4.7 Article

Anti-LAMP-2 Antibodies Are Not Prevalent in Patients With Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Autoantibody Glomerulonephritis

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2011030273

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases/National Institutes of Health [2PO1DK]
  2. National Institutes of Health Training from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences [T32 ES 07017]
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
  4. HHMI through the Med

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lysosomal membrane protein 2 (LAMP-2) is a target of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA) in addition to the more commonly known targets proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase. The prevalence of anti-LAMP-2 antibodies and their relationship to disease in ANCA glomerulonephritis are not well described. We measured anti-LAMP-2 reactivity in 680 sera samples (two academic centers) from patients with ANCA glomerulonephritis (n=329); those with ANCA-negative glomerulonephritis (n=104); those with fimbriated, gram-negative Escherichia coli urinary tract infection (n=104); disease controls (n=19); and healthy volunteers (n=124). With levels in healthy controls used to define a reference range, anti-LAMP-2 reactivity was present in 21% of ANCA sera from two of the centers; reactivity was present in 16% of the control group with urinary tract infection. Western blotting and immunofluorescence microscopy did not verify positivity. Titers of anti-myeloperoxidase and anti-proteinase 3 antibodies were 1500-fold and 10,000-fold higher than anti-LAMP-2 titers, respectively. There was no correlation between anti-LAMP-2 antibodies and disease activity. Furthermore, Wistar Kyoto rats injected with anti-LAMP-2 antibodies did not develop glomerulonephritis. In conclusion, antibodies that react with LAMP-2 may exist at very low titers in a minority of patients with ANCA disease. These data do not support a mechanistic relationship between anti-LAMP-2 antibodies and ANCA glomerulonephritis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据