The Clinical Significance of Measuring Different Anti-dsDNA Antibodies by Using the Farr Assay, an Enzyme Immunoassay and a Crithidia luciliae Immunofluorescence Test
- 1 December 1992
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Lupus
- Vol. 1 (6) , 369-377
- https://doi.org/10.1177/096120339200100606
Abstract
Anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies are highly specific for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) but are heterogeneous in respect to, for example, avidity, class and cross-reactivity. Sera from 2061 patients were measured by three methods: an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an indirect immunofluorescence test with Crithidia luciliae as substrate (CLIF), and the Farr assay, a radioimmunological method based on the ammonium sulfate precipitation of immune complexes. The different anti-dsDNA antibody determinations were evaluated by analysis of patient records. The reason for a reactive Farr assay in 14 patients was predominantly the measurement of antibodies of the IgM class, which are not detected by the ELISA. The detection of additional antibodies to dsDNA of the IgA class, to single-stranded DNA or to histones plays a minor role. In comparison with the Farr assay, we found more positive results with the ELISA, which additionally detects anti-dsDNA antibodies of low avidity. The ELISA might also yield positive values in conditions such as chronic liver diseases, various infections and connective tissue diseases other than SLE. Avoiding the disadvantages of radioactivity, the ELISA is well suited as a screening test for dsDNA antibodies. However, positive results should be confirmed by the CLIF test or preferably by the Farr assay, thus combining sensitivity with specificity.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Determination of anti-ds-DNA antibodies by three different methods: Comparison of sensitivity, specificity and correlation with lupus activity index (LAI)Clinical Rheumatology, 1990
- Measurement of increases in anti‐double‐stranded dna antibody levels as a predictor of disease exacerbation in systemic lupus erythematosusArthritis & Rheumatism, 1990
- Effectiveness of testing for anti‐dna and the complement components ic3b, bb, and c4 in the assessment of activity of systemic lupus erythematosusJournal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 1990
- Cross-reactive binding patterns of monoclonal antibodies to DNA are often caused by DNA/anti-DNA immune complexesResearch in Immunology, 1989
- Predictive value of antinative dna for systemic lupus erythematosus: Comparison of radioimmunoassay and enzyme immunoassayJournal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 1989
- Specificity of anti-Sm antibodies by ELISA for systemic lupus erythematosus: increased sensitivity of detection using purified peptide antigens.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 1988
- Evidence for absence of histones in the Crithidia luciliae kinetoplast: a study with anti-H2A and monoclonal anti-H3 antibodiesBritish Journal of Dermatology, 1987
- The binding of antihistone antibodies to crithidia luciliae kinetoplasts is growth cycle‐dependentArthritis & Rheumatism, 1985
- The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosusArthritis & Rheumatism, 1982
- Prognostic value of anti-dsDNA in SLE.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 1982