Optimising testing for phospholipid antibodies

Spliced XBP1 Rescues Renal Interstitial Inflammation Due to Loss of Sec63 in Collecting Ducts

BACKGROUND

SEC63 encodes a resident protein in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane that, when mutated, causes human autosomal dominant polycystic liver disease. Selective inactivation of Sec63 in all distal nephron segments in embryonic mouse kidney results in polycystin-1-mediated polycystic kidney disease (PKD). It also activates the Ire1α-Xbp1 branch of the unfolded protein response, producing Xbp1s, the active transcription factor promoting expression of specific genes to alleviate endoplasmic reticulum stress. Simultaneous inactivation of Xbp1 and Sec63 worsens PKD in this model.

METHODS

We explored the renal effects of postnatal inactivation of Sec63 alone or with concomitant inactivation of Xbp1 or Ire1α, specifically in the collecting ducts of neonatal mice.

RESULTS

The later onset of inactivation of Sec63 restricted to the collecting duct does not result in overt activation of the Ire1α-Xbp1 pathway or cause polycystin-1-dependent PKD. Inactivating Sec63 along with either Xbp1 or Ire1α in this model causes interstitial inflammation and associated fibrosis with decline in kidney function over several months. Re-expression of XBP1s in vivo completely rescues the chronic kidney injury observed after inactivation of Sec63 with either Xbp1 or Ire1α.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of Sec63, basal levels of Xbp1s activity in collecting ducts is both necessary and sufficient to maintain proteostasis (protein homeostasis) and protect against inflammation, myofibroblast activation, and kidney functional decline. The Sec63-Xbp1 double knockout mouse offers a novel genetic model of chronic tubulointerstitial kidney injury, using collecting duct proteostasis defects as a platform for discovery of signals that may underlie CKD of disparate etiologies.

Clinical Application of Revised Laboratory Classification Criteria for Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome: Is the Follow-Up Interval of 12 Weeks Instead of 6 Weeks Significantly Useful?

Background. According to revised classification criteria of true antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, at least one of three antiphospholipid antibodies should be present on two or more occasions at least 12 weeks apart. However, it can be inconvenient to perform follow-up tests with interval of 12 weeks. We investigated clinical application of follow-up tests with interval of 12 weeks. Method. Totals of 67, 199, and 332 patients tested positive initially for the lupus anticoagulants confirm, the anti-β 2 glycoprotein-I antibody, and the anti-cardiolipin antibody test, respectively, from Jan 2007 to Jul 2009. We investigated clinical symptoms of patients, follow-up interval, and results of each test. Results. Among patients with initial test positive, 1.5%-8.5% were subjected to follow-up tests at interval of more than 12 weeks. Among 25 patients with negative conversion in tests, patients with interval of more than 12 weeks showed clinical symptom positivity of 33.3%, which was higher than that of 12.5% with 6-12 weeks. Among 34 patients with persistent test positive, clinical symptoms positivity trended to be more evident in patients at interval of 6-12 weeks (47.4% versus 26.7%, P = 0.191) than more than 12 weeks. Conclusion. Less than 10% of patients with initial test positive had follow-up tests at interval of more than 12 weeks and the patients with persistent test positive at interval of more than 12 weeks showed trends toward having lower clinical symptoms than 6-12 weeks. More research is needed focused on the evidence that follow-up test at interval of more than 12 weeks should be performed instead of 6 weeks.

Laboratory testing for the antiphospholipid syndrome: making sense of antiphospholipid antibody assays

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition characterised by a wide range of clinical features (primarily thrombosis and/or obstetric related), associated with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) as detected by a diverse range of laboratory tests. APS remains a significant diagnostic challenge for clinicians across a wide range of specialities, largely due to issues related to laboratory testing as well as the expanding range of reported clinical manifestations of APS. The laboratory issues include limitations in detailed knowledge by both clinical and laboratory personnel regarding the 'complete' range of available aPL tests, as well as ongoing problems with assay reproducibility and standardisation. aPL are identified using diverse laboratory procedures based on one of two distinct test processes, namely solid phase and liquid phase assays. The former includes anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) and anti-β(2)-glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ(2)GPI). The latter are centred on clot-based tests that are used to identify the so-called lupus anticoagulant (LA). This article will discuss: (i) issues related to laboratory testing for APS in terms of the currently available solid-phase and liquid-phase assays, and identifiable biases resulting from these tests usually being performed in different laboratories; (ii) current problems with calibration, standardisation and reproducibility of these assays; (iii) pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical considerations and ongoing initiatives for improvement; (iv) issues related to potential combinations/panels of available aPL tests; and (v) the entities of seropositive APS, seronegative APS and non-APS aPL-positivity. In doing so, this review will hopefully help bridge the two disciplines of haematology and immunology ('representing' liquid-phase and solid-phase aPL testing, respectively), by improving the understanding of those working in each of these disciplines of the merits and limitations of the assays performed in the other discipline, and encouraging inter-discipline cooperation in the reporting of aPL test results.

The antiphospholipid syndrome: a large elephant with many parts or an elusive chameleon disguised by many colours?

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by a range of clinical features (primarily thrombosis and/or obstetric-related), together with the presence of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) as detected by a diverse range of laboratory tests. APS remains a significant diagnostic and management challenge for clinicians across a wide range of specialties, some 30 years after APS was first described as a discrete clinical entity. This is due to ongoing issues regarding nomenclature, the diagnosis of APS in individual patients, the expanding range of recognized clinical manifestations and of APS-related laboratory tests, and management issues in particular APS patient subgroups (including obstetric and catastrophic APS). In addition to the presence of appropriate clinical features, the diagnosis of APS fundamentally requires the finding of positive aPL test result(s), which is hampered by ongoing problems with assay reproducibility and standardization. This review focuses on ongoing dilemmas and issues related to clinical and laboratory aspects of APS including: (1) diagnostic challenges posed by the protean clinical manifestations of APS; (2) current nomenclature and recent proposals for revision of the 2006 international classification criteria; (3) an overview of some key issues related to aPL testing; (4) potential pitfalls of applying the APS classification criteria as diagnostic criteria; and (5) the controversial subgroups of seronegative APS and non-APS aPL positivity.

Antiphospholipid antibodies: laboratory and pathogenetic aspects

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) constitute a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies that share the ability to bind phospholipids (PL) alone, protein-PL complexes, or PL-binding proteins. They have been detected in isolation, in association with autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and during the course of different infections. aPL have been associated with an array of clinical manifestations in virtually every organ, although deep vein and arterial thrombosis as well as pregnancy morbidity are predominant. The co-occurrence of these clinical findings with aPL constitutes the so-called antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). aPL can be detected by immunological methods [e.g., anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL)] or by functional methods that exploit the effect of aPL on blood coagulation [lupus anticoagulant (LA)]. Since aPL are heterogeneous, numerous immunological and coagulation assays have been developed. These assays have not been fully standardized, and, therefore, problems such as high interlaboratory variation are relatively frequent. Recently, recommendations have been published regarding LA and aCL testing. Not all aPL are pathogenic. However, when they are not associated with infections, they have a role in the pathogenesis of APS. Clinical and experimental data have shown that aPL exert their pathogenic activity by interfering with the function of coagulation factors, such as thrombin and factors X, XI and XII, and with the function of anticoagulant proteins of the protein C system. In addition, aPL interaction with platelets and endothelial cells induces a pro-adhesive activated phenotype.

Current debates in antiphospholipid syndrome: the acquired antibody-mediated thrombophilia

Antiphospholipid (APL) syndrome is the most common form of acquired thrombophilia. It can cause significant morbidity and even mortality. The term "APL antibodies" represents a heterogeneous group of antibodies associated with this disorder. Currently no single assay can identify every APL antibody. Clinically relevant APL antibodies are mainly anticardiolipin antibodies (ACA) detected by solid phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lupus anticoagulants (LA) demonstrated by in vitro coagulation assay. However, there are some other antibodies associated with the APL syndrome (i.e., subgroup APL antibodies). ACAs, LAs, and subgroup APL antibodies represent intersecting, but non-identical, subsets of autoantibodies. Thus, those autoantibodies may coexist or may occur independently. Any organ system and any size of vessel can be affected during the clinical course of the disease. Therefore, the APL syndrome can manifest itself in a wide variety of clinical thrombotic features. Fetal loss and pregnancy morbidity represent a specific challenge. Despite tremendous advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of APL syndrome during the past decade, the mainstay of management is still anticoagulation. However, there is no general agreement regarding the duration and intensity of anti-coagulant therapy. In this review, we focused on the current dilemmas and their present clarifications in the wide clinicopathologic spectrum of APL syndrome and APL antibody-related distinct pathologic conditions.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and atherosclerosis

Antiphospholipid antibodies (APA) are present in a variety of autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Increasing evidence suggests that a subset of APA can also be detected in patients with atherosclerosis. In this review, we discuss the specificities of the autoantibodies that are present during both APS and atherosclerosis. A critical and unresolved question is whether these APA are specific for epitopes that result from lipid oxidation. Despite the fact that APA are present in patients with systemic autoimmunity and that they may participate in the pathogenesis of APS, recent studies have paradoxically proposed a beneficial role for some APA in atherosclerosis. We review the evidence that some APA specificities may be protective against plaque formation, and we discuss the putative mechanisms by which some APA could be useful in the prevention of atherosclerosis.

Beta-2 glycoprotein I and its role in antiphospholipid syndrome—lessons from knockout mice

The antiphospholipid syndrome is characterized by the presence in serum of autoantibodies against beta2GPI. Although the role of beta2GPI in the pathogenesis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) is well recognized, its exact physiological functions still remain undisclosed. Several interactions of beta2GPI with components of the coagulation cascade have been proposed, resulting in both procoagulant and anticoagulant effects. Additionally, beta2GPI has been implicated in the mechanism of recurrent fetal loss entailed in APS. Recently, using a homologous recombination approach, reproduction of mice homozygous for deletion of the beta2GPI gene has been feasible. beta2GPI knockout mice offer a valuable tool for revealing the physiological role of the protein. These mice show decreased in vitro ability for thrombin generation. Furthermore, although mice lacking beta2GPI are fertile, the success of early pregnancy is moderately compromised and functional beta2GPI is believed necessary for optimal implantation and placental morphogenesis.

Anti-cardiolipin antibodies in sera from patients with periodontitis

Antiphospholipid antibodies are commonly found in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or the antiphospholipid syndrome, and a subset of such antibodies is associated with prothrombotic events such as stroke and with adverse pregnancy outcomes and fetal loss. We examined sera from 411 patients who were clinically characterized as to their periodontal disease status for serum levels of beta2-glycoprotein I-dependent anti-cardiolipin autoantibodies (anti-CL). The prevalence of patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) and generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAgP) positive for anti-CL (16.2% and 19.3%, respectively) was greater than that in healthy controls (NP) and localized aggressive periodontitis (LAgP) patients (6.8% and 3.2%). Patients with these autoantibodies demonstrated increased pocket depth and attachment loss compared with patients lacking the antibodies. Analysis of the data indicates that patients with generalized periodontitis have elevated levels of autoantibodies reactive with phospholipids. These antibodies could be involved in elevated risk for stroke, atherosclerosis, or pre-term birth in periodontitis patients.

Recent advances in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibodies are autoantibodies directed against anionic phospholipids or protein-phospholipid complexes measured in solid-phase immunoassays such as anticardiolipin (aCL) antibody or detected in phospholipid-dependent clotting tests as lupus anticoagulant (LA). The term "antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)" was first coined to denote the clinical association between antiphospholipid antibodies and a syndrome of episodes of thrombosis in arteries and/or veins, pregnancy loss, and thrombocytopenia. The diagnosis of APS is based on the finding of "moderate-to-high" aCL antibody titer and/or an LA test with any one of the characteristic clinical features presented. Recently, the diagnostic criteria of APS was revised and several newer assays that use phosphatidylserine, a mixture of negatively charged phospholipids or beta2-glycoprotein 1 (beta2-GP1) have been proposed for more specific measurements of antibodies present in APS. In this section, recent progress in the laboratory diagnosis of antiphopholipid syndrome will be discussed.