single-step autoantibody profiling in antiphospholipid syndrome using a multi-line dot assay单步自身抗体分析在使用多行点测定antiphospholipid综合症.pdfVIP

下载本文档

4
0
约5.91万字
约 8页
2017-09-12 发布于上海
举报
版权申诉

single-step autoantibody profiling in antiphospholipid syndrome using a multi-line dot assay单步自身抗体分析在使用多行点测定antiphospholipid综合症.pdf

1、本文档共8页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

single-step autoantibody profiling in antiphospholipid syndrome using a multi-line dot assay单步自身抗体分析在使用多行点测定antiphospholipid综合症

Egerer et al. Arthritis Research Therapy 2011, 13:R118 /content/13/4/R118 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Single-step autoantibody profiling in antiphospholipid syndrome using a multi-line dot assay 1*† 2,4† 2 1 1 Karl Egerer , Dirk Roggenbuck , Thomas Büttner , Barbara Lehmann , Annushka Kohn , 3 4 1 1 1 Philipp von Landenberg , Rico Hiemann , Eugen Feist , Gerd-Rüdiger Burmester and Thomas Dörner Abstract Introduction: Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) still remains a laboratory challenge due to the great diversity of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and their significance regarding APS-diagnostic criteria. Methods: A multi-line dot assay (MLDA) employing phosphatidylserine (PS), phosphatidylinositol (PI), cardiolipin (CL), and beta2-glycoprotein I (b2 GPI) was used to detect aPL, immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) in 85 APS patients, 65 disease controls, and 79 blood donors. For comparison, anti-CL and anti-b2 GPI IgG and IgM were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: The level of agreement of both methods was good for anti-CL IgG, moderate for anti-CL IgM, very good for anti-b2 GPI IgG, and moderate for anti-b2 GPI IgM (kappa = 0.641, 0.507, 0.803 and 0.506, respectively). The frequency of observed discrepancies for anti-CL IgG (1.75%), anti-CL IgM (3.93%), anti-b2 GPI IgG (1.75%), and anti-b2 GPI IgM (0.87%) was low (McNemar test, P 0.05, not-significant, respectively). Sensitivity, specificity, positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios for at least one positive aPL antibody assessed by ELISA were 58.8%, 9