4.0 Article

Evaluation of anti-ribosomal P protein immunoassay in Japanese patients with connective tissue diseases: comparison with an indirect immunofluorescence assay

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 460-463

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.3109/03009740903008767

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of anti-ribosomal P protein (anti-P) antibodies in Japanese patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and western blotting (WB) and to evaluate the indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) staining patterns of anti-P-positive sera. Methods: Anti-P antibodies were measured by two different commercially available ELISA kits and WB in 239 outpatients, 99 with systemic sclerosis (SSc), 73 with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), 45 with dermatomyositis (DM), and 22 with Sjogren's syndrome (SjS). Sera positive for anti-P antibodies by WB were analysed by IIF. Results: The frequency of positive WB findings in SLE (18/73, 25%) was higher than in other diseases. ELISA kits A and B for anti-P antibodies showed 21% and 43% sensitivity, and 93% and 88% specificity, respectively, for diagnosing SLE, based on the manufacturer's cut-off values. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, based on positive WB findings, determined a new cut-off threshold but revealed that both ELISA kits still had good diagnostic characteristics. In IIF assays on anti-P antibody positive sera, typical anti-P antibody cytoplasmic staining patterns (n = 8) were seen less frequently than other staining patterns (n = 17). Conclusions: Routine screening for anti-P antibodies by IIF has low sensitivity. ELISAs using cut-off values established by individual facilities are suitable for detecting anti-P antibodies and provide a tool with good diagnostic characteristics, on a parity with WB.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available