Advertisement

Clinical use of anti-DFS70 autoantibodies

  • So Young KangEmail author
  • Woo In Lee
  • Myeong Hee Kim
  • You La Jeon
Biomarkers
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

The dense fine speckled (DFS) nuclear pattern is one of the most common indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) patterns detected during routine anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) screening. There is a negative association between anti-DFS70 status and systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD), especially in the absence of concomitant SARD-specific autoantibodies. The purpose of this study was to determine the need for confirming anti-DFS70 status when a DFS pattern is observed in IIF-ANA. The frequency of anti-DFS70 detection on Western blot and the positive rate of connective tissue disease (CTD)-related autoantibody screening with a fluorescence-based enzyme immunoassay was evaluated in DFS (n = 182) and non-DFS (n = 359) groups. Specific autoantibodies against 15 autoantigens were identified by line immunoassay. We evaluated the frequency of cases of DFS mistaken for non-DFS and non-DFS cases mistaken for DFS, as well as the clinical impacts of these misinterpretations. Among cases of IIF-ANA with an observable DFS pattern, 68.1% had only anti-DFS70 without CTD-related autoantibodies, 20.3% were false positive for IIF-ANA, and the remaining 11.5% had CTD-related autoantibodies independent of anti-DFS70 status. These results indicated that CTD-related autoantibodies may be present with or without anti-DFS70 even if a DFS pattern is observed in IIF-ANA. Among patients who are ANA negative or have a low probability of SARD, an anti-DFS70 confirmation test has no clinical benefit and cannot replace specific tests for detecting CTD-related autoantibodies. Specific tests to detect CTD-related autoantibodies should be performed instead of anti-DFS70 confirmation tests when a DFS pattern is observed in IIF-ANA.

Keywords

Dense fine speckled 70 protein Indirect immunofluorescence Anti-nuclear antibody 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant No. NRF-2016RIA2B4014121).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human specimens were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (IRB No: KHNMC 2016-10-018) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The institutional research committee had waived the process of obtaining consents from all individual participants included in this study, because this research was a study using residual samples.

References

  1. 1.
    Carter JB, Carter S, Saschenbrecker S, Goeckeritz BE (2018) Recognition and relevance of anti-DFS70 autoantibodies in routine antinuclear autoantibodies testing at a community hospital. Front Med 5:88.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Infantino M, Shovman O, Pérez D et al (2018) A better definition of the anti-DFS70 antibody screening by IIF methods. J Immunol Methods 461:110–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2018.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentow C, Fritzler MJ, Mummert E, Mahler M (2016) Recognition of the dense fine speckled (DFS) pattern remains challenging: results from an international internet-based survey. Auto Immun Highlights 7:8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13317-016-0081-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chan EK, Damoiseaux J, Carballo OG et al (2015) Report of the first international consensus on standardized nomenclature of antinuclear antibody HEp-2 cell patterns 2014-2015. Front Immunol 6:41.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2015.00412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conrad K, Andrade LE, Chan EK et al (2016) From autoantibody research to standardized diagnostic assays in the management of human diseases- report of the 12th Dresden symposium on autoantibodies. Lupus 25:787–796.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203316644337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conrad K, Rober N, Adrade LE, Mahler M (2017) The clinical relevance of anti-DFS70 autoantibodies. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 52:202–216.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-016-8564-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ochs RL, Stein TW, Peebles CL, Gittes RF, Tan EM (1994) Autoantibodies in interstitial cystitis. J Urol 151:587–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ochs RL, Muro Y, Si Y, Ge H, Chan EK, Tan EM (2000) Autoantibodies to DFS70 kd/transcription coactivator p75 in atopic dermatitis and other conditions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 105:1211–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahler M, Parker T, Peebles CL et al (2012) Anti-DFS70/LEDGF antibodies are more prevalent in healthy individuals compared to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 39:2104–2110.  https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.120598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bizzaro N, Fabris M (2018) New genetically engineered DFS70 knock-out HEp-2 cells enable rapid and specific recognition of anti-DFS70 antibodies. Autoimmunity 51:152–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2018.1469013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, Villalta D (2011) Recognizing the dense fine speckled/lens epithelium-derived growth factor/p75 pattern on HEp-2 cells: not an easy task! Arthritis Rheum 63:4036–4037.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.30621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahler M, Meroni PL, Andrade LE et al (2016) Towards a better understanding of the clinical association of anti-DFS70 autoantibodies. Autoimmun Rev 15:198–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2015.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bizzaro N, Pesente F, Cucchiaro F et al (2016) Anti-DFS70 antibodies detected by immunoblot methods: a reliable tool to confirm the dense fine speckles ANA pattern. J Immunol Methods 436:50–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2016.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahler M, Fritzler MJ (2012) The clinical significance of the dense fine speckled immunofluorescence pattern on HEp-2 Cells for the diagnosis of systemic autoimmune diseases. Clin Dev Immunol.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/494356 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malyavantham K, Suresh L (2017) Analysis of DFS70 pattern and impact on ANA screening using a novel HEp-2 ELITE/DFS70 knockout substrate. Autoimmun Highlights 8:3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13317-017-0091-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muro Y, Chan EK, Landberg G, Tan EM (1995) A cell-cycle nuclear autoantigen containing WD-40 motifs expressed mainly in S and G2 phase cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 207:1029–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iwai T, Muro Y, Sugimoto K, Matsumoto Y, Ohashi M (1996) Clinical features of anti-chromo antibodies associated with anti-centromere antibodies. Clin Exp Immunol 105:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pisetsky DS, Lipsky PE (2018) The role of ANA determinations in classification criteria for SLE. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken).  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23559 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goto N, Sugiura K, Ogawa Y et al (2006) Anti-p80 coilin autoantibodies react with a conserved epitope and are associated with anti-DFS70/LEDGF autoantibodies. J Autoimmun 26:42–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2005.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Laboratory MedicineKyungHee University School of MedicineSeooulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory MedicineKyungHee University Hospital at GangdongSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations