Evidence for charge-based mimicry in anti dsDNA antibody generation.

Mechanisms for the generation of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies are still not completely elucidated. One theory states that dsDNA interacts for mimicry with antibodies raised versus other antigens but molecular features for mimicry are unknown. Here we show that, at physiological acid-base balance, anti-Annexin A1 binds IgG2 dsDNA in a competitive and dose-dependent way with Annexin A1 and that the competition between the two molecules is null at pH 9. On the other hand, these findings also show that dsDNA and Annexin A1 interact with their respective antibodies on a strictly pH-dependent basis: in both cases, the binding was minimal at pH 4 and maximal at pH9-10. The anionic charge of dsDNA is mainly conferred by the numerous phosphatidic residues. The epitope binding site of Annexin A1 for anti-Annexin A1 IgG2 was here characterized as a string of 34 amino acids at the NH2 terminus, 10 of which are anionic. Circulating levels of anti-dsDNA and anti-Annexin A1 IgG2 antibodies were strongly correlated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (n 496) and lupus nephritis (n 425) stratified for age, sex, etc. These results show that dsDNA competes with Annexin A1 for the binding with anti-Annexin A1 IgG2 on a dose and charged mediated base, being able to display an inhibition up to 75%. This study provides the first demonstration that dsDNA may interact with antibodies raised versus other anionic molecules (anti-Annexin A1 IgG2) because of charge mimicry and this interaction may contribute to anti-dsDNA antibodies generation.

A critical view on autoantibodies in lupus nephritis: Concrete knowledge based on evidence.

Deposition of autoantibodies in glomeruli is a key factor in the development of lupus nephritis (LN). For a long time, anti-dsDNA and anti-C1q antibodies were thought to be the main cause of the kidney damage. However, recent studies have shown that the list of autoantibidies that have renal tropism and deposit in the kidney in LN is increasing and the link between anti-dsDNA and renal pathology is weak due to potential confounders. Aspecific bindings of dsDNA with cationic antibodies and of anti-dsDNA with several renal antigens such as actinin, laminin, entactin, and annexinA2 raised doubts about the specific target of these antibodies in the kidney. Moreover, the isotype of anti-dsDNA in SLE and LN has never received adequate interest until the recent observation that IgG2 are preponderant over IgG1, IgG3 and IgG4. Based on the above background, recent studies investigated the involvement of anti-dsDNA IgG2 and of other antibodies in LN. It was concluded that circulating anti-dsDNA IgG2 levels do not distinguish between LN versus non-renal SLE, and, in patients with LN, their levels do not change over time. Circulating levels of other antibodies such as anti-ENO1 and anti-H2 IgG2 were, instead, higher in LN vs non-renal SLE at the time of diagnosis and decreased following therapies. Finally, new classes of renal antibodies that potentially modify the anti-inflammatory response in the kidney are emerging as new co-actors in the pathogenetic scenario. They have been defined as 'second wave antibodies' for the link with detoxifying mechanisms limiting the oxidative stress in glomeruli that are classically stimulated in a second phase of inflammation. These findings have important clinical implications that may modify the laboratory approach to LN. Serum levels of anti-ENO1 and anti-H2 IgG2 should be measured in the follow up of patients for designing the length of therapies and identify those patients who respond to treatments. Anti-SOD2 could help to monitor and potentiate the anti-inflammatory response in the kidney.