Figures
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the role of serum IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibody isotypes in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and their association with clinical features and disease activity, in a large cohort of SLE patients.
Methods
Sera of 200 SLE patients (mean age 34±10.3 years; 26 male and 174 female; median duration of disease 115 months, range 7–378), and of 206 controls, including 19 Sjögren's syndrome, 27 rheumatoid arthritis, 26 psoriatic arthritis, 15 idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM), 13 systemic sclerosis, 49 infectious diseases and 57 healthy subjects, were tested for anti-dsDNA IgG, IgM and IgA isotypes.
Results
Selecting a cutoff corresponding to 95% specificity, the sensitivity of IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies in SLE was 55%, 30% and 49%, respectively; 12.5%, 1% and 7.5% of SLE patients had positive IgG, IgM or IgA isotype alone, respectively. SLE patients with glomerulonephritis showed higher levels of IgA anti-dsDNA (p = 0.0002), anti-dsDNA IgG/IgM (p = 0.001) and IgA/IgM (p<0.0001) ratios than patients without renal disease. No significant associations have been found between anti-dsDNA isotypes and other clinical features. IgA anti-dsDNA (p = 0.01) (but not IgG or IgM) and IgG/IgM ratio (p = 0.005) were significantly higher in patients with more active disease (ECLAM score >4).
Conclusions
The detection of IgA anti-dsDNA autoantibodies seems to improve our ability to diagnose SLE and to define lupus nephritis phenotype and active disease. By contrast, IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies might be protective for renal involvement. These data support the hypothesis that anti-dsDNA antibody class clustering may help to refine SLE diagnosis and prognosis.
Citation: Villalta D, Bizzaro N, Bassi N, Zen M, Gatto M, Ghirardello A, et al. (2013) Anti-dsDNA Antibody Isotypes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: IgA in Addition to IgG Anti-dsDNA Help to Identify Glomerulonephritis and Active Disease. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71458. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071458
Editor: Frederic Rieux-Laucat, Pavillon Kirmisson, France
Received: January 22, 2013; Accepted: June 18, 2013; Published: August 12, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Villalta et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies are a useful tool for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) [1], [2] and represent one of the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the classification of SLE. Several studies have shown a correlation between disease activity and anti-dsDNA antibody levels in SLE, particularly in patients with renal involvement [3]–[7], making detection of such antibodies relevant in SLE monitoring [8]. In addition, Belimumab, an anti-B Lymphocyte stimulator monoclonal antibody, was recently approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for SLE patients with active disease as demonstrated by positive anti-dsDNA and C3 or C4 decrease.
However, anti-dsDNA antibodies differ with respect to isotype, avidity, charge, idiotypes and V region sequences [9]. In most SLE patients, IgG-class anti-dsDNA antibodies predominate and they represent the reference antibodies for disease diagnosis. IgG-class anti-dsDNA have also been implicated in the pathogenesis of organ manifestation of SLE, particularly glomerulonephritis, as shown in murine models, where the transfer of murine monoclonal IgG antibodies or anti-dsDNA producing hybridomas into mice induces lupus-like glomerulonephritis [10], [11].
In contrast, anti-dsDNA antibodies of the IgM isotype seem less specific for SLE, and their pathogenic relevance has yet to be elucidated. Some authors demonstrated that IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies does not correlate with disease activity, and no clinical associations have been established [12], [13]. More recently, a negative correlation between IgM anti-dsDNA and glomerulonephritis has been reported [14], [15] and a protective role of IgM anti-dsDNA against immune complex-mediated organ damage has been suggested [16]–[19].
Until now only a few studies evaluated the role of IgA anti-dsDNA in diagnosing and monitoring SLE, and results are conflicting. In fact, some authors reported an association with kidney and joint abnormalities [20], whereas others were not able to demonstrate these associations [21], [22]. Finally, some authors showed a correlation of IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies with vasculitis and acral necrosis, and with some indexes of disease activity such as elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and decreased C3 serum levels [21].
The aim of our study was to evaluate the role of the IgG, IgM and IgA isotypes in the diagnosis of SLE, and their association with clinical features and disease activity, in a large cohort of SLE patients, using isotype-specific ELISA assays based on human recombinant dsDNA as antigen source.
Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
The study was approved by the local Ethical Committee of Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova and written informed consent was obtained from each patient.
Patients
The sera of 200 SLE patients (mean age ± SD 34±10.3 yrs; 26 male and 174 female; median duration of disease 115 months; range 7–378) diagnosed according to ACR criteria [23] were studied. Patients were consecutively enrolled, and clinical data at the time of blood drawing were retrieved from medical records (Table 1). Global SLE activity was measured by the European Consensus Lupus Activity Measure (ECLAM) score [24], and the classification of lupus glomerulonephritis was based on the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS 2003) classification [25]. Among SLE patients affected with lupus nephritis, 5 had class I/II nephritis (mesangial involvement), and 74 class III/IV (focal or diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis). One patient displaying class V was not included in the analysis while two patients affected with class IV/V were included in the III/IV group for statistical comparison.
In addition, 206 control sera from 19 patients with Sjögren’s syndrome (American-European Consensus Classification Criteria [26]), 27 with rheumatoid arthritis (ACR/EULAR criteria [27]), 26 with psoriatic arthritis (diagnosed according to clinical, radiological and synovial fluid findings in patients affected with psoriasis or with a first-grade relative affected), 15 with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM; Bohan and Peter’s criteria [28], [29]), 13 with systemic sclerosis (ACR criteria [30]), 49 with infectious diseases (13 hepatitis B virus; 10 cytomegalovirus; 10 Epstein Barr virus; 16 hepatitis C virus), and 57 from healthy subjects were tested to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the anti-dsDNA assays. Sera of patients affected with rheumatologic disorders were collected in the Rheumatology Unit of Padua University and sera of patients with infectious diseases and healthy subjects were collected in the Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit of the Pordenone Hospital. Sera of patients with infectious diseases and healthy controls were collected from February 2009 to September 2010, sera of SLE patients and patients affected with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases were collected from 2000 to 2009. All sera were frozen at −80°C until they were processed.
Anti-dsDNA Measurement
Anti-dsDNA IgG, IgM and IgA isotypes were measured according to manufacturer’s instructions, by commercially available ELISA assays (Aeskulisa dsDNA-G, Aeskulisa dsDNA-M, Aeskulisa dsDNA-A; Aesku Diagnostic, Wendelsheim, Germany), based on a human recombinant dsDNA source as antigen bound to microwells. Briefly, 10 µL of diluted sera (1∶100) were incubated for 30 minutes on the ELISA plates, and after three washing steps, the horseradish peroxidase labeled antihuman-IgG (rabbit), -IgM (goat) or –IgA (goat) was added as a conjugate and incubated at room temperature for 15 minutes. After three additional washing steps, 100 µL of tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) were added and the samples were further incubated for 15 minutes before stopping the reaction with 100 µL 1M HCL. Optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm. All assay procedures were performed automatically on the Triturus® (Grifols, Barcelona, Spain) microplate analyzer. The values were expressed in International Units (IU)/mL for IgG, calibrated against the Wo/80 reference standard, and in U/mL for IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA, as no international standard for these antibody isotypes is available.
Cut-offs for IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies, selected at 95% specificity as determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, were 73.5 IU/mL, 69.5 U/mL and 28.0 U/mL, respectively. The ROC curves were built considering all the non-SLE sera as variable indicating diagnosis different from SLE.
Statistical Analysis
Associations between non-parametric unpaired data were calculated by means of the Mann- Whitney U test and data were adjusted using the Bonferroni’s test for multiple comparisons. Prevalence of different variables were compared using chi-square (χ2) test. All tests were used with two-sided options and significance level was set at a p value <0.05. SPSS for Windows, version 11.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and MedCalc for Windows, version 7.4.19 (MedCalc software, Mariakerke, Belgium) were used for the statistical analysis.
Results
Setting the same specificity value for all isotypes at 95% by ROC curves, sensitivity of IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies in SLE was 55%, 30% and 49%, respectively. As shown in Table 2, 12.5% of SLE patients resulted positive for the IgG isotype alone, whereas 1% and 7.5% were positive for the IgM and IgA isotype alone, respectively. Considering all three antibody classes, the sensitivity increases to 67%, but the specificity decreases to 90.7%. The distribution of class-specific anti-dsDNA levels are shown in Figure 1.
Footnotes: IU: international units; IgG: immunoglobulins class G; IgM: immunoglobulins class M; IgA: immunoglobulins A; anti-dsDNA: antibodies against double stranded DNA; SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus; IIM: idiopathic inflammatory myopathies; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; PA: psoriatic arthritis; SjS: Sjögren’s syndrome; SSc: systemic sclerosis; ID: infectious diseases; HS: healthy subjects; c.o. = cut off; SP: specificity.
No significant difference was found in IgG and IgM anti-dsDNA levels in patients with or without kidney involvement. Conversely, patients with kidney involvement showed higher levels of IgA anti-dsDNA (p = 0.0002) (Figure 2), and a significant higher frequency of lupus nephritis has been shown in IgA anti-dsDNA positive (56/98, 57%) in respect to IgA anti-dsDNA negative (27/102, 26%) (χ2 = 19.3; p = 0.0001). However, no significant difference in the frequency of glomerulonephritis was shown in patients positive for IgA anti-dsDNA alone (5/15, 33.3%) vs. IgA anti-dsDNA negative (27/102, 26%) (χ2 = 0.31; p = 0.577), in patients positive for IgA anti-dsDNA alone (5/15, 33.3%) vs. anti-dsDNA negative (15/66, 23%) (χ2 = 0.74; p = 0.389), as well as in patients positive for IgG anti-dsDNA alone (5/25, 20%) vs. IgG anti-dsDNA negative (27/90, 30%) (χ2 = 0.97; p = 0.323) and in patients positive for IgG anti-dsDNA alone vs. anti-dsDNA negative (15/66, 23%) (χ2 = 0.08; p = 0.779). On the other hand, a higher frequency of kidney involvement has been shown in patients positive for both IgG and IgA anti-dsDNA (45/76, 59%) vs. IgG and IgA anti-dsDNA negative (37/124, 30%) (χ2 = 16.8; p = 0.0000). It is interesting to remark as no significant difference in kidney involvement has been shown in patients positive for all IgG, IgA and IgM anti-dsDNA isotypes (19/23, 83%) vs. negative subjects (18/44, 41%) (χ2 = 2.87; p = 0.09). Moreover, in SLE patients with renal disease, anti-dsDNA IgG/IgM and IgA/IgM ratios resulted significantly higher than in patients without renal disease (p = 0.001 and <0.0001, respectively) (Figure 3). No significant difference was found in the three anti-dsDNA isotypes between SLE patients with lupus gomerulonephritis of classes I/II and III/IV. We also evaluated whether the IgG/IgM and the IgA/IgM anti-dsDNA ratios could be used to assess renal involvement in SLE patients. Based on ROC analysis, the optimal IgG/IgM anti-dsDNA ratio value was 2.09 (sensitivity = 64.6%, 95%CI 53.3–74.9%; specificity = 60.2%, 95%CI 50.7–68.1%; positive likelihood ratio [LR+] = 1.62; negative likelihood ratio [LR-] = 0.59); the IgA/IgM anti-dsDNA ratio value was set at 1.74 (sensitivity = 54.9%, 95%CI 43.5–65.9%; specificity = 83.9%, 95%CI 76.0–90%; LR+ = 3.41; LR- = 0.54). However, the area under the ROC curve was low for both the IgG/IgM ratio (0.633) and the IgA/IgM ratio (0.693).
Median serum values are illustrated (horizontal lines). Median serum values (horizontal lines) of IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA resulted 171.0±125.1 IU/mL (range: 2.8–2046); 59.5±78.8 U/mL (range: 1.0–503), 122.5±122.8 U/mL (range: 1.0–1012) in patients with kidney involvement, and 131±123.7 IU/mL (range: 3.0−1018), 76.1±100.5 U/mL (range: 2.6–718), 49.8±84.7 U/mL (range: 1.0–382) in patients without kidney involvement, respectively. Footnotes: IU: international units; IgG: immunoglobulins class G; IgM: immunoglobulins class M; IgA: immunoglobulins A; anti-dsDNA: antibodies against double stranded DNA.
Median serum values are shown (horizontal lines). Footnotes: IgG: immunoglobulins class G; IgM: immunoglobulins class M; anti-dsDNA: antibodies against double stranded DNA.
No significant associations have been found between anti-dsDNA isotypes and other clinical features of organ damage (skin, serosa, musculoskeletal, central nervous system, hematological manifestations and thromboembolism) (p>0.016). IgA anti-dsDNA (p = 0.01) (but not IgG or IgM) and IgG/IgM anti-dsDNA ratio (p = 0.006) were significantly higher in patients with more active disease (ECLAM score >4) (Figure 4). A significant higher frequency of patients with ECLAM score >4 has been shown in IgA anti-dsDNA positive (35/98, 36%) in respect to IgA anti-dsDNA negative patients (16/102, 16%) (χ2 = 10.55; p = 0.0012), as well as in patients positive for IgA anti-dsDNA alone (8/15, 54%) versus IgA anti-dsDNA negative (28/102, 25%) (χ2 = 4.11; p = 0.042), in patients positive for IgA anti-dsDNA alone (8/15, 54%) vs. anti-dsDNA negative (12/66, 18%) (χ2 = 8.12; p = 0.004), and in patients both IgG and IgA anti-dsDNA positive (45/76, 59%) vs. IgG and IgA dsDNA negative (25/124, 20%) (χ2 = 31.58; p = 0.0000). Only a slight association has been shown by testing patients positive for IgG anti-dsDNA alone (10/25, 40%) vs. anti-dsDNA negative (13/66, 20%) (χ2 = 3.96; p = 0.0467), whereas no association has been shown comparing positive for IgG anti-dsDNA alone (10/25, 40%) vs. IgG anti-dsDNA negative (19/90, 21%) (χ2 = 3.7; p = 0.0544). Finally, a significant higher frequency of patients with ECLAM score >4 has been shown in patients positive for all anti-dsDNA isotypes (12/30, 40%) compared with negative patients (7/59, 12%) (χ2 = 5.51; p = 0.016).
Association between IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA isotypes and IgG/IgM anti-dsDNA ratio and the ECLAM score. Median serum values are shown (horizontal lines). Footnotes: IU: international units; IgG: immunoglobulins class G; IgM: immunoglobulins class M; IgA: immunoglobulins A; anti-dsDNA: antibodies against double stranded DNA; ECLAM: European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement.
Discussion
In this study we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of IgG, IgM and IgA anti-dsDNA antibody isotypes and their clinical relevance in predicting organ damage, particularly renal involvement, in SLE patients. Fixing for each antibody class a specificity of 95%, we confirmed that in SLE the prevalent anti-dsDNA antibody isotype is represented by IgG (55%). However, 49% of SLE patients were positive for IgA anti-dsDNA, and in 7.5% of the cases it was the only anti-dsDNA isotype present. These results seem in contrast with those previously reported by Atta et al. in a subset of Brazilian SLE patients [22], where IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected only in 19.4% of the subjects and were always associated with IgG anti-dsDNA antibodies. This disagreement may be attributed to the different methods used for anti-dsDNA detection [31] and to the different genetic background of the SLE populations studied [2]. Indeed, Förger et al [15], using the same method used in our study in a large cohort of German SLE patients, showed a prevalence of IgA anti-dsDNA of 40%. In the same study, however, the prevalence of IgG and IgM anti-dsDNA was higher (80% and 57%, respectively) than in our study. This may be attributed to the different cut-offs used. In fact, Förger et al. used the cut-off suggested by manufacturer (20 U/mL for all anti-dsDNA isotypes), whereas in our study, cut-off corresponding to 95% specificity (73.5 IU/mL for IgG, 69.5 U/mL for IgM and 28 U/ml for IgA) were selected. Therefore, in our study the best combination of sensitivity (62.5%) and specificity (92.8%) for SLE diagnosis was achieved by the combination of IgG and IgA anti-dsDNA. In this regard, it has to be mentioned that high levels of anti-dsDNA antibodies found in some SSc patients may be related to intrinsic ELISA test features, depending on the method and the cut-off used [32]–[35], although antihistone, antinucleosome and even anti-dsDNA antibodies have actually been detected in a proportion of SSc patients by ELISA assays. Cross-reactivity also has to be considered, since the CENP-A centromere protein has been shown to be a centromere-specific histone H3 variant [36], therefore SSc sera might exhibit cross-reactive recognition of chromatin structures, including dsDNA, mediated by primary antihistone immunological reactivities.
It is generally believed that IgG anti-dsDNA autoantibodies play an important role in the pathogenesis of SLE in particular in the induction of nephritis, and IgG anti-dsDNA antibodies and immune-complexes are detectable in the glomeruli of patients with lupus nephritis [18], [19], [37], [38].
However, some authors were not able to demonstrate a significant association of IgG anti-dsDNA with kidney involvement or disease activity [39]. It has been suggested that it may depend on the method used for anti-dsDNA detection [35], as methods detecting mainly high avidity IgG antibodies seem to supply a better correlation between anti-dsDNA levels and disease activity and kidney involvement [40]. However, in a previous work we were not able to demonstrate a correlation between disease activity and anti-dsDNA avidity [41]. On the other hand, IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies seem to be a protective factor for glomerulonephritis development, likewise IgG anti-pentraxin 3 antibodies [18], [42], both in animal models [43], [44] and in SLE patients [17], [21]. This finding may be related to the greater ability of IgM class antibodies to bind more circulating antigen, thus decreasing via competitive inhibition the formation of IgG-class immune complexes. Another potential explanation is that IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies may down-regulate autoreactive B cells and decrease the production of pathogenetic IgG anti-dsDNA antibodies. In addition, it has been suggested that IgM anti-dsDNA-dsDNA complexes are cleared more effectively by phagocytes and therefore minimally deposited in the glomerular basal membrane [16], [18]. In our study, although no significant difference has been found in the levels of IgM anti-dsDNA in patients with and without kidney involvement, a high IgG/IgM ratio was significantly associated with glomerulonephritis. These findings confirm the results obtained by Förger et al. [15], though the IgG/IgM ratio value combining both the highest sensitivity and specificity for renal involvement was higher than in Förger study (2.09 vs 0.8). The IgG/IgM anti-dsDNA ratio was also significantly higher in patients with active disease (ECLAM >4), confirming that IgM-class antibodies might exert a protective role.
Interestingly, IgA anti-dsDNA autoantibodies levels were significantly associated with both glomerulonephritis and active disease. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Miltenburg et al. [20], and only partially with those obtained by Witte et al. [21], who found an association with disease activity, but not with glomerulonephritis. However, since the strongest association with lupus nephritis and active SLE was observed when both IgA and IgG anti-dsDNA isotypes were present, detection of both isotypes is likely to be superior and more useful than detection of only one isotype in diagnosis of lupus nephritis and active SLE. Although IgA antibodies are unable to activate the classical complement pathway, recent insights suggest they may be implicated in the activation of the alternative complement pathway in lupus glomeruli [45], notwithstanding the fact that no antibody binding is usually required to such pathway. However, IgA anti-dsDNA may somehow elicit non-classical complement activation and worsen renal damage in SLE [46]. The results of the studies concerning the association between IgA anti-dsDNA and other clinical features, including arthritis, are inconclusive [20], [21]. Further studies in large cohorts of SLE patients are needed to evaluate the association between IgA anti-dsDNA and other clinical manifestations such as skin, central nervous system or serosa involvement, vasculitis, thromboembolism and hematological manifestations.
We notice a limitation in our study, since antibodies were only measured in sera while they were not searched on kidney biopsies; however, this is consistent with the need to pinpoint serological biomarkers for disease activity and phenotypes. In conclusion, our study confirmed the role of IgG anti-dsDNA antibodies in the diagnosis of SLE and suggests that the detection of IgA anti-dsDNA antibodies can improve our ability to diagnose SLE (7.5% of SLE patients were positive only for this autoantibody class), particularly lupus nephritis. By contrast, IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies might be protective for renal involvement. The afore-mentioned data support the hypothesis that anti-dsDNA antibody class clustering may help to refine SLE diagnosis and prognosis.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Grifols Italia for kindly providing ELISA kits free of costs, and Dr. Chiara Contini and Dr. Andrea Giorgi for technical assistance.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: AD DV N. Bizzaro LP. Performed the experiments: AG N. Bassi LI MZ MG. Analyzed the data: AG N. Bassi AD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: N. Bizzaro N. Bassi AG AD. Wrote the paper: AD DV N. Bizzaro MG MZ AG.
References
- 1. Zen M, Bassi N, Nalotto L, Canova M, Bettio S, et al. (2012) Disease activity patterns in a monocentric cohort of SLE patients: a seven-year follow-up study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 30: 856–63.
- 2.
Gatto M, Zen M, Ghirardello A, Bettio S, Bassi N, et al.. (2012) Emerging and critical issues in the pathogenesis of lupus. Autoimmun Rev in press. doi:pii: S1568–9972(12)00213–3. 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.09.003.
- 3. Swaak AJK, Aarden LA, Statius van Eps LW, Feltkamp TEW (1979) Anti-dsDNA and complement profiles as prognostic guides in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 22: 226–235.
- 4. McGrath Jr H, Biundo Jr JJ (1985) A longitudinal study of high and low avidity antibodies to double-stranded DNA in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 28: 425–430.
- 5. Ter Borg EJ, Horst G, Hummel EJ, Limburg PG, Kallenberg CG (1990) Measurement of increases in anti-double-stranded DNA antibody levels as a predictor of disease exacerbation in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 33: 934–943.
- 6. Bootsma H, Spronk P, Derkesen R, de Boer G, Wolters-Dicke H, et al. (1995) Prevention of relapses in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet 345: 1595–1599.
- 7. Doria A, Zen M, Canova M, Bettio S, Bassi N, et al. (2010) SLE diagnosis and treatment: when early is early. Autoimmune Rev 10: 55–60.
- 8.
Hamann D, Smeenk RJ (2007) Anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. In: Shoenfeld Y, Gershwin ME, Meroni PL (eds). Autoantibodies. 2nd Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV. 159–167.
- 9. Hahn BH (1998) Antibodies to DNA. N Engl J Med 338: 1359–1368.
- 10. Ohnishi K, Ebling FM, Mitchell B, Singh RR, Hahn BH, et al. (1994) Comparison of pathogenic and non-pathogenic murine antibodies to DNA: antigen binding and structural characteristics. Int Immunol 6: 817–830.
- 11. Ehrenstein MR, Katz DR, Griffiths MH, Papadaki L, Winkler TH, et al. (1995) Human IgG anti-DNA antibodies deposit in kidneys and induce proteinuria in SCID mice. Kidney Int 48: 705–711.
- 12. Bootsma H, Spronk PE, Ter Borg EJ, Hummel EJ, De Boer G, et al. (1997) The predictive value of fluctuactions in IgM and IgG class anti-dsDNA antibodies for relapses in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 56: 661–666.
- 13. Krippner H, Merle S, Jörgens K, Pirlet K (1984) Antibodies to dsDNA and ssDNA in the immunoglobulin classes IgG and IgM: prognostic value in the course of SLE. Z Rheumatol 43: 265–271.
- 14. Witte T, Hartung K, Sachse C, Matthias T, Fricke M, et al. (1998) IgM anti-dsDNA antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: negative association with nephritis. Rheumatol Int 18: 85–91.
- 15. Förger F, Matthias T, Oppermann M, Becker H, Helmke K (2004) Clinical significance of anti-dsDNA antibody isotypes: IgG/IgM ratio of anti-dsDNA antibodies as a prognosticmarker for lupus nephritis. Lupus 14: 36–44.
- 16. Shoenfeld Y, Toubi E (2005) Protective autoantibodies. Role in homeostasis, clinical importance, and therapeutic potential. Arthritis Rheum 52: 2599–2606.
- 17. Witte T (2008) IgM antibodies against dsDNA in SLE. Clin Rev Allerg Immunol 34: 345–347.
- 18. Doria A, Gatto M (2012) Nephritogenic-antinephritogenic antibody network in lupus glomerulonephritis. Lupus 21: 1492–6.
- 19. Pisetsky DS (2012) Antinuclear antibodies in rheumatic disease: a proposal for a functionbased classification. Scand J Immunol 76: 223–8.
- 20. Miltenburg AMM, Roos A, Slegtenhorst L, Daha MR, Breedveld FC (1993) IgA antidsDNA antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: occurrence, incidence and association with clinical and laboratory variables of disease activity. J Rheumatol 20: 53–58.
- 21. Witte T, Hartung K, Matthias T, Sachse C, Fricke M, et al. (1998) Association of IgA antidsDNA antibodies with vasculitis and disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatol Int 18: 63–69.
- 22. Atta AM, Pereira MM, Santiago M, Sousa-Atta MLB (2009) Anti-dsDNA antibodies in Brazilian patients of mainly African descent with systemic lupus erythematosus: lack of association with lupus nephritis. Clin Rheumatol 28: 693–697.
- 23. Hochberg M (1997) Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 40: 1725–1734.
- 24. Vitali C, Bencivelli W, Isenberg DA, Smolen JS, Snaith ML, et al. (1992) Disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: report of the Consensus Study Group of the European Workshop for Rheumatology Research. II. Identification of the variables indicative of disease activity and their use in the development of an active score. Clin Exp Rheumatol 10: 541–547.
- 25. Weening JJ, D’Agati VD, Schwartz MM, Seshan SV, Alpers CE, et al. (2004) on behalf of the international society of nephrology and renal pathology society working group on the classification on lupus nephritis (2004) The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 241–250.
- 26. Vitali C, Bombardieri S, Jonsson R, Moutsopoulos HM, Alexander EL, et al. (2002) European Study Group on Classification Criteria for Sjögren’s Syndrome. Classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome: a revised version of the European criteria proposed by the American-European Consensus Group. Ann Rheum Dis 61: 554–8.
- 27. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, et al. (2010) 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 62: 2569–81.
- 28. Bohan A, Peter JB (1975) Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (first part). N Engl J Med 292: 344–7.
- 29. Bohan A, Peter JB (1975) Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (second part). N Engl J Med 292: 403–7.
- 30. Subcommittee for Scleroderma Criteria of the American Rheumatism Association Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee (1980) Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum 23: 581–90.
- 31. Ghirardello A, Villalta D, Morozzi G, Afeltra A, Galeazzi M, et al. (2011) Diagnostic accuracy of currently available anti-double stranded DNA antibody assay. An Italian multicenter study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 29: 50–56.
- 32. Wallace DJ, Lin HC, Shen GQ, Peter JB (1994) Antibodies to histone (H2A-H2B)-DNA complexes in the absence of antibodies to double-stranded DNA or to (H2A-H2B) complexes are more sensitive and specific for scleroderma-related disorders than for lupus. Arthritis Rheum 37: 1795–7.
- 33. Hasegawa M, Sato S, Kikuchi K, Takehara K (1998) Antigen specificity of antihistone antibodies in systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis 57: 470–5.
- 34. Půtová I, Dostal C, Becvar R (2007) Prevalence of antinucleosome antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and other autoimmune systemic diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1109: 275–86.
- 35. Villalta D, Bizzaro N, Corazza D, Tozzoli R, Tonutti E (2002) Evaluation of a new automated enzyme fluoroimmunoassay using recombinant plasmid dsDNA for the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies in SLE. J Clin Lab Anal 16: 227–32.
- 36. Palmer DK, O’Day K, Charbonneau H, Margolis RL (1991) Purification of the centromere-specific protein CENP-A and demonstration that it is a distinctive histone. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88: 3734–8.
- 37. Groottscholten C, van Bruggen MC, van der Pijl JW, de Jong EM, Ligtenberg G, et al. (2003) for the Dutch Working party on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (2003) Deposition of nucleosomal antigens (histones and DNA) in the epidermal basement membrane in human lupus nephritis. Arthritis Rheum 48: 1355–1362.
- 38. Rekvig OP, Putterman C, Casu C, Gao HX, Ghirardello A, et al. (2012) Autoantibodies in lupus: culprits or passive bystanders? Autoimmun Rev 11: 596–603.
- 39. Ghirardello A, Doria A, Zampieri S, Tarricone E, Tozzoli R, et al. (2004) Antinucleosome antibodies in SLE: a two-year follow-up study of 101 patients. J Autoimmun 22: 235–240.
- 40.
Smeenk RJT, Berden JHM, Swaak AJG (1996) Anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. In: Peter JB, Shoenfeld Y, editors. Autoantibodies. Elsevier Science: Amsterdam. 227–236.
- 41. Villalta D, Romelli PB, Savina C, Bizzaro N, Tozzoli R, et al. (2003) Anti-dsDNA antibody avidity determination by a simple reliable ELISA method for SLE diagnosis and monitoring. Lupus 12: 31–36.
- 42. Bassi N, Ghirardello A, Blank M, Zampieri S, Sarzi-Puttini P, et al. (2010) IgG antipentraxin 3 antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 69: 1704–1710.
- 43. Boes M, Schmidt T, Linkemann K, Beaudette BC, Marshak-Rothstein A, et al. (2000) Accelerated development of IgG autoantibodies and autoimmune disease in the absence of secreted IgM. PNAS 97: 1184–1189.
- 44. Werwitzke S, Trick D, Kamino K, Matthias T, Kniesch K, et al. (2005) Inhibition of lupus disease by anti-double stranded DNA antibodies of the IgM isotype in the (NZB x NZW) F1 mouse. Arthritis Rheum 52: 3629–3638.
- 45. Daha NA, Banda NK, Roos A, Beurskens FJ, Bakker JM, et al. (2011) Complement activation by (auto-) antibodies. Mol Immunol 48: 1656–1665.
- 46. Sato N, Ohsawa I, Nagamachi S, Ishii M, Kusaba G, et al. (2011) Significance of glomerular activation of the alternative pathway and lectin pathway in lupus nephritis. Lupus 20: 1378–1386.