4.7 Article

Temporal reproducibility of IgG and IgM autoantibodies in serum from healthy women

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10174-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. [NCI: U01CA182934]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autoantibodies in healthy individuals were studied for their reproducibility and stability over time. The research showed that most autoantibodies had good reproducibility in the lab and over a one-year period. This study provides important insights for the use of autoantibodies as markers of disease.
Autoantibodies are present in healthy individuals and altered in chronic diseases. We used repeated samples collected from participants in the NYU Women's Health Study to assess autoantibody reproducibility and repertoire stability over a one-year period using the HuProt array. We included two samples collected one year apart from each of 46 healthy women (92 samples). We also included eight blinded replicate samples to assess laboratory reproducibility. A total of 21,211 IgG and IgM autoantibodies were interrogated. Of those, 86% of IgG (n = 18,303) and 34% of IgM (n = 7,242) autoantibodies showed adequate lab reproducibility (coefficient of variation [CV] < 20%). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were estimated to assess temporal reproducibility. A high proportion of both IgG and IgM autoantibodies with CV < 20% (76% and 98%, respectively) showed excellent temporal reproducibility (ICC > 0.8). Temporal reproducibility was lower after using quantile normalization suggesting that batch variability was not an important source of error, and that normalization removed some informative biological information. To our knowledge this study is the largest in terms of sample size and autoantibody numbers to assess autoantibody reproducibility in healthy women. The results suggest that for many autoantibodies a single measurement may be used to rank individuals in studies of autoantibodies as etiologic markers of disease.

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