Abstract
Methods for the measurement of autoantibodies frequently provide controversial results. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the performance of Spanish Clinical Laboratories in the measurement of anti-Sm antibodies. A total of 23 laboratories participated, analysing 30 serum samples from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune and non-autoimmune diseases. The laboratories used four extractable nuclear antigen screens, eight enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) specific for anti-Sm, one line-blot, one dot-blot and one double immunodiffusion assay, from 15 different manufacturers. A total of 871 results were obtained. In general, very good sensitivity was obtained (95–100%), but specificity was moderate (52–86%) and must be improved. Most ELISAs and the line-blot were valid assays for anti-Sm detection and could serve as tests both for analysis and/or confirmation. The likelihood ratios indicated that both methods can be considered very useful or useful for the determination of anti-Sm antibodies. Nevertheless, the analytical quality of the methods for the measurement of anti-Sm antibodies could probably be improved by standardisation of the methods and the participation of laboratories in external quality control programs.
References
1. Zieve GW, Khusial P. The anti-Sm immune response in autoimmunity and cell biology. Autoimmun Rev 2003; 2: 235–40. 10.1016/S1568-9972(03)00018-1Search in Google Scholar
2. Habets WJ, Berden JH, Hoch SO, van Venrooij WJ. Further characterization and subcellular localization of Sm and U1 ribonucleoprotein antigens. Eur J Immunol 1985; 15: 992–7. 10.1002/eji.1830151006Search in Google Scholar
3. Hirakata M, Craft J, Hardin JA. Autoantigenic epitopes of the B and D polypeptides of U1 snRNP: analysis of domains recognized by the Y12 monoclonal anti-Sm antibody and by patient sera. J Immunol 1993; 150: 3592–601. 10.4049/jimmunol.150.8.3592Search in Google Scholar
4. Hoch SO, Eisenberg RA, Sharp GC. Diverse antibody recognition patterns of the multiple Sm-D antigen polypeptides. Clin Immunol 1999; 92: 204–8. 10.1006/clim.1999.4745Search in Google Scholar
5. Craft J. Antibodies to snRNPs in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1992; 18: 311–35. 10.1016/S0889-857X(21)00730-4Search in Google Scholar
6. Gulko PS, Reveille JD, Koopman WJ, Burgard SL, Bartolucci AA, Alarcón GS. Survival impact of autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 224–8. Search in Google Scholar
7. Peng SL, Craft JE. Spliceosomal snRNPs autoantibodies. In: Peter JB, Shoenfeld Y, editors. Autoantibodies. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 1996:774–82. Search in Google Scholar
8. Tan EM, Smolen JS, McDougal JS, Butcher BT, Conn D, Dawkins R, et al. A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassays for detection of antinuclear antibodies of defined specificities. I. Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 455–64. 10.1002/1529-0131(199904)42:3<455::AID-ANR10>3.0.CO;2-3Search in Google Scholar
9. Tan EM, Smolen JS, McDougal JS, Fritzler MJ, Gordon T, Hardin SA, et al. A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassays for detection of antinuclear antibodies of defined specificities. II. Potential for quantitation of antibody content. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 68–74. Search in Google Scholar
10. Fritzler MJ, Wiik A, Tan EM, Smolen JS, McDougal JS, Chan EK, et al. A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassays for detection of antinuclear antibodies of defined specificities. III. Comparative performance characteristics of academic and manufacturers' laboratories. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 2374–81. Search in Google Scholar
11. Kavanaugh AF, Solomon DH, Schur P, Reveille JD, Sherrer Y, Lahita R, on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology ad hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: an introduction. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 15: 429–33. Search in Google Scholar
12. Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1725. 10.1002/art.1780400928Search in Google Scholar
13. Alba P, Bento L, Cuadrado MJ, Karim Y, Turgekar MF, Abbs I, et al. Anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm antibodies, and the lupus anticoagulant: significant factors associated with lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 556–60. 10.1136/ard.62.6.556Search in Google Scholar
14. Arbuckle M, McClain MT, Rubertone MV, Scofield H, Dennis GJ, James JA, et al. Development of autoantibodies before the clinical onset of systemic lupuserythematosus. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1526–33. 10.1056/NEJMoa021933Search in Google Scholar
15. Arbuckle MR, Reichlin M, Harley JB, James JA. Shared early autoantibody recognition events in the development of anti-Sm B/B′ in human lupus. Scand J Immunol 1999; 50: 447–55. 10.1046/j.1365-3083.1999.00640.xSearch in Google Scholar
©2005 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York
