Antiendothelial cell antibodies (AECA) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

Immune deposition of C1q and anti-C1q antibodies in the kidney is dependent on the presence of glomerular IgG

Anti-C1q autoantibodies are found frequently in patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and several studies indicate that these autoantibodies are associated with renal involvement. We have shown earlier that administration of anti-C1q antibodies to normal BALB/c mice results in the deposition of these antibodies and C1q in the kidney. In the present study we have investigated which factors are essential for this C1q-anti-C1q deposition. Injection of anti-C1q antibodies in C57BL/6 mice results in deposition of both C1q and anti-C1q in glomeruli, while administration of equal concentrations of anti-C1q to immunoglobulin deficient Rag2-/- mice did not result in deposition of anti-C1q antibodies. Analysis of renal sections of naive Rag2-/- mice revealed absence of mouse IgG and C1q in the glomeruli, while circulating C1q was within normal levels. Reconstitution of Rag2-/- mice with IgG, either by injection with purified mouse IgG or by splenocyte transfer, resulted in restored localization of mouse IgG together with C1q in the kidney. Subsequent injection of anti-C1q antibodies in these IgG reconstituted mice resulted in clear deposition of C1q together with anti-C1q in the kidneys comparable to that found in C57BL/6 mice receiving anti-C1q. We propose that the continuous presence of serum derived non-immune IgG in the glomerulus serves as a target for low affinity interactions with C1q, which then can serve as antigen for anti-C1q antibodies. Therefore we hypothesize that high and fluctuating levels of IgG as observed in patients with SLE may contribute to flares of renal inflammation in those patients with anti-C1q autoantibodies.

Endothelial cell-binding activity of anti-U1-ribonucleoprotein antibodies in patients with connective tissue diseases

In order to elucidate the immunological properties of anti-U1-ribonucleoprotein (RNP) antibody, one of the autoantibodies detected in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs), we tested the endothelial cell-binding by anti-U1-RNP antibodies and epitopes on human pulmonary artery endothelial cells (HPAECs) to which the autoantibody bound. IgG fractions positive for anti-U1-RNP from patients with CTDs bound to the HPAECs. Furthermore, intact and F(ab')2 IgG anti-U1-RNP purified by affinity chromatography also bound to endothelial cells. The binding activity of IgG fractions positive for anti-U1-RNP to the endothelial cells could be effectively absorbed by U1-RNP-Sepharose. An immunoblotting assay of purified IgG anti-U1-RNP antibodies showed that these antibodies could bind to various membrane proteins of NP40-treated HPAECs such as 68, 48, 43, 38, 33, 29, 28 and 24 kDa. Some bands, 68, 33, 28 and 24 kDa, seemed to correspond to components of U1-RNP, i.e. 68 kDa, A, B' and C peptides, respectively. We confirmed that the anti-U1-RNP antibody from patients with CTDs can directly recognize a variety of antigens on the endothelial surface of the pulmonary artery, including the components of U1-RNP or other unknown polypeptides. These results suggest that binding to pulmonary artery endothelial cells of this autoantibody may be one of the triggers of endothelial cell inflammation in CTDs.

Autoantibodies Associated with Rheumatic Diseases

The identification of circulating autoantibodies contributes to the correct diagnosis as well as to the follow-up of rheumatic diseases. Some autoantibodies are even included in diagnostic and classification criteria for these types of autoimmune diseases. There are several relatively specific screening and identification methods for the measurement of autoantibodies available. The type of assay crucially influences the diagnostic value of the parameters. In general, routine laboratories should prefer enzyme immunoassays (ELISA) using well characterized antigens, although ELISA tests tend to produce more false-positive and true weakly positive results, which reduce their positive predictive value. Therefore one should be aware that laboratory results can only be properly interpreted when there is a correlation with the clinical situation and when the limitations of the technologies used for autoantibody identification have been taken into consideration. A diagnostic algorithm consisting of screening and identification steps should be established by each laboratory in order to create a rational, evidence-based and cost-effective basis for the diagnosis of rheumatic diseases.