253
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Automated Evaluation of Crithidia luciliae Based Indirect Immunofluorescence Tests: A Novel Application of the EUROPattern-Suite Technology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a severe rheumatic autoimmune disease with various clinical manifestations. Anti-dsDNA antibodies are an important immunological hallmark of SLE and their occurrence represents a major criterion for the diagnosis. Among the commonly applied test systems for determination of anti-dsDNA antibodies, the indirect immunofluorescence test (IIFT) using the flagellated kinetoplastida Crithidia luciliae is considered to be highly disease specific at moderate sensitivity. Since IIFT, however, is claimed to be affected by subjective interpretation and a lack of standardization, there has been an increasing demand for automated pattern interpretation of immunofluorescence reactions in recent years. Corresponding platforms are already available for evaluation of anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) IIFT on HEp-2 cells, the recommended “gold standard” for ANA screening in the diagnosis of various systemic rheumatic autoimmune diseases. For one of these systems, the “EUROPattern-Suite” computer-aided immunofluorescence microscopy (CAIFM), automated interpretation of microscopic fluorescence patterns was extended to the Crithidia luciliae based anti-dsDNA IIFT.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for referral and management of systemic lupus erythematosus in adults. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Guidelines.

          SLE is a complex disorder with variable presentations, course, and prognosis. Since its prevalence is only 1/1,000, most primary care physicians and general internists will not have sufficient experience in the management of moderate-to-severe life-threatening disease. The major tasks of the primary care physician in the diagnosis and management of patients with SLE include early diagnosis, appropriate referral, monitoring patients with mild, stable disease, and collaboration with a specialist in the management of severe disease. Guidelines for the initial evaluation, reasons for referral, and management of mild and severe SLE are provided.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The use of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of SLE.

            W Egner (2000)
            ANA IIF is an effective screening assay in patients with clinical features of SLE and will detect most anti-ssDNA, anti-dsDNA, ENAs, and other autoantibodies. False positives are common. The clinical importance cannot be extrapolated from the ANA titre or pattern, although higher titres (> 1/160) are more likely to be important. HEp-2 cells are the most sensitive substrate for ANA detection, but this must be balanced against an increased incidence of insignificant positivity. ANA positive samples should be subjected to more specific assays for the diagnosis of SLE. A combination of ENA (Ro/La/Sm/RNP) and dsDNA assays will detect most patients with SLE as long as the characteristics of the assays used are well understood. ESR and CRP measurements provide useful additional information. Sjogren's syndrome and MCTD will produce overlapping serology with SLE, and anti-dsDNA titres are sometimes seen in autoimmune hepatitis and rheumatoid arthritis. All results should be reported in the light of the clinical details, by an experienced immunologist. A suggested diagnostic protocol is outlined in fig 1. The type of assay used crucially influences the predictive value of the tests. ELISA technology dominates routine laboratory practice, but tends to produce more false positive and true weak positive results, which may reduce the PPV of the test. This can be minimised by using IgG specific conjugates and careful assay validation. The NPV for SLE [figure: see text] is high for most assays but the PPV varies. Where necessary, laboratories should use crithidia or Farr dsDNA assays to confirm dubious ELISA dsDNA results, and ID/IB to confirm dubious ENA results. For monitoring, a precise, quantitative assay is required. It is unclear whether the detection of IgM or low affinity antibodies has a role here. A combination of anti-dsDNA, C3, C4, CRP, and ESR assays provides the most useful clinical information. Anti-ssDNA assays are likely to be useful, and are potentially more robust than anti-dsDNA assays, but require more validation. Local validation of individual assays and EQA participation is essential. Not all assays that apparently measure the same antibody specificities have equal clinical relevance, even within a single technology. Insufficient international or national reference preparations are currently available for many antibody specificities to enable effective standardisation. Quality assurance schemes reveal large differences in units reported by different assays for some analytes, even when calibrated against an IRP or equivalent reference preparation. Serial results can therefore only be compared from the same laboratory at present. Most autoantibodies increase during active disease, but few prospective data are currently available to justify treatment on the basis of rising titres. Further randomised prospective studies are required to examine the importance of antibody isotype and affinity in the monitoring of SLE by individual assay methods. The most important aspect of the appropriate use of laboratory assays is to become familiar with the limitations of the technology currently in use in your local laboratory, and to consult with your clinical immunologist in cases of doubt, preferably before commencing serological screening.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measurement of increases in anti-double-stranded DNA antibody levels as a predictor of disease exacerbation in systemic lupus erythematosus. A long-term, prospective study.

              To evaluate the predictive power of changes in levels of antibodies to double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) as a predictor of disease exacerbations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), we performed a prospective study on 72 unselected patients with SLE (mean duration of study 18.5 months, range 6-35 months). Patients were seen at least once every 3 months, and disease activity was scored according to a specific protocol. Plasma samples were obtained at least once every month and were assessed for anti-dsDNA antibody (by the Crithidia luciliae assay, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], and the Farr assay) and for complement components C3 and C4. Twenty-seven of 33 disease exacerbations observed during the study period were accompanied by a positive test result for anti-dsDNA antibody (27 by the Farr assay, 19 by the C luciliae assay, and 23 by the ELISA). Twenty-four of these exacerbations were preceded by a significant increase in anti-dsDNA antibody levels (23 by the Farr assay, 12 by the C luciliae assay, and 17 by the ELISA). The first observance of a significant increase in anti-dsDNA antibody levels preceded the exacerbation by 8-10 weeks. Significant increases in anti-dsDNA antibody levels not followed by an exacerbation were observed in 5 cases by the Farr assay, in 7 cases by the C luciliae assay, and in 3 cases by the ELISA; however, in 3 cases, 2 cases, and 1 case, respectively, these increases were followed by an increase in disease activity that did not fulfill the criteria for an exacerbation. Serial measurement of anti-dsDNA antibody levels was more sensitive for predicting exacerbations than was measurement of C3 and/or C4 levels (P less than 0.03). Serial assessment of anti-dsDNA antibody levels, especially by the Farr assay, is a sensitive and reasonably specific method for predicting disease exacerbations in SLE.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Immunol Res
                J Immunol Res
                JIR
                Journal of Immunology Research
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2314-8861
                2314-7156
                2015
                25 October 2015
                : 2015
                : 742402
                Affiliations
                Institute for Experimental Immunology, EUROIMMUN, Seekamp 31, 23560 Lübeck, Germany
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Xuan Zhang

                Article
                10.1155/2015/742402
                4637128
                26581239
                cbb8618c-5fcd-4cf8-913e-2b8b5b4685d6
                Copyright © 2015 Stefan Gerlach et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 April 2015
                : 14 June 2015
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article