Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The diagnostic benefit of antibodies against ribosomal proteins in systemic lupus erythematosus
Shi, Zhen-rui; Han, Yan-fang; Yin, Jing; Zhang, Yu-ping; Jiang, Ze-xin; Zheng, Lin; Tan, Guo-zhen; Wang, Liangchun.
Afiliación
  • Shi, Zhen-rui; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
  • Han, Yan-fang; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
  • Yin, Jing; Affiliated Hospital of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences. Jinan. CN
  • Zhang, Yu-ping; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
  • Jiang, Ze-xin; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
  • Zheng, Lin; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
  • Tan, Guo-zhen; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
  • Wang, Liangchun; Sun Yat-sen University. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Department of Dermatology. Guangzhou. CN
Adv Rheumatol ; 60: 45, 2020. tab, graf
Article en En | LILACS | ID: biblio-1130781
Biblioteca responsable: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
Abstract Background Anti-ribosomal P (anti-Rib-P) antibody is a specific serological marker for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and routinely tested by targeting the common epitope of three ribosomal proteins of P0, P1 and P2. This study aimed to investigate if testing antibodies against individual ribosomal protein, but not the common epitope, is required to achieve the best diagnostic benefit in SLE. Methods The study included 82 patients with SLE and 22 healthy donors. Serum antibodies were determined by ELISA and immunoblot. Results The prevalence of each antibody determined by ELISA was 35.4% (anti-Rib-P), 45.1% (anti-Rib-P0), 32.9% (anti-Rib-P1) and 40.2% (anti-Rib-P2) at 99% specificity, respectively. Of 53 patients with negative anti-Rib-P antibody, 21 (39.6%) were positive for anti-Rib-P0, 9 (17.0%) for anti-Rib-P1 and 12 (22.6%) for anti-Rib-P2 antibody. The positive rate of anti-Rib-P antibody detected by ELISA was close to the results by immunoblot (33.4%). Patients with any of these antibodies were featured by higher disease activity and prevalence of skin rashes than those with negative antibodies. Moreover, each antibody was particularly related to some clinical and laboratory disorders. The distribution of subclasses of IgG1-4 was varied with each antibody. Anti-Rib-P0 IgG1 and IgG3 were strongly correlated with disease activity and lower serum complement components 3 and 4. Conclusions Anti-Rib-P antibody is not adequate to predict the existence of antibodies against ribosomal P0, P1 and P2 protein. The examination of antibodies against each ribosomal protein is required to achieve additional diagnostic benefit and to evaluate the association with clinical and serological disorders as well.(AU)
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: LILACS Asunto principal: Proteína Ribosómica L10 / Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico / Anticuerpos Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Adv Rheumatol Asunto de la revista: Artrite / Reumatologia Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: LILACS Asunto principal: Proteína Ribosómica L10 / Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico / Anticuerpos Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Adv Rheumatol Asunto de la revista: Artrite / Reumatologia Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China