切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床实验室管理电子杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (04) : 200 -204. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5820.2021.04.002

实验研究

间接免疫荧光法、免疫印迹法和多重微珠免疫法检测抗核抗体的比较和评价
谢洁雯1,(), 吴中鸣1, 魏秋静1, 古洁若1   
  1. 1. 510630 广东广州,中山大学附属第三医院
  • 收稿日期:2021-05-09 出版日期:2021-11-28
  • 通信作者: 谢洁雯

Comparison and evaluate of indirect immunofluorescence, western blotting and multiple microbead immunoassay for detection of antinuclear antibodies

Jiewen Xie1,(), Zhongming Wu1, Qiujing Wei1, Jieruo Gu1   

  1. 1. Rheumatology and Immunology Department, The Third Affiliated Hospital of SunYat-sen University, Guangzhou Guangdong 510630, China
  • Received:2021-05-09 Published:2021-11-28
  • Corresponding author: Jiewen Xie
引用本文:

谢洁雯, 吴中鸣, 魏秋静, 古洁若. 间接免疫荧光法、免疫印迹法和多重微珠免疫法检测抗核抗体的比较和评价[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 200-204.

Jiewen Xie, Zhongming Wu, Qiujing Wei, Jieruo Gu. Comparison and evaluate of indirect immunofluorescence, western blotting and multiple microbead immunoassay for detection of antinuclear antibodies[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Laboratory Management(Electronic Edition), 2021, 09(04): 200-204.

目的

通过比较间接免疫荧光法、免疫印迹法和多重微珠免疫法三种方法检测抗核抗体的一致性,同时对免疫印迹法和多重微珠免疫法在检测抗核抗体谱的比较,评估各种方法的优势及其局限,为临床实践提供依据。

方法

收集578例同时进行三种方法检测的疑似自身免疫性疾病患者的血清样本检测结果,使用Kappa系数分析比较几种检测方法的一致性。

结果

在578例样本中,使用间接免疫荧光法检测抗核抗体阳性者280例(48.4%);使用免疫印迹法阳性者225例(38.9%);使用多重微珠免疫法阳性者252例(43.6%)。三种方法中任意两种方法检测抗核抗体的一致性均在85%以上,Kappa值均高于0.7,其中,间接免疫荧光法和免疫印迹法一致性最强,Kappa值为0.808(95% CI:0.761~0.855)。使用免疫印迹法与多重微珠免疫法检测9种抗核抗体谱,一致性均大于90%,而Kappa值则在0.535至0.839之间,其中一致性最强的抗体类型为抗SSA抗体和抗JO1抗体,分别为0.839和0.832。

结论

以上三种方法检测抗核抗体的一致性较高,其中间接免疫荧光法的阳性率最高,间接免疫荧光法和免疫印迹法一致性最强。免疫印迹法与多重微珠免疫法检测抗核抗体谱一致性较高。应联合使用三种方法,提高自身免疫性疾病的诊断率,避免漏检。

Objective

By comparing the consistency of indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA), Immunoblot (IB), multiple microbead immunoassay (MBI) in the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA), and by comparing IB and MBI in the detection of ANA spectrum, the advantages and limitations of each method were evaluated to provide suggestions for clinical practice.

Methods

We collected serum samples from 578 patients who detected ANA by three methods since suspected of autoimmune disease. The consistency analysis of several methods was performed using the Kappa test.

Results

Among 578 serum samples, the numbers of ANA-positive samples were 280 (48.4%), 225 (38.9%), and 252 (43.6%) by IIFA, IB, and MBI, respectively. The consistency of any two methods was above 85%, and the Kappa values above 0.7. Among them, the consistency of IIFA and IB was the strongest, and the Kappa value was 0.808 (95% CI:0.761~0.855). For ANA spectrum detection, the consistency was higher than 90% by IB and MBI, and the Kappa values ranged form 0.535 and 0.839. The most consistent antibody types were anti-SSA antibody and anti-Jo1 antibody, which were 0.839 and 0.832, respectively.

Conclusions

The above three methods have high consistency in detecting antinuclear antibody, among which indirect immunofluorescence method has the highest positive rate, indirect immunofluorescence method has the strongest consistency with western blotting method, and western blotting method has high consistency with multiple microbead immunoassay for detecting antinuclear antibody. To improve the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases and avoid missed diagnosis, the three methods should be combined for ANA detection in clinical practice.

表1 间接免疫荧光法检测抗核抗体荧光核型分析[n(%)]
表2 三种方法检测抗核抗体阳性率比较
表3 三种方法检测抗核抗体结果一致性比较
表4 免疫印迹法与多重微珠免疫法检测抗核抗体谱一致性比较
1
Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur PH. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 2002, 47(4):434-444.
2
Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European league against rheumatism/American college of rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Arthritis Rheumatol, 2019, 71(9):1400-1412.
3
Mummert E, Fritzler MJ, Sjöwall C, et al. The clinical utility of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies and the challenges of their determination[J]. J Immunol Methods, 2018, 459:11-19.
4
Frodlund M, Wetterö J, Dahle C, et al. Longitudinal anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) seroconversion in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study of Swedish cases with recent-onset disease[J]. Clin Exp Immunol, 2020, 199(3):245-254.
5
Invernizzi P, Floreani A, Carbone M, et al. Primary biliary cholangitis: advances in management and treatment of the disease[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2017, 49(8):841-846.
6
Leuschner U. Primary biliary cirrhosis-presentation and diagnosis[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2003, 7:741-758.
7
van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 2013, 65(11):2737-2747.
8
Mahler M, Meroni P L, Bossuyt X, et al. Current concepts and future directions for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies[J]. J Immunol Res, 2014, 2014:315179.
9
Wei Q, Jiang Y, Xiao M, et al. Comparison of chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay, indirect immunofluorescence assay, linear immunoassay and multiple microbead immunoassay detecting autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Scand J Immunol, 2019, 91(3):e12849.
10
Chan EK, Damoiseaux J, Carballo OG, et al. Report of the first international consensus on standardized nomenclature of antinuclear antibody HEp-2 cell patterns 2014-2015[J]. Front Immunol, 2015, 6:412.
11
Sack U, Conrad K, Csernok E, et al. Autoantibody detection using indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells[J]. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2009, 1173:166-173.
12
车文英, 谭延国, 韦希明. 312例抗核抗体与抗细胞核细胞浆抗体谱检测结果的分析[J]. 中国实验诊断学, 2008, 12(8):1031-1033.
13
Franceschini F, Cavazzana I. Anti-Ro/SSA and La/SSB antibodies[J]. Autoimmunity, 2005, 38(1):55-63.
14
Sowa M, Hiemann R, Schierack P, et al. Next-generation autoantibody testing by combination of screening and confirmation-the CytoBead® technology[J]. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol, 2017, 53(1):87-104.
15
Sherer Y, Gorstein A, Fritzler MJ, et al. Autoantibody explosion in systemic lupus erythematosus: more than 100 different antibodies found in SLE patients[J]. Semin Arthritis Rheum, 2004, 34(2):501-537.
16
Schulte-Pelkum J, Fritzler M, Mahler M. Latest update on the Ro/SS-A autoantibody system[J]. Autoimmun Rev, 2009, 8:632-637.
17
Su Y, Jia RL, Han L, et al. Role of anti-nucleosome antibody in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Clin Immunol, 2007, 122:115-120.
18
Isshi K, Hirohata S. Differential roles of the anti-ribosomal P antineuronal antibody in the pathogenesis of central nerveous system involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 1998, 41:1819.
[1] 李昌金, 顾昊煜, 白辰光, 胡薇. 以腋窝肿块为主要表现的免疫球蛋白G4相关疾病三例[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 254-257.
[2] 徐翠娟, 王珺, 杨圣海, 张建昭, 谢丽娜. 儿童自身免疫性脑炎临床研究[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(03): 307-313.
[3] 吴田田, 童亚林, 姚咏明. 白介素-35在炎症及自身免疫性疾病中的免疫学效应及临床意义[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2018, 04(04): 314-319.
[4] 潘新兰, 李志军, 江超, 周瀛, 刘梦洁, 刘娇. 全自动免疫分析法检测抗核抗体谱诊断系统性红斑狼疮的价值[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(10): 736-739.
[5] 魏秋静, 蒋雨彤, 谢洁雯, 吴中鸣, 涂柳丹, 古洁若. 病毒性肝炎患者血清抗核抗体谱检测的临床意义分析[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2020, 08(02): 100-104.
[6] 李道胜, 班媛媛. IgG4相关性疾病的临床诊断学特征[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2018, 06(04): 264-267.
阅读次数
全文


摘要