Drs. Aggarwal and Oddis reply

Deciphering the Autoantibody Response to the OJ Antigenic Complex

(1) Background: Myositis specific antibodies (MSA) are important diagnostic biomarkers. Among the rarest and most challenging MSA are anti-OJ antibodies which are associated with anti-synthetase syndrome (ASS). In contrast to the other tRNA synthetases that are targets of ASS autoantibodies (e.g Jo-1, PL-7, PL-12, EJ, KS, Zo), OJ represents a macromolecular complex with several ribonucleoprotein subunits. Therefore, the choice of the antigen in autoantibody assays can be challenging. (2) Methods: We collected two independent cohorts with anti-OJ antibodies, one based on a commercial line immunoassay (LIA) (n = 39), the second based on protein immunoprecipitation (IP) (n = 15). Samples were tested using a particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT) system that allows for the simultaneous detection of antibodies to various autoantigens. For the detection of anti-OJ antibodies, two different antigens were deployed (KARS, IARS) on PMAT. The reactivity to the two antigens KARS and IARS was analyzed individually and combined in a score (sum of the median fluorescence intensities). (3) Results: In the cohort selection based on LIA, 3/39 (7.7%) samples were positive for anti-KARS and 7/39 (17.9%) for anti-IARS and 14/39 (35.9%) when the two antigens were combined. In contrast, in samples selected by IP the sensitivity of anti-KARS was higher: 6/15 (40.0%) samples were positive for anti-KARS, 4/15 (26.7%) for anti-IARS and 12/15 (80.0%) for the combination of the two antigens. 18/39 (46.2%) of the LIA samples generated a cytoplasmic IIF pattern (compatible with anti-synthetase antibodies), but there was no association with the antibody levels, neither with LIA nor with PMAT. (4) Conclusions: The combination of IARS and KARS might represent a promising approach for the detection of anti-OJ antibodies on a fully automated platform.

Comparison of Three Immunoassays for the Detection of Myositis Specific Antibodies

Objectives: Standardization of myositis specific antibody (MSA) detection is of high importance because these antibodies are relevant for diagnosis and stratification of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) and have the potential to be used in classification criteria. Many laboratories rely on immunoprecipitation (IP) for the detection of MSA but this approach is compromised by logistic, standardization, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, reliable alternatives to IP are mandatory. Here we aimed to compare three methods for the detection of MSA.

Methods: Our study initiated from a cohort of 1,619 IIM patients (BIRD/University of Bath serology service and UKMyoNet cohorts) and resulted in 157 unique serum samples enriched for higher prevalence of MSA characterized by the laboratory's routine methods, IP and line immunoassay (LIA: Euroimmun). All samples were tested using a novel fully automated particle-based multi-analyte technology (PMAT, Inova Diagnostics, research use only). Analyses included antibodies to PL-7, PL-12, SRP, NXP2, Mi-2, SAE, EJ, MDA5, TIF1γ, SRP, NXP2.

Results: Overall high agreements were observed between novel methods (LIA and PMAT) and IP (Cohen's kappa 0.46–0.96) for the detection of MSA. Lowest level of agreement was found for EJ and highest for SAE.

Conclusion: The data hold promise for advancements in standardization of MSA assays as well as for the potential inclusion of MSA in future classification criteria.