Detection and identification of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large and consecutive cohort of serum samples referred for ANA testing

OBJECTIVE—To provide data on (a) the probability of detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large and consecutive cohort of serum samples referred for ANA testing and (b) the probability of detecting more specific antinuclear reactivities (anti-DNA and anti-extractable nuclear antigens (anti-ENA)) in serum samples with a positive screening test (indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells).
METHODS—Serum samples from 10 550 consecutive patients sent to the laboratory for ANA detection were analysed. In ANA positive serum samples (23.5% of referred serum samples), ANA were identified by indirect immunofluorescence on Crithidia, by immunodiffusion, and by line immunoassay. Because anti-SSA antibodies were the most frequently identified ANA, sensitively detected by line immunoassay, additional immunoassays were developed to confirm the specificity of the line immunoassay result.
RESULTS—At least one fine reactivity could be identified in 21.1% of ANA positive serum samples: anti-dsDNA in 3.2%; anti-ENA (anti-SSA 10.5%, anti-SSB 6.7%, anti-RNP 2.7%, anti-Sm 1.8%, anti-Scl70 1.2%, anti-Jo-1 0.2%) in 15.8%, rRNP and anti-Cenp-B in respectively 0.5% and 4.0%. Multiple reactivities were found in 7.9%. For anti-ENA antibodies, line immunoassay was more sensitive than immunodiffusion (15.4% v 7.7%; p<0.0001). The sensitive detection of anti-SSA antibodies by line immunoassay was confirmed by additional assays.
CONCLUSIONS—The data from this analysis are useful in estimating the probabilities of detecting specific ANA. Line immunoassay was shown to be a sensitive test for the detection of anti-ENA antibodies.


Diagnostic associations in a large and consecutively identified population positive for anti-SSA and/or anti-SSB: the range of associated diseases differs according to the detailed serotype

Objective: To determine the diagnostic distribution in a consecutive anti-SSA and/or anti-SSB positive population. Methods: A total of 15 937 serum samples from 10 550 consecutive patients were analysed for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) on HEp-2 cells. Serum samples positive for ANAs were analysed by immunodiffusion and line immunoassay with recombinant SSA-Ro52, natural SSA-Ro60, and recombinant SSB. Results: Among ANA positive patients in whom clinical information was available, 181 consecutive patients with anti-SSA and/or anti-SSB antibodies were identified, Disease associations were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (45.3%), primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) (14.4%), scleroderma (8.8%), RA (7.7%), cutaneous lupus (7.7%), and dermatomyositis (2.2%). The ratio of diagnoses differed according to the anti-SSA/anti-SSB serotype. Scleroderma and dermatomyositis were enriched among mono-Ro52 reactive serum samples (34.2% and 10.5% respectively). Single reactivity towards Ro60 or anti-Ro60 with anti-Ro52 predisposed for SLE (80.0% and 52.2% respectively). Triple reactivity towards Ro52, Ro60, and SSB was primarily linked with SLE (55.8%) followed by pSS (20.9%). Anti-SSA on immunodiffusion increased the chance for SLE (62.8%), whereas isolated anti-SSB reactivity on immunodiffusion was less indicative for SLE (14.3%) and predisposed more for cutaneous lupus (23.8%) and pSS (33.3%). Conclusion: The diagnostic range associated with anti-SSA or anti-SSB reactivity differs significantly according to the detailed serotype defined by line immunoassay and immunodiffusion

Anti-Ro52 reactivity is an independent and additional serum marker in connective tissue disease

Methods: Over a two year period, 1727 consecutive antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive serum samples were analysed in parallel by double immunodiffusion with thymus/spleen nuclear extract and by line immunoassay with recombinant Ro52, recombinant La/SSB, and natural Ro60. Sera that were only reactive towards Ro52 were further analysed by a variety of additional anti-SSA/Ro detection methods and by specific anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 assays. Natural purified SSA/Ro was analysed by immunoblot and protein sequencing. Results: Analysis of natural purified SSA/Ro (Immunovision, Springdale, AR) showed only Ro60 and no immunoreactive Ro52. Consequently, assays based on this substrate only identify sera with anti-Ro60 reactivity. Twenty serum samples showed anti-Ro52 without anti-Ro60 and anti-SSB/La on line immunoassay. By additional testing, 2/20 sera were found positive for anti-Ro60 reactivity. The remaining 18 sera were not identified by any of the classical anti-SSA/Ro assays and were considered to be reactive only with Ro52 and not with Ro60. This anti-Ro52 reactivity was confirmed by natural and recombinant Ro52 in 16/18 cases. 12/18 sera corresponded to connective tissue diseases. Conclusion: Anti-Ro52 positive sera without any evidence of anti-Ro60 and anti-La/SSB reactivity can be considered as an independent group that is systematically missed by classical anti-SSA/Ro detection methods owing to a bias towards anti-Ro60 reactivity. The anti-Ro52 sera are precipitin negative, not retrieved by SSA/Ro enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) based on natural SSA/Ro, and show no specific ANA fluorescence staining pattern. These findings together with the clinical data indicate that anti-Ro52 should be considered as an additional and independent serum marker