Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anti-DNase I antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnostic value and share in the enzyme inhibition

  • Biomarkers
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diagnostic accuracy of anti-DNase I antibodies measurement in a differentiation between SLE and other autoimmune rheumatic diseases was evaluated. The share of anti-DNase I and actin in the DNase I activity decrease in SLE was established. Serum samples were obtained from 54 patients with verified SLE, 52 control patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases, and 44 healthy persons. Anti-DNase I concentrations were measured by ELISA. Free and actin inhibited DNase I activities were evaluated in the fresh serum samples. The appraisal of antibodies and actin effects on DNase I activity was made using multiple regression. Anti-DNase I antibodies were positive in 35 SLE and 8 control patients, without significant difference between the mean antibody concentrations. Sensitivity of this test was 64.81 %, and specificity—84.62 %. Mean free DNase I activity in SLE was somewhat lower than in the control group as a result of augmented frequency of extremely low enzyme activities. On the contrary, after the exclusion of the latter cases we have revealed elevated mean free DNase I activity in the other SLE patients comparing to the similar control subgroup. Unlike the controls, low serum DNase I activity in SLE arose not only from actin and antibody action, but also, in half of the cases, from unidentified factor, related to active SLE. The accuracy of the anti-DNase I antibodies measurement is approximate to the present reference standard of SLE diagnostics. We first demonstrated that neither antibodies nor actin caused DNase I activity decrease in SLE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich U, Mayer G, Herold M, Klotz W, Stempfl Al-Jazrawi K, Lhotta K (2009) Sensitivity and specificity of autoantibody tests in the differential diagnosis of lupus nephritis. Lupus 18:1276–1280. doi:10.1177/0961203309345753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bizzaro N, Villalta D, Giavarina D, Tozzoli R (2012) Are anti-nucleosome antibodies a better diagnostic marker than anti-dsDNA antibodies for systemic lupus erythematosus? A systematic review and a study of metanalysis. Autoimmun Rev 12:97–106. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2012.07.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fritzler MJ (2011) The antinuclear antibody test: last or lasting gasp? Arthritis Rheumatol 63:19–22. doi:10.1002/art.30078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yeh TM, Chang HC, Liang CC et al (2003) Deoxyribonuclease-inhibitory antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Biomed Sci 10:544–551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tew MB, Johnson RW, Reveille JD et al (2001) A molecular analysis of the low serum deoxyribonuclease activity in lupus patients. Arthritis Rheumatol 44:2446–2447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sallai K, Nagy E, Derfalvy B et al (2005) Antinucleosome antibodies and decreased deoxyribonuclease activity in sera of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus assay. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 12:56–59. doi:10.1128/CDLI.12.1.56-59.2005

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Martinez-Valle F, Balada E, Ordi-Ros J, Bujan-Rivas S, Sellas-Fernandez A, Vilardell-Tarres M (2009) DNase 1 activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: relationship with epidemiological, clinical, immunological and therapeutical features. Lupus 18:418–423. doi:10.1177/0961203308098189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yasutomo K, Horiuchi T, Kagami S, Tsukamoto H, Hashimura C, Urushihara M, Kuroda Y (2001) Mutation of DNASE1 in people with systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat Genet 28:313–314. doi:10.1038/91070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bodaño A, González A, Balada E, Ordi J, Carreira P, Gómez-Reino JJ, Conde C (2007) Study of DNASE I gene polymorphisms in systemic lupus erythematosus susceptibility. Ann Rheum Dis 66:560–561. doi:10.1136/ard.2006.067140

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Belguith-Maalej S, Hadj-Kacem H, Kaddour N, Bahloul Z, Ayadi H (2009) DNase1 exon2 analysis in Tunisian patients with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjögren syndrome and healthy subjects. Rheumatol Int 30:69–74. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-0917-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. AlFadhli S, Ghanem AA (2014) Influence of HumDN1 VNTR polymorphism on DNASE1 expression in systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Immunol Investig 43:411–423. doi:10.3109/08820139.2013.864666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Feng XB, Shen N, Qian J et al (2004) Single nucleotide polymorphisms of deoxyribonuclease I and their expression in Chinese systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Chin Med J 117:1670–1676

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Meester I, De Smedt SC (1997) Deoxyribonuclease I. In: Lauwers A, Sharpe S (eds) Pharmaceutical enzymes. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 285–304

    Google Scholar 

  14. Napirei M, Gultekin A, Kloeckl T et al (2006) Systemic lupus erythematosus: deoxyribonuclease 1 in necrotic chromatin disposal. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 38:297–306. doi:10.1016/j.biocel.2005.10.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seredkina N, van der Vlag J, Berden J, Mortensen E, Rekvig OP (2013) Lupus nephritis: enigmas, conflicting models and an emerging concept. Mol Med 19:161–169. doi:10.2119/molmed.2013.00010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Fenton K (2015) The effect of cell death in the initiation of lupus nephritis. Clin Exp Immunol 179:75–84. doi:10.1111/cei.12417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. World Medical Association (1997) Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA 277:925–926. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540350075038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wallace DJ, Hahn BH (eds) (2013) Dubois’ lupus erythematosus and related syndromes, 8th edn. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hochberg MC (1997) Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol 40:1725. doi:10.1002/art.1780400928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ et al (2010) Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheumatol 62:2569–2581. doi:10.1002/art.27584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. American Rheumatism Association (1980) Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) Subcommittee for scleroderma criteria of the American Rheumatism Association Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheumatol 23:581–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tanimoto K, Nakano K, Kano S et al (1995) Classification criteria for polymyositis and dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol 22:668–674

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vitali C, Bombardieri S, Moutsopoulos HM et al (1993) Preliminary criteria for the classification of Sjogren’s syndrome. Results of a prospective concerted action supported by the European Community. Arthritis Rheumatol 36:340–347. doi:10.1002/art.1780360309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Arend WP, Michel BA, Bloch DA et al (1990) The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 33:1129–1134. doi:10.1002/art.1780330811

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lightfoot RW Jr, Michel BA, Bloch DA et al (1990) The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of polyarteritis nodosa. Arthritis Rheumatol 33:1088–1093. doi:10.1002/art.1780330805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mills JA, Michel BA, Bloch DA et al (1990) The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Henoch–Schönlein purpura. Arthritis Rheumatol 33:1114–1121. doi:10.1002/art.1780330809

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hunder GG, Bloch DA, Michel BA et al (1990) The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 33:1122–1128. doi:10.1002/art.1780330810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Petri M, Kim MY, Kalunian KC et al (2005) Combined oral contraceptives in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 353:2550–2558. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shapot VS, Chudinova IA, Krechetova GD (1964) Methods of isolation and activity measurement of the nucleases. In: Orekhovich VN (ed) Modern methods in biochemistry, vol 1. Meditsina, Moscow, pp 267–280 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kunitz M (1950) Crystalline desoxyribonuclease. I. Isolation and general properties. Spectrophotometric method for the measurement of desoxyribonuclease activity. J Gen Physiol 33:349–362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Macanovic M, Lachmann PJ (1997) Measurement of deoxyribonuclease I (DNase) in the serum and urine of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)-prone NZB/NZW mice by a new radial enzyme diffusion assay. Clin Exp Immunol 108:220–226. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2249.1997.3571249.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Romanov AI, Trofimenko AS, Simakova ES, Alekhina IU (2008) Prospects of activity evaluation of serum DNase I and its inhibitors in immunodiagnostics of lupus erythematosus. Kremlevskaya meditsina Klinicheskii vestnik http://unmc.su/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Journal-1-2008.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2013 (in Russian)

  33. Zborovskaya IA, Trofimenko AS, Gontar IP (2007) Anti-DNase I antibody response in systemic lupus erythematosus: a possible way of the enzyme dysfunction. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatol 45:64–68. doi:10.14412/1995-4484-2007-3 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tinazzi E, Puccetti A, Gerli R et al (2009) Serum DNase I, soluble Fas/FasL levels and cell surface Fas expression in patients with SLE: a possible explanation for the lack of efficacy of hrDNase I treatment. Int Immunol 21:237–243. doi:10.1093/intimm/dxn142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kavanaugh AF, Solomon DH (2002) Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-DNA antibody tests. Arthritis Rheumatol 47:546–555. doi:10.1002/art.10558

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FSBSI Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 76, Zemlyachki Str., Volgograd, Russia, 400138

    A. S. Trofimenko, I. P. Gontar & A. B. Zborovsky

  2. Hospital Therapy Department, Volgograd State Medical University, 1, Pavshikh Bortsov Sq., Volgograd, Russia, 400131

    A. S. Trofimenko, I. P. Gontar, A. B. Zborovsky & O. V. Paramonova

Authors
  1. A. S. Trofimenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. P. Gontar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. B. Zborovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. V. Paramonova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. S. Trofimenko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A. S. Trofimenko, I. P. Gontar, A. B. Zborovsky, and O. V. Paramonova declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

Distributions of anti-DNase I concentrations in the reference, control, and SLE group. Dotted line marks cutoff point for the positive results. Means and standard errors for entire groups are also indicated (TIFF 89262 kb)

Online Resource 2

Dependence between fDNase concentrations and SELENA–SLEDAI scores in SLE patients. Columns and error bars represent means and 95 % CI, respectively. In subgroups without any dispersion, 95% CI are not shown (TIFF 102461 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trofimenko, A.S., Gontar, I.P., Zborovsky, A.B. et al. Anti-DNase I antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnostic value and share in the enzyme inhibition. Rheumatol Int 36, 521–529 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3437-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3437-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation