z-logo
Premium
Automated enzymatic mitochondrial antibody assay for the diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis: Applications of a routine diagnostic tool for the detection of antimitochondrial antibodies
Author(s) -
HAZAMA HIROAKI,
OMAGARI KATSUHISA,
MASUDA JUNICHI,
OHBA KAZUO,
KINOSHITA HIDEKI,
MATSUO ISAO,
ISOMOTO HAJIME,
MIZUTA YOHEI,
MURASE KUNIHIKO,
MURATA IKUO,
KOHNO SHIGERU
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2002.02700.x
Subject(s) - antibody , primary biliary cirrhosis , immunofluorescence , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , enzyme , immunoglobulin g , immunoglobulin m , immunoassay , immunology , biology , biochemistry
Background and Aims: An automated enzymatic mitochondrial antibody assay (EMA) kit for the diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) has become commercially available recently. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of the enzyme inhibition assay using this EMA kit for the diagnosis of PBC. Methods: We tested the immunoreactivity of sera from 54 histologically confirmed Japanese PBC patients to the 2‐oxo‐acid dehydrogenase complex (2‐OADC) enzymes by enzyme inhibition assay using commercially available TRACE (EMA) assay kit, and compared the results with those of indirect immunofluorescence, commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using MESACUP Mitochondria M2 kit, and immunoblotting on bovine heart mitochondria. Results: Of the 54 sera, 43 (80%) were positive for antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) by immunofluorescence, 39 (72%) for enzymatic inhibitory antibody to pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) by EMA, 33 (61%) for immunoglobulin G (IgG) class anti‐PDC antibody by ELISA, and 53 (98%) for IgG, IgM, or IgA class antibodies against at least one of the 2‐OADC enzymes by immunoblotting. Of these, 43 (80%) were positive for IgG, IgM, or IgA class antibodies against the E2 subunit of PDC (PDC‐E2) by immunoblotting. Thirty‐six of the 54 sera (67%) showed identical results in all of the four assays, and 40 (74%) were all negative or positive by EMA, ELISA, and immunoblotting in PDC‐relevant reactivity. There was a significant correlation between the number of detected immunoglobulin classes of anti‐PDC‐E2 by immunoblotting and anti‐PDC by EMA ( P < 0.0001), and a significant inverse correlation between IgG class anti‐PDC by ELISA and units of PDC activity by EMA ( r = −0.87, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Although EMA had lower sensitivity compared with immunofluorescence and immunoblotting, this assay should be included among the routine diagnostic tools for the detection of AMA specific to PBC in clinical laboratories because of its high specificity, objective read‐out, and rapid turnaround time. © 2002 Blackwell Science Asia Pty Ltd

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here