4.4 Article

Residues Arg568 and Phe592 contribute to an antigenic surface for anti-ADAMTS13 antibodies in the spacer domain

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA-THE HEMATOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 96, 期 11, 页码 1670-1677

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2010.036327

关键词

ADAMTS13; spacer domain; thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura; antibodies; epitope

资金

  1. LSBR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The majority of patients diagnosed with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have autoantibodies directed towards the spacer domain of ADAMTS13. Design and Methods In this study we explored the epitope specificity and immunoglobulin class and immunoglobulin G subclass distribution of anti-ADAMTS13 antibodies. The epitope specificity of anti-spacer domain antibodies was examined using plasma from 48 patients with acute acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura by means of immunoprecipitation of ADAMTS13 variants containing single or multiple alanine substitutions. Using similar methods, we also determined the presence of anti-TSP2-8 and CUB1-2 domain antibodies in this cohort of patients. Results Antibody profiling revealed that anti-ADAMTS13 immunoglobulin G1 and immunoglobulin G4 predominate in plasma of patients with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Analysis of anti-spacer domain antibodies revealed that Arg568 and Phe592, in addition to residues Arg660, Tyr661, and Tyr665, also contribute to an antigenic surface in the spacer domain. The majority of patients (90%) lost reactivity towards the spacer domain following introduction of multiple alanine substitutions at Arg568, Phe592, Arg660, Tyr661 and Tyr665. Anti-TSP2-8 and anti-CUB1-2 domain-directed antibodies were present in, respectively, 17% and 35% of the patients' samples analyzed. Conclusions Immunoglobulin G directed towards a single antigenic surface comprising residues Arg568, Phe592, Arg660, Tyr661 and Tyr665 predominates in the plasma of patients with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

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

4.4
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