ObjectiveTo analyze the correlation between anti-cell membrane DNA (mDNA) antibodies and other autoantibodies and estimate its diagnosing significance for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). MethodsFrom January to August 2015, the sera samples from 254 patients with various autoimmune diseases, including 106 SLE, 80 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 32 mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), 29 Sjogren's syndrome (SS), 7 polymyositis/dermatomyositis (PM/DM) and 20 healthy controls, were collected. The anti-mDNA antibody, anti-dsDNA antibody, antinuclear antibody (ANA) and anti-keratin antibody (AKA) were detected by indirect immunofluorescent assay; anti-cyclic citrylinated peptide antibody (CCP) antibody was detected by enzyme-linked immuno sorbent assay; rheumatoid factor (RF) was detected by rat scatter turbidimetry assay; and anti-Sm antibody was detected by Western blotting method. ResultsAnti-mDNA antibody was found in 77 of 106 SLE (72.6%), 4 of 80 RA (5.0%), 6 of 32 MCTD (18.7%), 4 of 29 SS (14.7%), 0 of 7 PM/DM (0.0%) and 0 of 20 healthy controls (0.0%), respectively. It's notable higher in SLE than that in the others (P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity and diagnosis efficiency of anti-mDNA antibody for SLE were 72.6%, 91.7% and 84.3%, respectively. Anti-mDNA antibody was significantly correlated with ANA, anti-dsDNA antibody and anti-Sm antibody (P < 0.001), while it had no significant correlation with anti-CCP antibody, AKA and RF (P > 0.05). ConclusionAnti-mDNA antibody is closely related with other SLE associated antibodies and with high sensitivity and specificity for SLE diagnosis.
ObjectiveTo verify the consistency between artificial interpretation and automatic interpretation by HELIOS automatic immunofluorescence system by comparing their results on the same antinuclear antibodies (ANA) fluorescent slides, and analyze the application of automatic interpretation clinically. MethodA total of 281 ANA fluorescent slides of 281 impatients or outpatients in February 2015 were analyzed by HELIOS automatic immunofluorescence system and artificial interpretation respectively. As HELIOS could only determine the titer not the fluorescence type, only the negative or positive results qualitatively and the titer of ANA positive slides were analyzed. ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between HELIOS automatic immunofluorescence system and artificial interpretation in negative or positive rate qualitatively (P>0.05) . The total coincidence rate was 98.9%, the positive coincidence rate was 99.5%, and the negative coincidence rate was 97.4%, and the kappa coefficient was 0.973. The difference of titer between the two groups had no statistical significance (P>0.05) . ConclusionsThe results of HELIOS automatic Immunofluorescence system and artificial interpretation are in good consistency. HELIOS automatic immunofluorescence system is suitable for clinical use as its high degree of automation, simple operation and result reliability.