Automated indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody analysis is a standardized alternative for visual microscope interpretation

Carolien Bonroy; Charlotte Verfaillie; Vanessa Smith; Lies Persijn; Evy De Witte; Filip De Keyser; Katrien Devreese

doi:10.1515/cclm-2013-0016

Article

Automated indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody analysis is a standardized alternative for visual microscope interpretation

Carolien Bonroy , Charlotte Verfaillie , Vanessa Smith , Lies Persijn , Evy De Witte , Filip De Keyser and Katrien Devreese

Published/Copyright: April 6, 2013

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Volume 51 Issue 9

Abstract

Background: Screening for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) is a basic tool in the serological work-up of systemic rheumatic disorders. Despite the emergence of alternative screening methods and the difficulties in standardization, indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) remains the recommended method for ANA detection. This study aimed to assess the reliability of automated ANA IIF analysis as a standardized alternative for the conventional manual approach.

Methods: ANA testing on HEp-2000 cells was performed on 304 consecutive routine sera, 28 serumbank samples displaying rare staining patterns, 219 samples of well-defined disease cohorts [141 systemic sclerosis (SSc), 13 polymyalgia rheumatica, 22 osteoarthritis, 5 ANCA-associated vasculitis and 38 spondyloarthritis] and 100 healthy donors. All samples were analyzed by automated IIF (Zenit G-sight), by conventional visual IIF microscopy and two ANA screening enzyme immunoassays (EIA).

Results: Automated and conventional ANA IIF analysis were comparable for negative/positive interpretation as well as intensity assessment (>90% agreement). In contrast, the accuracy of pattern recognition (26%) was limited. Likelihood ratios (LR) for SSc on results intervals of both Zenit G-sight and EIA increased with increasing level of positivity. Sensitivity within the SSc-associated antibody subsets was higher for Zenit G-sight (97%–100%) than EIA (10%–96%). A significant correlation between the quantitative result obtained by Zenit G-sight and the conventional end-point titer was found.

Conclusions: The use of Zenit G-sight for automated ANA IIF analysis offers opportunities to improve standardization. However, a complementary role of the expert technicians remains, especially for pattern recognition and classification of uncertain/negative samples.

Keywords: antinuclear antibodies; automation; enzyme immunoassay; indirect immunofluorescence

Corresponding author: Carolien Bonroy, Ghent University Hospital (2P8), De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, Phone: +32 9 3323631, Fax: +32 9 3324985

The technical assistance of Ms. Virgie Baert, Ms. Annette Heirwegh, Ms. Vicky Mortier, Ms. Elke Lecocq, Ms. Hanan Khajou and Ms. Hanife Kofur is greatly acknowledged.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Research funding: Carolien Bonroy is supported by a research grant from the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

References

1. Solomon DH, Kavanaugh AJ, Schur PH, American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: antinuclear antibody testing. Arthritis Rheum 2002;47:434–44.10.1002/art.10561Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Bizzaro N, Wiik A. Appropriateness in anti-nuclear antibody testing: from clinical request to strategic laboratory practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004;22:349–55.Search in Google Scholar

3. Kavanaugh A, Tomar R, Reveille J, Solomon DH, Homburger HA. Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. American College of Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:71–81.10.5858/2000-124-0071-GFCUOTSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Vos PA, Bast EJ, Derksen RH. Cost-effective detection of non-antidouble-stranded DNA antinuclear antibody specificities in daily clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:629–35.10.1093/rheumatology/kei260Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Kivity S, Gilburd B, Agmon-Levin N, Carrasco MG, Tzafrir Y, Sofer Y, et al. A novel automated indirect immunofluorescence autoantibody evaluation. Clin Rheumatol 2012;31:503–9.10.1007/s10067-011-1884-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Hiemann R, Buttner T, Krieger T, Roggenbuck D, Sack U, Conrad K. Challenges of automated screening and differentiation of non-organ specific autoantibodies on HEp-2 cells. Autoimmun Rev 2009;9:17–22.10.1016/j.autrev.2009.02.033Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Van Praet JT, Vander Cruyssen B, Bonroy C, Smith V, Delanghe J, De Keyser F. Validation of a new screening strategy for anti-extractable nuclear antigen antibodies. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009;27:971–6.Search in Google Scholar

8. Op De Beeck K, Vermeersch P, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Marien G, Blockmans D, et al. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and by solid phase assay. Autoimmun Rev 2011;10:801–8.10.1016/j.autrev.2011.06.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Meroni PL, Schur PH. ANA screening: an old test with new recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1420–2.10.1136/ard.2009.127100Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Melegari A, Bonaguri C, Russo A, Luisita B, Trenti T, Lippi G. A comparative study on the reliability of an automated system for the evaluation of cell-based indirect immunofluorescence. Autoimmun Rev 2012;11:713–6.10.1016/j.autrev.2011.12.010Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Bossuyt X, Cooreman S, De Baere H, Verschueren P, Westhovens R, Blockmans D, et al. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by automated indirect immunofluorescence analysis. Clin Chim Acta 2012;415C:101–6.10.1016/j.cca.2012.09.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Van Praet JT, Van Steendam K, Smith V, De Bruyne G, Mimori T, Bonroy C, et al. Specific anti-nuclear antibodies in systemic sclerosis patients with and without skin involvement: an extended methodological approach. Rheumatology 2011;50:1302–9.10.1093/rheumatology/keq446Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Hoffman IE, Peene I, Meheus L, Huizinga TW, Cebecauer L, Isenberg D, et al. Specific antinuclear antibodies are associated with clinical features in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1155–8.10.1136/ard.2003.013417Search in Google Scholar

14. De Rycke L, Peene I, Hoffman IE, Kruithof E, Union A, Meheus L, et al. Rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: diagnostic value, associations with radiological progression rate, and extra-articular manifestations. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1587–93.10.1136/ard.2003.017574Search in Google Scholar

15. Bonroy C, Van Praet J, Smith V, Van Steendam K, Mimori T, Deschepper E, et al. Optimization and diagnostic performance of a single multiparameter lineblot in the serological workup of systemic sclerosis. J Immunol Methods 2012;379:53–60.10.1016/j.jim.2012.03.001Search in Google Scholar

16. Bonroy C, Smith V, Van Steendam K, Van Praet J, Deforce D, Devreese K, et al. Fluoroenzymeimmunoassay to detect systemic sclerosis-associated antibodies: diagnostic performance and correlation with conventional techniques. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30:748–55.Search in Google Scholar

17. Humbel RI. Detection of antiniuclear antibodies by immunofluorescence. In: Van Venrooij WJ, Maini RN, editors. Manual of biological markers of disease. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1993:1–16.Search in Google Scholar

18. Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000;45:23–41.10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00115-XSearch in Google Scholar

19. Cohen JA. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37–46.10.1177/001316446002000104Search in Google Scholar

20. Bossuyt X. Clinical performance characteristics of a laboratory test. A practical approach in the autoimmune laboratory. Autoimmun Rev 2009;8:543–8.10.1016/j.autrev.2009.01.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Egerer K, Roggenbuck D, Hiemann R, Weyer MG, Buttner T, Radau B, et al. Automated evaluation of autoantibodies on human epithelial-2 cells as an approach to standardize cell-based immunofluorescence tests. Arthritis Res Ther 2010;12:R40.10.1186/ar2949Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

22. Rattner JB, Mack GJ, Fritzler MJ. Autoantibodies to components of the mitotic apparatus. Mol Biol Rep 1998;25:143–55.10.1023/A:1016523013819Search in Google Scholar

23. Bonaci-Nikolic B, Andrejevic S, Bukilica M, Urosevic I, Nikolic M. Autoantibodies to mitotic apparatus: association with other autoantibodies and their clinical significance. J Clin Immunol 2006;26:438–46.10.1007/s10875-006-9038-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2013-1-4

Accepted: 2013-3-14

Published Online: 2013-04-06

Published in Print: 2013-09-01

You are currently not able to access this content.

Supplemental_Data_PDF

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-0016

Keywords for this article

antinuclear antibodies; automation; enzyme immunoassay; indirect immunofluorescence

Automated indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody analysis is a standardized alternative for visual microscope interpretation

Article

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

References

Supplementary Material

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue