Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, September 2001, p. 922-925, Vol. 8, No. 5
Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale
Civile, S. Donà di Piave,1
Diasorin srl, Saluggia,2
Istituto di Chimica Clinica, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Maria della
Misericordia, Udine,3 Laboratorio
Analisi Chimico-cliniche e Microbiologia, Ospedale Civile,
Latisana,4 and Laboratorio di
Microbiologia e Immunologia, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Maria degli
Angeli, Pordenone,5 Italy
Received 22 December 2000/Returned for modification 22 February
2001/Accepted 10 May 2001
The diagnostic and analytical performance of the coupled-particle
light-scattering assay in detecting anti-Ro/SSA autoantibodies (the
60-kDa [Ro60] and the 52-kDa [Ro52] antibodies) and
anti-La/SSB autoantibodies was evaluated. The antigens were obtained by
recombinant DNA procedures to include the most immunogenic epitopes for
each protein by using a prokaryotic expression system. Serum samples from 151 patients with connective tissue diseases and 52 control subjects (including patients with viral infections, patients with Lyme
disease, and healthy subjects) were studied. Sensitivities for
detection of anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB were 88.2 and 95.2%, respectively; specificities were 97.6 and 98.1%, respectively. The
intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 4.3 to 10.9% for
anti-Ro/SSA and from 2.8 to 12.5% for anti-La/SSB; interassay CVs
ranged from 6.5 to 13.2% and from 8.2 to 14.5%, respectively. Among
the anti-Ro/SSA-positive samples, Ro60 was recognized by 66% of the
test sera and Ro52 was recognized by 95% of the test sera. Thirty-four
percent of the Ro/SSA-positive sera were reactive only with the Ro52
antigen, indicating that anti-Ro52 is the most common antibody
specificity recognized by anti-Ro/SSA autoantibodies. No differences
were found between the prevalences of anti-Ro60 and anti-Ro52 in
relation to systemic lupus erythematosus or Sjögren's syndrome.
The results of the present study indicate that this new immunoassay is
an efficient diagnostic tool for the detection of anti-Ro/SSA and
anti-La/SSB antibodies in patients with autoimmune disorders.
Anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB
autoantibodies are two of the specific antibodies associated with
connective tissue diseases (CTDs). Depending on the assay performed and
how the patients are selected, the evidence shows that from 40 to over
90% of patients with Sjögren's syndrome (SS) have anti-Ro/SSA
autoantibodies and that 20 to 50% have anti-La/SSB autoantibodies
(22, 28, 37). Both autoantibodies can also be detected in
10 to 50% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); they
are less frequent in patients with other CTDs, such as mixed CTD,
dermatopolymyositis, and systemic sclerosis (16), and are
only occasionally detected in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)
(35) or primary biliary cirrhosis (27). The presence of anti-Ro/SSA and/or anti-La/SSB is one of the criteria for
the diagnosis and classification of SS (36).
Their presence also has a prognostic value: anti-Ro/SSA autoantibodies
are more frequently detected in sera from SS patients with early
disease onset, long disease duration, and intensive lymphocytic
infiltration of salivary glands (35). Furthermore, their
presence correlates with the presence of extraglandular manifestations, such as nephropathy, hypergammaglobulinemic purpura, photosensitive rash, lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and vasculitis (7, 31, 35). Patients with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies tend to have an increased incidence of cutaneous manifestations, vasculitis, leukopenia, and lymphopenia compared to the incidences among patients without these antibodies (18). Furthermore, the presence
of anti-Ro/SSA antibodies (particularly the anti-Ro/SSA antibody of 52 kDa [Ro52]) in pregnant women may cause neonatal lupus in the
newborn, whose most serious clinical feature is congenital heart block
(9, 10).
Several methods are commonly used in clinical laboratories to detect
these autoantibodies, but none was shown to be better than the others
concerning diagnostic accuracy (2, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23,
25, 33). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods
exhibit high degrees of sensitivity but low degrees of specificity;
counterimmunoelectrophoresis and immunodiffusion are generally
acknowledged to be very specific, but they lack sensitivity; immunoblot
techniques show good specificity but are less sensitive than ELISA for
the detection of anti-Ro/SSA antibodies due to conformational changes
in Ro proteins during assay procedures, leading to alteration of
epitopes (15, 25). Moreover, at present, only ELISA is
suitable for the extensive routine workups that are performed in
clinical immunology laboratories.
We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and precision of a new
immunoassay based on recombinant antigens, carried out on a novel
instrument, the Copalis system (Diasorin, Stillwater, Minn.), for the
determination of autoantibodies directed against Ro/SSA and La/SSB.
In addition, in view of reports that autoantibodies to the 52-kDa
component are more frequently found in the sera of SS patients, whereas
autoantibodies to the 60-kDa component are more often observed in SLE
patients (3, 29, 32), and that this different behavior may
be helpful in the differential diagnosis of these autoimmune disorders,
we also evaluated the prevalence and distribution of the two anti-Ro
antibodies in patients with an established diagnosis of SS or SLE.
Recombinant DNA procedures and protein purification.
The
cDNAs corresponding to Ro52 and Ro60 and La genes were isolated from
HEp-2 and HeLa cells, respectively. Total RNA was purified by standard
methods, and poly(A)+ mRNA was purified by
oligo(dT) cellulose chromatography. For cDNA synthesis and gene
isolation, we designed specific primer pairs according to published
sequences (11, 12, 17, 34) to include the most
immunodominant epitopes for each protein. Primer synthesis was
performed in-house on a Beckman OLIGO 1000 instrument.
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.5.922-925.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
New Coupled-Particle Light-Scattering Assay for
Detection of Ro/SSA (52 and 60 Kilodaltons) and La/SSB Autoantibodies
in Connective Tissue Diseases
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-D-thiogalactopyranoside to the growth
medium, and the specific proteins were then visualized by sodium
dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and immunoblotting
(30).
Recombinant Ro52 and Ro60 were generated as His-tag fusion proteins of
45 and 57 kDa, respectively, and were purified on a chelating affinity
column, taking advantage of the N-terminal His tail (19).
Recombinant La expression led to a 50-kDa protein which was
subsequently purified by cationic exchange and hydrophobic interaction chromatography (Pharmacia Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden).
The Copalis system. The Copalis (coupled-particle light-scattering) system is an innovative particle-based homogeneous immunoassay technology that allows the rapid and simultaneous detection of multiple analytes in a single fluid sample (6). Microparticle beads ranging in diameter from 1.6 to 1.7 µm are separately coated with the Ro52, Ro60, and La/SSB antigens and are differentiated on the basis of light-scatter measurements as they flow across a finely focused elliptical beam produced by a semiconductor laser. To ensure that the microparticles are centered in the flow stream, a concentric stream of sheath fluid is introduced around the sample stream. As the microparticles flow, a pulse of scattered light is produced according to their aggregation status (monomers, doublets, triplets, or larger multiplets), and this scattering is converted into a decrease in the monomer number if the reaction is positive.
The Copalis I system also uses an internal quality control to verify analyzer and assay performance. The contents of each test include an inert microparticle (not coated with any antigen), in addition to the microparticles used for the individual assays. Critical parameters for the internal reference inert particle are monitored during data acquisition to verify proper operation of the analyzer and the reaction condition of the test; this provides real-time quality control with every sample tested.Patients and sera. A total of 203 serum samples were studied. A total of 119 anti-Ro/SSA-positive samples, of which 42 were also anti-La/SSB positive, came from 113 patients with CTDs (36 with SS, 34 with SLE, 1 with mixed CTD, 2 with overlapping syndromes, and 40 with undifferentiated CTDs, diagnosed according to the recommendations of the American College of Rheumatology or other accepted international criteria) and from 6 patients with other autoimmune diseases (2 with Hashimoto's thyroiditis, 3 with RA, and 1 with autoimmune hepatitis type 1). For this group of 119 samples we determined assay sensitivity. To provide data on assay specificity, 84 control samples were included, of which 32 were from patients with CTDs (8 with SS, 2 with SLE, 11 with systemic sclerosis, and 11 with undifferentiated CTDs), 13 were from patients with viral infections (3 with Epstein-Barr virus infection and 10 with cytomegalovirus infection with immunoglobulin G [IgG] and IgM antibodies), 10 were from rheumatoid factor-positive RA patients (rheumatoid factor concentration range, 72 to 1,700 mg/ml), 10 were from patients with IgG and IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi (the Lyme disease agent), and 19 were from age- and sex-matched healthy subjects.
All serum samples were selected on the basis of preliminary findings by one ELISA and one immunoblot method (24) for anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies. Sera were considered positive or negative if both assays gave the same result. Discrepancies between assigned seroreactivity and results obtained with the Copalis system were resolved by retesting of the sera by the Western blot method. The samples were all tested by two different microparticle formats. In the first cup, the Ro60 and the Ro52 antigens were coated together on the same particle (A format); in the second cup (B format), they were coated on two different particles so that it was possible to separate the fine specificities of the two anti-Ro antibodies in order to assess their prevalence in patients with CTDs, particularly SS and SLE.Test procedure. Fifty microliters of the sample was placed into the side well of the test cup before the cup was put into the instrument carousel. The antigen-coated microparticles were supplied as dried reagents and were solubilized with buffer, which is automatically added by the instrument to the test cups. The serum sample was then added by the instrument and incubated at room temperature for 10 min, followed by reading of the test result.
The InterCal (internal calibration) represents a zero level of analyte and is used in the calculation of sample reactivity. The Copalis test result (CTR) unit is calculated as a ratio of the number of monomeric particles counted in the InterCal sample divided by the number of the monomers counted in the patient sample; the ratio is then multiplied by 100. The relative frequencies of the unreacted monomeric microparticles and their reacted aggregates are quantified by means of a histogram. The results for each analyte are based on the values associated with their peaks. These data are analyzed, and the results are printed as a report.Precision study. To determine intra-assay and interassay precisions, three anti-Ro/SSA-positive samples and three anti-La/SSB-positive samples, arbitrarily chosen among the test sera, with low (350 and 310 CTR units, respectively), intermediate (1,050 and 980 CTR units), and high (1,900 and 2,280 CTR units) antibody concentrations were assayed with the A-format cups. The antibody levels in each sample were measured six times in five independent runs on 5 different days, and the overall precision was calculated.
Statistical analysis. The antibody concentrations for the different groups were expressed as the means and standard deviations. The Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test was used for comparison of means, and significance was set at a P value of <0.05. Specificity and sensitivity for anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB were calculated at different cutoff values, and the results were graphically presented by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (38) (see Fig. 1). Coefficients of variation (CVs) for precision studies were determined by standard methods.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Antibody concentration. The mean antibody concentration in anti-Ro/SSA-positive sera was 3,644 ± 2,158 CTR units (range, 245 to 9,236 CTR units), and that in sera from the control group was 105 ± 11 CTR units (range, 95 to 160 CTR units) (P = 0.00001). The mean antibody concentration in anti-La/SSB-positive sera was 3,212 ± 2,433 CTR units (range, 285 to 7,413 CTR units), and that in sera from the control group was 105.9 ± 17 CTR units (range, 95 to 185 CTR units) (P = 0.00001).
Sensitivity, specificity, and precision studies.
As expected,
whether Ro52 and Ro60 antigens were coated on two different particles
or together on a single particle, there were no substantial differences
in the performances of the two reagent formats. With the cutoff set at
200 CTR units, as determined by using ROC curves (Fig.
1), the sensitivities were 88.2% for anti-Ro/SSA and 95.2% for anti-La/SSB, and the specificities were 97.6 and 98.1%, respectively. The intra-assay CVs ranged from 4.3 to 10.9%
for anti-Ro/SSA and from 2.8 to 12.5% for anti-La/SSB; interassay CVs
were 6.5 to 13.2% and 8.2 to 14.5%, respectively.
|
Anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 prevalences in SLE and SS patients.
Among the anti-Ro/SSA-positive samples, the Ro60 antigen was recognized
by 66% of the test sera and the Ro52 antigen was recognized by 95% of
the test sera; 34% of the Ro/SSA-positive sera were reactive only with
the Ro52 antigen, indicating that anti-Ro52 is the most common antibody
specificity recognized by anti-Ro/SSA autoantibodies. No differences
were found between the prevalence of anti-Ro60 and anti-Ro52 in
relation to SLE or SS disease (Table 1).
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In recent years, molecular biochemical and recombinant DNA technologies have contributed to more precise antigen identification as well as the availability of purified antigen preparations, thus allowing the development of a wide range of immunochemical methods (26). The refinement of the analytical techniques has made autoantibody testing available in an increasing number of clinical laboratories, and in turn, the competent diagnosis of autoimmune disease has become a major responsibility of clinical laboratories worldwide. The study described here was designed to evaluate the analytical performance of a new immunoassay, the Copalis system, based on recombinant polypeptides derived from cDNAs coding for Ro60, Ro52, and La/SSB, for determination of the immune status of autoimmune patients.
The Copalis system was previously shown to be effective in detecting human viral antibodies (H. A. B. Multhaupt, E. Coruzzi, P. Ortz, L. Vesparini, T. Juan, and M. J. Warhol, Abstr. 99th Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 1999, abstr. V5, 1999), and it was proven to be very practical and easy to handle (6). Our results demonstrate that the Copalis technology can also be applied to the detection of anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies in patients with CTDs.
This new assay showed a high degree of specificity and good sensitivity for both antibodies, comparable to reports of studies that have used traditional ELISA and immunoblot methods (4, 5, 14, 23, 25). In addition, the system was very practical and particularly suitable for use for everyday routine analysis because it enabled detection of antigen-coated microparticles with multiple specific antibodies in a short time and in the same assay. Furthermore, the system might have a broader application since it may also be used for other assays (i.e., viral and hormonal serology), thus making its use more cost-effective.
Since Ro52 and Ro60 antigens were coated on two different particles in one of the two reagent formats used in the present study, it was also possible to separate the two antibody specificities in order to assess the prevalence of each antibody. Ninety-five percent of the anti-Ro/SSA-positive serum samples recognized the 52-kDa antigen, and in 34% of the serum samples, it was the only antibody present, whereas only 5% of the serum samples were reactive with only the 60-kDa protein. These data are consistent with those obtained by Ben-Chetrit et al. (3), who showed that most of the anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are directed against the Ro52 antigen in CTD patients.
We also evaluated the prevalence of the two antibody specificities in relation to the clinical diagnosis. Indeed, some studies have suggested that the separate analysis of the two Ro antibodies may be important in the differentiation of SLE from SS, as anti-Ro60 would be prevalent in patients with SLE and anti-Ro52 would be prevalent in patients with SS (3, 29, 32). Other studies, however, were less positive on this point, having found overlapping features between antibody specificity and the kind of disease (1). We tested 70 anti-Ro/SSA-positive serum samples (36 from patients with SS and 34 from patients with SLE) and found no significant differences in antibody prevalence in the two groups. Although we cannot draw any definite conclusions due to the limited number of serum samples tested, we cannot confirm that differentiation of anti-Ro60 from anti-Ro52 can be of practical clinical value for the differential diagnosis of SLE and SS.
The results of our study indicate that because of its good analytical performance and practicability, this new immunoassay based on coupled-particle light-scattering technology is an efficient diagnostic tool and may be used for the detection of anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies in patients with autoimmune disorders.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale Civile, Via N. Sauro, 25, 30027 S. Donà di Piave (VE), Italy. Phone: 0421-227570 or 0421-227586. Fax: 0421-227571. E-mail: nbizzaro{at}dacos.it.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Barakat, S., O. Meyer, F. Torteretot, P. Youilnou, J. P. Briand, M. F. Kahn, et al. 1992. IgG antibodies from patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus recognize different epitopes in 60-kD SSA/Ro protein. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 89:38-45[Medline]. |
| 2. | Bayer, P. M., S. Bauerfeind, J. Bienvenu, N. Fabien, P. C. Frei, B. Gilburd, et al. 1999. Multicenter evaluation study on a new HEp2 ANA screening enzyme immune assay. J. Autoimmun. 13:89-93[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 3. | Ben-Chetrit, E., R. Fox, and E. M. Tan. 1990. Dissociation of immune responses to the SS-A (Ro) 52-Kd and 60-Kd polypeptides in systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjögren's syndrome. Arthritis Rheum. 33:349-355[Medline]. |
| 4. | Bizzaro, N., D. Bassetti, F. Manoni, A. Piazza, R. Tozzoli, E. Tonutti, et al. 1999. Sensitivity of commercial reagents for the detection of anti-ENA antibodies. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 37:480. |
| 5. | Bizzaro, N., R. Tozzoli, E. Tonutti, A. Piazza, F. Manoni, A. Ghirardello, et al. 1998. Variability between methods to determine ANA, anti-dsDNA and anti-ENA autoantibodies: a collaborative study with the biomedical industry. J. Immunol. Methods 219:99-107[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 6. | Bodner, A. J., and J. A. Britz. 1996. Copalis technology, p. 253-275. In D. W. Chan (ed.), Immunoassay automation: an updated guide to systems. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, Calif. |
| 7. | Bouffard, P., M. A. Laniel, and G. Boire. 1996. Anti-Ro(SSA) antibodies: clinical significance and biological relevance. J. Rheum. 23:1838-1841[Medline]. |
| 8. | Bridges, A. J., T. E. Lorden, and T. C. Havighurst. 1997. Autoantibody testing for connective tissue disease. Comparison of immunodiffusion, immunoblot, and enzyme immunoassay. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 108:406-410[Medline]. |
| 9. | Buyon, J. P., and R. Winchester. 1990. Congenital heart block. A human model of passively acquired autoimmune injury. Arthritis Rheum. 33:609-614[Medline]. |
| 10. | Buyon, J. P. 1992. Neonatal lupus syndromes. Am. Reprod. Immunol. 28:259-263. |
| 11. |
Chambers, J. C., and J. D. Keene.
1985.
Isolation and analysis of c-DNA clones expressing human lupus La antigen.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
82:2115-2119 |
| 12. |
Chambers, J. C.,
D. Kenan,
B. J. Martin, and J. D. Keene.
1988.
Genomic structure and amino acid sequence domains of the human La autoantigen.
J. Biol. Chem.
263:18043-18051 |
| 13. | Chan, E. K. L., and J. P. Buyon. 1994. The SS-A/Ro antigen, p. 1-18. In W. J. van Venrooij, and R. N. Maini (ed.), Manual of biological markers of disease, vol. B4.1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. |
| 14. | Charles, P. J., W. J. van Venrooij, R. N. Maini, and the Consensus Finding Group for Autoantibodies. 1992. The Consensus Workshop for the Detection of Autoantibodies to Intracellular Antigens in Rheumatic Diseases: 1989-1992. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 10:507-511[Medline]. |
| 15. | Chretien, P., E. Soulie, C. Johanet, and N. Abuaf. 1994. Comparison of double immunodiffusion, ELISA, Western blot and CAPE blot for the detection of anti-SSA antibody: study of anti-SSA prevalence in systemic lupus erythematosus. J. Autoimmun. 7:379-388[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 16. | Cook, L. 1998. New methods for detection of anti-nuclear antibodies. Clin. Immunol. Immunopathol. 88:211-220[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 17. |
Deutscher, S. L.,
J. B. Harley, and J. D. Keene.
1988.
Molecular analysis of the 60-kDa human Ro ribonucleoprotein.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
85:9479-9483 |
| 18. | Harley, J. B. 1989. Autoantibodies in Sjögren's syndrome. J. Autoimmun. 2:283-294[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 19. |
Hoffmann, A., and R. G. Roeder.
1991.
Purification of His-tagged proteins in non-denaturing conditions suggests a convenient method for protein interaction studies.
Nucleic Acids Res.
19:6337-6338 |
| 20. |
James, K.,
A. B. Carpenter,
L. Cook,
R. Marchand, and R. M. Nakamura.
2000.
Development of the antinuclear and anticytoplasmic antibody consensus panel by the Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists.
Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol.
7:436-443 |
| 21. | Jaskowski, T. D., C. Schroder, T. B. Martins, L. Mouritsen, and H. R. Hill. 1995. Comparison of three commercially available enzyme immunoassays for the screening of autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 9:166-172[Medline]. |
| 22. | Keech, C. L., J. McCluskey, and T. P. Gordon. 1996. SS-B(La) autoantibodies, p. 789-797. In J. B. Peter, and Y. Shoenfeld (ed.), Autoantibodies. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. |
| 23. |
Manoussakis, M. N.,
K. G. Kistis,
X. Liu,
V. Aidinis,
A. Guialis, and H. M. Moutsopoulos.
1993.
Detection of anti-Ro(SSA) antibodies in autoimmune diseases: comparison of five methods.
Br. J. Rheumatol.
32:449-455 |
| 24. | Meheus, L., W. J. van Venrooij, A. Wiik, P. J. Charles, A. G. Tzioufas, O. Meyer, et al. 1999. Multicenter validation of recombinant, natural and synthetic antigens used in a single multiparameter assay for the detection of specific anti-nuclear autoantibodies in connective tissue disorders. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 17:205-214[Medline]. |
| 25. | Meilof, J. F., I. Bantjes, J. De Jong, A. P. van Dam, and R. J. T. Smeenk. 1990. The detection of anti-Ro(SSA) and anti-La(SSB) antibodies. A comparison of counter immunoelectrophoresis with immunoblot, ELISA, and RNA-precipitation assays. J. Immunol. Methods 133:215-226[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 26. | Miles, J., P. Charles, and P. Riches. 1998. A review of methods available for the identification of both organ-specific and non-organ-specific autoantibodies. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 35:19-47. |
| 27. | Reichlin, M., and J. B. Harley. 1987. Antibodies to Ro(SSA) and the heterogeneity of systemic lupus erythematosus. J. Rheumatol. 14:112-117. |
| 28. | Reichlin, M., and R. H. Scofield. 1996. SS-A(Ro) autoantibodies, p. 783-788. In J. B. Peter, and Y. Shoenfeld (ed.), Autoantibodies. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. |
| 29. | Routzias, J. G., A. G. Tzioufas, M. Sakarellos-Daitsiotis, C. Sakarellos, and H. M. Moutsopoulos. 1996. Epitope mapping of the Ro/SSA 60KD autoantigen reveals disease-specific antibody binding profiles. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 26:514-521[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 30. | Sambrook, J., E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. |
| 31. | Senecal, J. L., S. Chartier, and N. Rothfield. 1995. Hypergammaglobulinemic purpura in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: predictive value of anti-Ro(SSA) and anti-La(SSB) antibodies and treatment with indomethacin and hydroxychloroquine. J. Rheumatol. 22:868-875[Medline]. |
| 32. | Slobbe, R. L., G. J. Pruijn, W. G. Damen, J. W. van der Kemp, and W. J. van Venrooij. 1991. Detection and occurrence of the 60- and 52-kD Ro (SSA) antigens and of autoantibodies against these proteins. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 86:99-105[Medline]. |
| 33. | Tan, E. M., J. S. Smolen, J. S. McDougal, B. T. Butcher, D. Conn, R. Dawkins, et al. 1999. A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassay for detection of antinuclear autoantibodies of defined specificities. I. Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Arthritis Rheum. 42:455-464[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 34. | Tsugu, H., R. Horowitz, N. Gibson, and M. B. Frank. 1994. The location of a disease-associated polymorphism and genomic structure of the human 52-kDa Ro/SSA locus (SSA1). Genomics 24:541-548[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 35. | Tzioufas, A. G., and H. M. Moutsopoulos. 1996. Clinical significance of autoantibodies to Ro/SSA and La/SSB, p. 1-14. In W. J. van Venrooij, and R. N. Maini (ed.), Manual of biological markers of disease, vol. C4.1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. |
| 36. |
Vitali, C.,
S. Bombardieri,
H. M. Moutsopoulos,
G. Balestrieri,
W. Bencivelli,
R. M. Bernstein, et al.
1993.
Assessment of the European classification criteria for Sjögren's syndrome in a series of clinically defined cases: results of a prospective multicentre study.
Ann. Rheum. Dis.
55:116-121 |
| 37. | von Mühlen, C. A., and E. M. Tan. 1995. Autoantibodies in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 24:323-358[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 38. |
Zweig, M. H., and G. Campbell.
1992.
Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) plots: a fundamental valuation tool in clinical medicine.
Clin. Chem.
39:561-577 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»