Detection of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and by solid phase assay

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 801-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrijn Op De Beeck ◽  
Pieter Vermeersch ◽  
Patrick Verschueren ◽  
René Westhovens ◽  
Godelieve Mariën ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Antinuclear Antibodies ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Solid Phase Assay

scholarly journals Antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and solid phase assays

2019 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2019-215443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Bossuyt ◽  
Jolien Claessens ◽  
Ellen De Langhe ◽  
Thibaut Belmondo ◽  
Rene Westhovens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Antinuclear Antibodies ◽  
Solid Phase

scholarly journals Solid phase assays versus automated indirect immunofluorescence for detection of antinuclear antibodies

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 533-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolien Claessens ◽  
Thibaut Belmondo ◽  
Ellen De Langhe ◽  
Rene Westhovens ◽  
Koen Poesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Antinuclear Antibodies ◽  
Solid Phase

Antinuclear antibodies: Is the indirect immunofluorescence still the gold standard or should be replaced by solid phase assays?

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 548-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Pérez ◽  
Boris Gilburd ◽  
Danielle Azoulay ◽  
Ora Shovman ◽  
Nicola Bizzaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Antinuclear Antibodies ◽  
Solid Phase

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.

The clinical relevance of anti-dsDNA antibodies determined by the Elia™ dsDNA assay in patients with negative indirect immunofluorescence on the HEp-2 cell

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Robier ◽  
Maximiliane Haas ◽  
Franz Quehenberger
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Immunofluorescence ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Discoid Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dsdna Antibodies

AbstractObjectivesData on the clinical importance of the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies in patients with negative indirect immunofluorescence on the HEp-2 cell (IIF) are sparse and are especially not available for all common commercially available assays. This study aimed to assess the clinical significance of anti-dsDNA antibodies determined by the Elia™ dsDNA assay in patients with negative IIF.MethodsWe retrospectively examined the medical records of 234 consecutive subjects with detectable anti-dsDNA antibodies determined by the Elia™ dsDNA assay.ResultsA total of 124 subjects with detectable anti-dsDNA autoantibodies were IIF-negative, but yielded positive or borderline results in the Elia™ CTD screen assay for antinuclear antibodies (ANA). Within this group, 6/49 IIF-negative patients (12%) with ANA-associated systemic autoimmune rheumatic disorders (AASARD) and 118/185 subjects (64%) with various other diseases (Non-AASARD) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference with regard to the concentrations of anti-dsDNA antibodies (p=0.53) between the AASARD and the Non-AASARD group. Within the AASARD group, four patients diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, treated), discoid lupus erythematosus (untreated), indetermined connective tissue disease (untreated) and polymyositis (treated) had positive anti-dsDNA autoantibodies, whereas two patients with treated SLE, thereby one in remission, had borderline concentrations of anti-dsDNA antibodies.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies in IIF-negative patients can be of clinical relevance in some cases. Our results further support the combined use of IIF and solid-phase assays in screening algorithms for ANA, in order to avoid overlooking potentially important autoantibody entities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document