An overview of the anti-DNA antibody workshop: expansion of molecular structural analysis

The greatest contribution to medical science is the transformation from studying symptoms to studying their causes-the unrelenting legacy of Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur-and a causality perspective to approach a definition of SLE

The basic initiative related to this study is derived from the fact that systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a unique and fertile system science subject. We are, however, still far from understanding its nature. It may be fair to indicate that we are spending more time and resources on studying the complexity of classified SLE than studying the validity of classification criteria. This study represents a theoretical analysis of current instinctual SLE classification criteria based on "the causality principle." The discussion has its basis on the radical scientific traditions introduced by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur. They announced significant changes in our thinking of disease etiology through the implementation of the modern version of "the causality principle." They influenced all aspects of today's medical concepts and research: the transformation of medical science from studies of symptoms to study their causes, relevant for monosymptomatic diseases as for syndromes. Their studies focused on bacteria as causes of infectious diseases and on how the immune system adapts to control and prevent contagious spreading. This is the most significant paradigm shift in the modern history of medicine and resulted in radical changes in our view of the immune system. They described acquired post-infection immunity and active immunization by antigen-specific vaccines. The paradigm "transformation" has a great theoretical impact also on current studies of autoimmune diseases like SLE: symptoms and their cause(s). In this study, the evolution of SLE classification and diagnostic criteria is discussed from "the causality principle" perspective, and if contemporary SLE classification criteria are as useful as believed today for SLE research. This skepticism is based on the fact that classification criteria are not selected based on cogent causal strategies. The SLE classification criteria do not harmonize with Koch's and Pasteur's causality principle paradigms and not with Witebsky's Koch-derived postulates for autoimmune and infectious diseases. It is not established whether the classification criteria can separate SLE as a "one disease entity" from "SLE-like non-SLE disorders"-the latter in terms of SLE imitations. This is discussed here in terms of weight, rank, and impact of the classification criteria: Do they all originate from "one basic causal etiology"? Probably not.

Autoimmunity and SLE: Factual and Semantic Evidence-Based Critical Analyses of Definitions, Etiology, and Pathogenesis

One cannot discuss anti-dsDNA antibodies and lupus nephritis without discussing the nature of Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). SLE is insistently described as a prototype autoimmune syndrome, with anti-dsDNA antibodies as a central biomarker and a pathogenic factor. The two entities, "SLE" and "The Anti-dsDNA Antibody," have been linked in previous and contemporary studies although serious criticism to this mutual linkage have been raised: Anti-dsDNA antibodies were first described in bacterial infections and not in SLE; later in SLE, viral and parasitic infections and in malignancies. An increasing number of studies on classification criteria for SLE have been published in the aftermath of the canonical 1982 American College of Rheumatology SLE classification sets of criteria. Considering these studies, it is surprising to observe a nearby complete absence of fundamental critical/theoretical discussions aimed to explain how and why the classification criteria are linked in context of etiology, pathogenicity, or biology. This study is an attempt to prioritize critical comments on the contemporary definition and classification of SLE and of anti-dsDNA antibodies in context of lupus nephritis. Epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, and measures of therapy efficacy are implemented as problems in the present discussion. In order to understand whether or not disparate clinical SLE phenotypes are useful to determine its basic biological processes accounting for the syndrome is problematic. A central problem is discussed on whether the clinical role of anti-dsDNA antibodies from principal reasons can be accepted as a biomarker for SLE without clarifying what we define as an anti-dsDNA antibody, and in which biologic contexts the antibodies appear. In sum, this study is an attempt to bring to the forum critical comments on the contemporary definition and classification of SLE, lupus nephritis and anti-dsDNA antibodies. Four concise hypotheses are suggested for future science at the end of this analytical study.

The dsDNA, Anti-dsDNA Antibody, and Lupus Nephritis: What We Agree on, What Must Be Done, and What the Best Strategy Forward Could Be

This study aims to understand what lupus nephritis is, its origin, clinical context, and its pathogenesis. Truly, we encounter many conceptual and immanent tribulations in our attempts to search for the pathogenesis of this disease—and how to explain its assumed link to SLE. Central in the present landscape stay a short history of the early studies that substantiated the structures of isolated or chromatin-assembled mammalian dsDNA, and its assumed, highly controversial role in induction of anti-dsDNA antibodies. Arguments discussed here may provoke the view that anti-dsDNA antibodies are not what we think they are, as they may be antibodies operational in quite different biological contexts, although they bind dsDNA by chance. This may not mean that these antibodies are not pathogenic but they do not inform how they are so. This theoretical study centers the content around the origin and impact of extra-cellular DNA, and if dsDNA has an effect on the adaptive immune system. The pathogenic potential of chromatin-anti-dsDNA antibody interactions is limited to incite lupus nephritis and dermatitis which may be linked in a common pathogenic process. These are major criteria in SLE classification systems but are not shared with other defined manifestations in SLE, which may mean that they are their own disease entities, and not integrated in SLE. Today, the models thought to explain lupus nephritis are divergent and inconsistent. We miss a comprehensive perspective to try the different models against each other. To do this, we need to take all elements of the syndrome SLE into account. This can only be achieved by concentrating on the interactions between autoimmunity, immunopathology, deviant cell death and necrotic chromatin in context of elements of system science. System science provides a framework where data generated by experts can be compared, and tested against each other. This approach open for consensus on central elements making up “lupus nephritis” to separate what we agree on and how to understand the basis for conflicting models. This has not been done yet in a systematic context.