两种方法检测抗着丝点抗体比较

Comparison of indirect indirect immunofluorescence and immunobloting for detecting ACA

目的评估免疫印迹(IB)和间接免疫荧光(IIF)法检测抗着丝点抗体(ACA)的临床应用价值;观察ACA检测的IIF法与斑点印迹法之间的相关性。方法收集经IIF法和(或)欧盟印迹法检测ACA和着丝点蛋白B抗体阳性患者血清,同时检测50例健康人血清为对照。结果 IIF法和IB法检测76份不同自身免疫病患者血清差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),且呈明显的正相关(kappa=0.871,P<0.01)。50份健康人血清两种方法检测均无阳性。IIF/IB阳性符合率是91.9%(68/74),IB/IIF阳性符合率是97.1%(68/70)。结论两种方法检测ACA效果几乎等价,但IIF法检测ACA简单、快速、准确,适用于临床ACA的常规检测。

Objective To investigate clinical application value of anti-centromere antibody（ACA） detected by indirect indirect immunofluorescence （IIF）and immunobloting（IB） methods. Methods Serum collected from76 pa- tients with different autoimmune diseases and 50 healthy volunteers were detected by IIF and IB. Results There was no significant difference between IIF and IB methods for ACA（P〉0.05）. IIF ACA positively correlated with the number of immunofixed CENP-B bands（r= 0. 871, P〈0.01）. The positive coincidence rates for IIF/IB and IB/IIF were 91.9%（68/74） and 97. 1% （68/70）, respectively. While the negative coincidence rate was 100.0% （50/50）. Conclusion The measure effects of IIF and IB for ACA are almost equivalent. But IIF is a simple,rapid and accurate method for detecting ACA, which can be applied in clinical routine test.