP-B, PCNA, U1-snRP, Jo-1, Pm-scl, and Mi-2, 80% regarding SmD1, and 75% concerning ds-DNA. We should certainly pay closer attention to the efficiency of the techniques used in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases.

scholarly journals The role of NbTMP1, a surface protein of sporoplasm, in Nosema bombycis infection

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiyi Zheng ◽  
Yukang Huang ◽  
Hongyun Huang ◽  
Bin Yu ◽  
Ni Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Selective Breeding ◽  
Developmental Stages ◽  
Transmembrane Protein ◽  
Surface Protein ◽  
Spore Wall ◽  
Significant Inhibition ◽  
Pcr Analysis ◽  
Immunofluorescence Analysis ◽  
Nosema Bombycis

Abstract Background Nosema bombycis is a unicellular eukaryotic pathogen of the silkworm, Bombyx mori, and is an economic and occupational hazard in the silkworm industry. Because of its long incubation period and horizontal and vertical transmission, it is subject to quarantine measures in sericulture production. The microsporidian life-cycle includes a dormant extracellular phase and intracellular proliferation phase, with the proliferation period being the most active period. This latter period lacks spore wall protection and may be the most susceptible stage for control. Methods In order to find suitable target for the selective breeding of N. bombycis-resistant silkworm strains, we screen highly expressed membrane proteins from the transcriptome data of N. bombycis. The subcellular localization of the candidate protein was verified by Indirect immunofluorescence analysis (IFA) and immunoelectron microscopy (IEM), and its role in N. bombycis proliferation was verified by RNAi. Results The N. bombycis protein (NBO_76g0014) was identified as a transmembrane protein and named NbTMP1. It is homologous with hypothetical proteins NGRA_1734 from Nosema granulosis. NbTMP1 has a transmembrane region of 23 amino acids at the N-terminus. Indirect immunofluorescence analysis (IFA) results suggest that NbTMP1 is secreted on the plasma membrane as the spores develop. Western blot and qRT-PCR analysis showed that NbTMP1 was expressed in all developmental stages of N. bombycis in infected cells and in the silkworm midgut. Downregulation of NbTMP1 expression resulted in significant inhibition of N. bombycis proliferation. Conclusions We confirmed that NbTMP1 is a membrane protein of N. bombycis. Reduction of the transcription level of NbTMP1 significantly inhibited N. bombycis proliferation, and this protein may be a target for the selective breeding of N. bombycis-resistant silkworm strains.

scholarly journals A hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to provide direct comparisons of immunoassays vs. indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Elaine Orme ◽  
Carmen Andalucia ◽  
Sigrid Sjölander ◽  
Xavier Bossuyt
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Connective Tissue Diseases ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Initial Screening ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Mixed Effect Models

AbstractObjectivesTo compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) against immunoassays (IAs) as an initial screening test for connective tissue diseases (CTDs).MethodsA systematic literature review identified cross-sectional or case-control studies reporting test accuracy data for IIF and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) or multiplex immunoassay (MIA). The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate, mixed-effect models with random-effects by test.ResultsDirect comparisons of IIF with ELISA showed that both tests had good sensitivity (five studies, 2321 patients: ELISA: 90.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5%, 95.5%] vs. IIF at a cut-off of 1:80: 86.8% [95% CI: 81.8%, 90.6%]; p = 0.4) but low specificity, with considerable variance across assays (ELISA: 56.9% [95% CI: 40.9%, 71.5%] vs. IIF 1:80: 68.0% [95% CI: 39.5%, 87.4%]; p = 0.5). FEIA sensitivity was lower than IIF sensitivity (1:80: p = 0.005; 1:160: p = 0.051); however, FEIA specificity was higher (seven studies, n = 12,311, FEIA 93.6% [95% CI: 89.9%, 96.0%] vs. IIF 1:80 72.4% [95% CI: 62.2%, 80.7%]; p < 0.001; seven studies, n = 3251, FEIA 93.5% [95% CI: 91.1%, 95.3%] vs. IIF 1:160 81.1% [95% CI: 73.4%, 86.9%]; p < 0.0001). CLIA sensitivity was similar to IIF (1:80) with higher specificity (four studies, n = 1981: sensitivity 85.9% [95% CI: 64.7%, 95.3%]; p = 0.86; specificity 86.1% [95% CI: 78.3%, 91.4%]). More data are needed to make firm inferences for CLIA vs. IIF given the wide prediction region. There were too few studies for the meta-analysis of MIA vs. IIF (MIA sensitivity range 73.7%–86%; specificity 53%–91%).ConclusionsFEIA and CLIA have good specificity compared to IIF. A positive FEIA or CLIA test is useful to support the diagnosis of a CTD. A negative IIF test is useful to exclude a CTD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document