4.7 Article

Detection of anti-MAG antibodies in polyneuropathy associated with IgM monoclonal gammopathy

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 73, 期 9, 页码 688-695

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b59a80

关键词

-

资金

  1. Erasmus MC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Detection of serum antibodies to myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) by Western blot (WB) is a valuable assay to diagnose a distinct type of demyelinating polyneuropathy with immunoglobulin M (IgM) monoclonal gammopathy. In this study, the diagnostic accuracy of a new and more practical ELISA to detect these antibodies was validated. Methods: Routine WBs from 2 independent laboratories and ELISA were used to detect anti-MAG IgM in serum from 207 patients with neuropathy and controls. The sensitivity and specificity of these assays were compared and related to the patient clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics. Results: In ELISA, anti-MAG antibodies were found in serum from 49 (72%) of 68 patients with demyelinating polyneuropathy and IgM monoclonal gammopathy. However, in this subgroup of patients, only 30 (44%) and 37 (54%) were positive in the 2 WBs. All of the patients positive in the 2 WBs were also positive in ELISA. A high correlation was found for IgM activity in ELISA to MAG and sulfate-3-glucuronyl paragloboside (SGPG) (Spearman rho = 0.72, p < 0.0001), supporting the notion that the shared sulfated glucuronic acid moiety of MAG and SGPG is preserved. Most patients positive in anti-MAG ELISA had a slowly progressive sensory-motor demyelinating polyneuropathy, even if the WB was negative. In control groups, however, 4 WB-negative patients with a nondemyelinating monoclonal gammopathy-related polyneuropathy were positive in anti-MAG ELISA. The remaining samples were negative in ELISA. Conclusion: ELISA is more sensitive than Western blot to diagnose anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein related polyneuropathy, although a positive serology may be found in other forms of polyneuropathy as well. Neurology (R) 2009; 73: 688-695

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