Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 6544
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 65  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 873-878
Feasibility of Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) alone as a screening method for antinuclear antibody in connective diseases in India's sub-Himalayan region


1 Department of Microbiology, AIIMS, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India
3 Department of Microbiology, AIIMS, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand; Department of Microbiology, F.A.A. Medical College, Barpeta, Assam, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission29-Dec-2020
Date of Decision01-Oct-2021
Date of Acceptance15-Oct-2021
Date of Web Publication08-Jun-2022
 

   Abstract 


Background: For the management of connective tissue disorders (CTDs), antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing is essential, both from diagnostic and prognostic points of view. Usually, patterns obtained by ANA-IIF testing correlates to specific autoantibodies as obtained from the test for ENA (by LIA/ELISA, etc.). But to apply these data from western studies, we may need validation in the local population like our subjects in sub-Himalayan (Garhwal region) area where CTDs are common. Also, suppose ANA-IFA pattern's correlation is reliably known in our population, it can minimize the cost of managing CTDs by limiting ENA testing, which is 10 times costlier than ANA-IIF. Hence, this study was undertaken to know the specific autoantibody targets (ENA by LIA) against ANA-IIF patterns in our local population. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional work, serum samples of CTDs were tested for ANA by IIF (Euroimmune AG) and ENA by LIA (Euroline ANA-3G) continuously for 36 months. The manufacturer's kit insert was followed, and results were analyzed applying appropriate statistical methods. Results: Major ANA-IIF patterns were found to be associated with specific autoantibodies, for example, Nuclear homogenous with dsDNA, nucleosomes, histones; speckled pattern with nRNP/Sm, Sm, SSA/Ro-52, SSB; nucleolar pattern with Scl-70, Pm-Scl 100 and centromere pattern with CENP-B. Anticytoplasmic (ACA) are found to be linked with some ANA negative (by IIF) samples, emphasizing the need for careful observation for ACA especially where ANA is not found. Conclusions: In most subjects, specific ENA targets correlated well with ANA-IIF patterns, implying effective cost minimization in CTD management. Similar future prospective studies (with clinical data) can provide a database and reference for our population.

Keywords: ANA screening, ANA-IIF, ENA, extractable nuclear antigen, IFA pattern, immunoblot, nuclear homogenous, speckled

How to cite this article:
Kalita D, Rekha U S, Raj AK, Mahanta P, Gupta P, Deka S. Feasibility of Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) alone as a screening method for antinuclear antibody in connective diseases in India's sub-Himalayan region. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2022;65:873-8

How to cite this URL:
Kalita D, Rekha U S, Raj AK, Mahanta P, Gupta P, Deka S. Feasibility of Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) alone as a screening method for antinuclear antibody in connective diseases in India's sub-Himalayan region. Indian J Pathol Microbiol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 30];65:873-8. Available from: https://www.ijpmonline.org/text.asp?2022/65/4/873/359312





   Introduction Top


Connective tissue diseases (CTDs) like Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Sjogren's syndrome (SS), Systemic sclerosis (SSc), Polymyositis (PM), Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), and so on. elicit a generalized autoimmune response with generation of Antinuclear Antibodies (ANAs). For ANA detection, the commonly used technique is Indirect Immunofluorescence (ANA-IIF) using substrate like HEp-2 (Human Epithelial tumor cell line) or its various modification at times in combination with other substrate like Primate Liver cell lines.[1],[2],[3] For precise identification of these ANAs specialized techniques like ELISA, Western blot/Immuno-blot/Line immune assay (LIA), and so on. are needed.[4]

Each CTD is linked to multiple specific antibodies, while immune response for antibody generation is influenced by genetic, racial, geographic location, environment, and so on.[4],[5],[6] This leads to variation in autoantibody types from person to person, place to place, and probably from population to population.[4] Most available data on antibody types and correlation with ANA-IIF patterns are derived from western studies. Such data from our region with CTDs being common will be very much useful for patient care.[4] ANA-IIF tests are much cost-effective (Rs 1100.00 per test) compared to LIA (Rs 12000.00 per test). Thus, if ANA-IIF patterns alone can reliably predict important markers of CTDs (without adittional confirmatory tests like LIA), it will be very useful for a resource-limited set-up like ours in both diagnosis and prognosis domains.

To this end, the current study analyzed the serum samples from clinically diagnosed cases of CTDs sent to our lab to detect ANA by IIF (ANA-IIF). We further performed ENA (Extracted Nuclear Antigen or LIA)-profile using an immunoblot strip, and results were correlated.


   Method Top


Serum samples of suspected connective tissue disorder patients (CTDs) sent for ANA-IIF testing and ENA profiling over a period of 36 months (from February 2017 to March 2020) were included in this study. Subjects were from sub-Himalayan region (Garhwal area) referred by various specialties (Rheumatology, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Dermatology, Nephrology, etc.) of our institute. Non-CTD/unknown diagnosis cases were excluded from the study. ANA-IIF was performed using Euroimmune Mosaic HEp-20-10 and Primate liver cell (PLC) substrate (Euroimmune AG, Germany, Lübeck) as per kit insert instruction. Serum was diluted in a ratio of 1:100. Slides were examined under a fluorescent microscope at 400× magnifications. The fluorescence intensity was scored semi-quantitatively from 1+ to 4+ relative to the positive control (4+). All samples were further tested by LIA using Euroline ANA profile 3 (Euroimmune AG, Germany, Lübeck) for ENA profile targets as per instruction in the kit insert [See [Supplementary Figure 1]]. Diluted sera (1:100) was used and the strip used had targets like nRNP/Sm (nuclear Ribonucleoprotein/Smith antigen), Sm (Smith antigen), SSA (Ro/Sjogren Syndrome A antigen), Ro-52 (Ro antigen subset with 52 KDa size), SSB (La/Sjogren Syndrome B antigen), Scl-70 (Scleroderma antigen of 70 KDa size), PM-Scl (Polymyositis Scleroderma antigen), PCNA (Poliferating cell nuclear antigen), Jo-1 (myositis specific antibody target), CENP-B (Centromere protein type B), dsDNA (double stranded DNA), nucleosomes, histones, ribosomal protein-P, anti-mitochondrial antibodies (also called AMA-M2), and controls. The intensity of the reaction was analyzed using image analysis software EURO Line Scan (Ver. 3.4.30, Euroimmun AG, Germany, Lübeck). Distribution and correlation between ANA patterns and ENA profile findings were analyzed by various statistical methods like percentage descripton (for distribution), Wilcoxon signed-rank test/Kruskal test (Association study), Spearman's correlation, and so on using a SPSS package (Version 23, IBM, USA). Ethics Committee clearance for this retrospective analysis was obtained on 28 November 2020.




   Result Top


During the study period, we received 2150 serum samples for ANA testing. Out of it, 312 cases [Figure 1] fulfilled the study criteria of patients with suspected CTDs, undergoing both ANA-IIF (Principal ANA-IIF patterns are shown in [Figure 2]) and LIA. As shown in [Figure 1], about 193 (61.9%) cases were both IIF and LIA positive, and in 40 (12.8%) subjects, both the results were negative with concordance in 233 (74.7%). IIF positive and LIA negative was found in 47 (15.1%), while IIF negative and LIA positive result was obtained in 32 (10.3%).
Figure 1: Study flow diagram

Click here to view
Figure 2: Principal ANA-IIF patterns observed in the current study (Panel = a. Nuclear homogenous, b. Nuclear granular (Speckled), c. Centromere, d. Nucleus nuclear, e. Positive control, and f. Negative control)

Click here to view


[Table 1] is presenting the LIA results in 240 ANA positive samples.
Table 1: ANA-IIF positivity

Click here to view


The speckled and nuclear homogenous patterns followed by nucleolar and mitosis positive patterns were predominant in both LIA positive and LIA negative subgroups. A significant association was observed between ANA patterns and LIA positivity (p < 0.01) in ANA positive samples.

As shown in [Table 2], ds-DNA, Nucleosome, and Histones were the primary ENA targets in the nuclear homogenous pattern, while SSA, SSB, nRNP/Sm, Sm, and PCNA were the predominant ENA detected in the speckled pattern [Table 3]. However, [Table 4] is showing ENA targets linked to other ANA-IFA patterns. Three CENP-B positive cases had centromere patterns, though four more centromere-patterned cases had no ENA target detected [see [Table 1]]. Scl-70 and Pm-Scl were the principal ENA targets detected in the nucleus nucleolar ANA-IIF pattern, though no targets were detected in 11/30 (36.7%) of such cases [see [Table 1]]. About 3/11 (27.1%) mitosis positive cases had detectable ENA targets [Table 1] and [Table 3], while in other patterns (cytoplasmic, dotted, etc.), predominantly cytoplasmic (AMA-M2, Jo-1, Ro-52, etc.) and mixed targets were detected [Table 4]. In ANA-IIF negative cases, ds-DNA was detected predominantly 12/32 (37.5%), followed by SSA in 7/32 (21.9%) and PCNA 4/32 (12.5%) [see [Table 5]].
Table 2: ENA profile linked to the homogenous nuclear pattern (n=49)

Click here to view
Table 3: ENA profile linked to nuclear granular pattern (n=86)

Click here to view
Table 4: ENA profiled linked to ANA-IIF patterns like Centromere, Nucleolar, mitosis positive, and others

Click here to view
Table 5: ENA profile linked to negative ANA -IIF cases (n=32)

Click here to view


A significant difference in detection of ENA targets among different ANA patterns was observed, with the highest detection of double ENA targets in speckled (nuclear granular) pattern followed by Nuclear homogenous and Nucleolar patterns [Table 6]. Single ENA targets were highly observed among Nuclear homogenous IIF patterns followed by Speckled and other patterns. Speckled patterns were also found to have three or more ENA targets. ENA target detection frequency in speckled patterns was significantly different from that of Nuclear homogenous, Nucleolar, and Other ANA-IIF patterns (p < 0.01) (Wilcoxon).
Table 6: Frequency of ENA detection among ANA patterns

Click here to view


Correlation between ENAs among all ANA patterns

Spearman's correlation was performed for inter-relationship between ENAs [Supplementary Table 1] - nRNP/sm was significantly correlated with Sm, and SSA was found to be significantly correlated with Ro52 and SSB. A significant correlation between Ro52 and Ribosomal Protein P was observed, while dsDNA and Histones were significantly correlated with Nucleosome.




   Discussions Top


ANA-IIF patterns are linked to autoantibodies to nuclear antigens.[7],[8] Additional tests targeting specific antibodies (to nuclear/cytoplasmic antigens) are often asked for – for a more specific diagnosis (specificity) or to delineate a subset with a different course of action (prognostic markers) and different management approaches.[9] In certain situations, the ANA-IIF pattern may throw up a wide array of diagnostic possibilities; additional tests may be needed for pinpoint diagnosis. These additional tests can exclude some grave systematic diseases (negative predictive value) or may help to settle down to a particular condition (disease specificity).[9] ANA-IIF is most commonly performed on HEp-2 cell lines from cultured human laryngeal epithelial carcinoma as these are more sensitive to ANAs than many other cell lines used earlier. Biochips incorporating HEp-2 cells and primate liver cells can be useful to obviate false positivity. Transfected cell line HEp-20-10 makes the system more sensitive to specific targets like SSA, SSB, and so on.[2] In a developing country like India with testing being performed in both CTDs and those without features of CTDs, it is very pertinent to resort to a price-conscious reliable screening test protocol. ANA-IIF is much cheaper than LIA and can be an ideal screening test for our situation. Given the situation, this study evaluated the diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of ANA-IIF.

Earlier, one study in India found a homogenous nuclear pattern (45.5%) in the presence of LIA finding of dsDNA, Nucleosome and histone; speckled pattern (35.6%) was observed with Sm, nRNP, SSA/Ro-52, SSB, and so on; nucleolar pattern with Scl-70, Sm and centromere pattern with CENP-B. A definitive correlation between ANA patterns and LIA finding was observed.[4] In Bangladesh also, a strong association between Nuclear homogenous pattern with anti-dsDNA (p < 0.05), speckled pattern with antibodies like anti RNAP, anti-SSA & SSB were detected.[10] Another study found speckled (42.5%) in maximum cases followed by homogenous (41.4%) and nucleolar (10.6%) pattern.[11] Definite association of the speckled pattern with targets like Sm, RNP, SSA/Ro, or SSB/La was established. The other report in Iran also concluded a similar association between speckled pattern and ribonucleoprotein.[12] They identified anti-dsDNA antibodies exclusively linked to samples with homogeneous ANA pattern. The nucleolar pattern showed an association with anti-Scl-70. However, one recent study from Pakistan found no specific ANA pattern was associated with any particular LIA/ENA targets.[13] They found Speckled to be the most common ANA pattern and Anti SS-A the commonest ENA.

Our finding of 47 cases (14.9%) of positive results in ANA-IIF but negative in LIA [Table 1] is similar to some other works and it was ascribed to an excess of dsDNA.[9],[11] But in the latter studies (including the current one), LIA strips were incorporated with dsDNA indicating some other target (other than dsDNA). In the current study, most LIA negative ANA-IIF positive cases belong to nuclear homogenous (12/47, i.e., 36.2%) and nucleolar (11/47, i.e., 27.7%). There may be a sensitivity issue in the LIA strip for nuclear homogenous pattern targets (dsDNA etc.), as detected by a recent Bangkok (Thailand)-based study.[14] Similarly, some important targets for the nucleolar pattern (e.g., fibrillarin, NOR-90, etc.) are not included in this LIA strip (ENA-blot assay) used in current work.[14],[15]

We found 32 cases (10.2%) with LIA blot providing positive result, but ANA-IIF was negative. The majority of such cases (12/32, i.e., 37.5%) were dsDNA positive followed by SSA and Ro-52 detection, singly or in combination, (7/32, i.e., 21.9%) in the blot [Table 5]. Similar dsDNA finding was observed by Sharmin et al.,[10] which was explained by the rise of antibodies during disease flares. Earlier, Hoffman et al.[15] found that the LIA assays could detect SSA/Ro-52 more efficiently than ANA-IIF, even after using modified HEp-2000.[4] About four cases of PCNA was negative in ANA- IIF, which can be explained by the fact that speckled pattern due to antibody to PCNA is often difficult to elicit in IIF preparation. Out of 10 LIA (ENA) positive PCNA cases, we detected six (60%) speckled pattern and missed four (40%) in ANA-IIF [see [Table 2] and [Table 5]. We may miss crucial systemic sclerosis-related anti-Scl-70, anti-Jo-1, etc., in ANA-IIF unless cytoplasmic patterns are also given priority in routine work. Hence, cytoplasmic patterns are essential to look for, especially when ANA are reported negative.[16]

Earlier, a study from north India in 2019 found clear associations of ANA-IIF patterns and specific autoantibodies to have high predictibilty for an accurate diagnosis of CTDs.[17] With availability of clinical information our current study data can reveal similar information, extremely useful for patient care set-up. Another study from Northern India (few years back) found targets like SSA, SSB, SSA/SSB, Ro-52, Jo-1 and dsDNA, nRNP/Sm may be missed (i.e. no pattern) by ANA-IIF in a minority of cases (only 3.4%) – a finding very relevant to our results and also conforming other studies.[18],[4] In this regard to ward off errors, one recent study in United States found specific need to enhance competency in reporting two patterns—mitosis and cytoplasmic. Both the patterns (especially first one) are very relevant in Indian perspective.[19] One study from Brazil earlier found some relevance of titer (esp. in ruling out healthy individuals) beside ANA pattern predicting CTDs.[20]


   Conclusions Top


In our population, ANA-IFA can be useful for the initial prediction of clinically relevant antibodies in suspected CTDs. This could be a cost-effective and accurate screening test for patients with an autoimmune disease in our set-up (Suggested flow is given at [Figure 3]). Anti-cytoplasmic antibody screening during ANA-IIF testing can provide important information, especially in ANA–negative cases. Immunoblot (ENA-profile) can be reserved for clinically suspected cases with uncommon presentation or overlap syndrome.
Figure 3: Suggested testing flow

Click here to view


Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the authority of AIIMS Rishikesh for allowing us to do this study. Also, we express our thankfulness to CPC diagnostics for technical bits of help.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Campochiaro C, Derrett-Smith EC. Autoantibodies in autoimmune rheumatic disease. Medicine 2018;46:78-83.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Rohwäder E, Locke M, Fraune J, Fechner K. Diagnostic profile on the IFA 40: HEp-20-10-An immunofluorescence test for reliable antinuclear antibody screening. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2015;15:451-62.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Wei Q, Jiang Y, Xie J, Lv Q, Xie Y, Tu L, et al. Analysis of antinuclear antibody titers and patterns by using HEp-2 and primate liver tissue substrate indirect immunofluorescence assay in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. J Clin Lab Anal 2020;34:e23546.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sebastian W, Roy A, Kini U, Mullick S. Correlation of antinuclear antibody immunofluorescence patterns with immune profile using line immunoassay in the Indian scenario. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2010;53:427-32.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Bonaguri C, Melegari A, Ballabio A, Parmeggiani M, Russo A, Battistelli L, et al. Italian multicentre study for application of a diagnostic algorithm in autoantibody testing for autoimmune rheumatic disease: Conclusive results. Autoimmun Rev 2011;11:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Stinton LM, Fritzler MJ. A clinical approach to autoantibody testing in systemic autoimmune rheumatic disorders. Autoimmun Rev 2007;7:77-84.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Arbuckle MR, McClain MT, Rubertone MV, Scofield RH, Dennis GJ, James JA, et al. Development of autoantibodies before the clinical onset of systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1526-33.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Emlen W, O'Neill L. Clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies: Comparison of detection with immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1612-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Vo 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.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sharmin S, Ahmed S, Abu Saleh A, Rahman F, Choudhury MR, Hassan MM. Association of immunofluorescence pattern of antinuclear antibody with specific autoantibodies in the Bangladeshi population. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2014;40:74-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Peene I, Meheus L, Veys EM, De Keyser F. Detection and identification of Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in a large and consecutive cohort of serum samples referred for ANA testing. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:1131-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Mutasim DF, Adams BB. A practical guide for serologic evaluation of autoimmune connective tissue diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;42:159-74; quiz 174-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Tipu HN, Bashir MM. Determination of specificity and pattern of Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in systemic rheumatic disease patients positive for ANA testing. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2018;28:40-3.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Wongjarit K, Thammacharoenrach N, Dityen K, Kaewopas Y, Kositpesat N, Ukritchon S, et al. Determination of specific autoantibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus by line immunoassay, ELISA and CLIF assay. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol 2020. doi: 10.12932/AP-301019-0681. Online ahead of print.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Hoffman IE, Peene I, Veys EM, De Keyser F. Detection of specific antinuclear reactivities in patients with negative anti-nuclear antibody immunofluorescence screening tests. Clin Chem 2002;48:2171-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Slater CA, Davis RB, Shmerling RH. Antinuclear antibody testing. A study of clinical utility. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1421-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Chauhan R, Jain D, Dorwal P, Roy G, Raina V, Nandi SP. The incidence of immunofluorescence patterns and specific autoantibodies observed in autoimmune patients in a tertiary care centre. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;51:165-73.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Minz RW, Kumar Y, Saikia B, Anand S, Varma S, Singh S. Use of panel testing for detection of antinuclear antibody in a resource-limited setting: An appraisal. Postgrad Med 2016;128:869-74.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Tebo AE, Schmidt RL, Kadkhoda K, Peterson LK, Chan EKL, Fritzler MJ, et al. The antinuclear antibody HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assay: A survey of laboratory performance, pattern recognition and interpretation. Autoimmun Highlights 2021;12:4.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Mariz HA, Sato EI, Barbosa SH, Rodrigues SH, Dellavance A, Andrade LE. Pattern on the antinuclear antibody-HEp-2 test is a critical parameter for discriminating antinuclear antibody-positive healthy individuals and patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:191-200.  Back to cited text no. 20
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Deepjyoti Kalita
Department of Microbiology, AIIMS Rishikesh, Virbhadra Road, Rishikesh - 249203, Uttarakhand
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_1475_20

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Method
   Result
   Discussions
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed290    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal