A review and meta-analysis of anti-ribosomal P autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus

Choi, May Y.; FitzPatrick, Rachael D; Buhler, Katherine; Mähler, Michael; Fritzler, Marvin J.

doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102463

Cited by 76 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These antibodies are also a highly specific biomarker for the diagnosis of SLE with a specificity between 95%-and 100%. 32–35 Anti-P antibodies have been associated with neuropsychiatric (NP) SLE (particularly depression and psychosis), lupus hepatitis, and LN. 32,36 Because of its high specificity for SLE diagnosis, some authors have proposed that these autoantibodies should be included in any SLE classification criteria.…”

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…32–35 Anti-P antibodies have been associated with neuropsychiatric (NP) SLE (particularly depression and psychosis), lupus hepatitis, and LN. 32,36 Because of its high specificity for SLE diagnosis, some authors have proposed that these autoantibodies should be included in any SLE classification criteria. 32,34,35 The prevalence of anti-P antibodies in SLE ranges from 10 to 47%, being higher in Asians and lower in Caucasian and African American patients.…”

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…32,36 Because of its high specificity for SLE diagnosis, some authors have proposed that these autoantibodies should be included in any SLE classification criteria. 32,34,35 The prevalence of anti-P antibodies in SLE ranges from 10 to 47%, being higher in Asians and lower in Caucasian and African American patients. 32–34 This variability in the prevalence is due to the immunoassay used, the ethnic distribution of the patients studied, the cohorts studied and the patients’ age at disease onset.…”

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…32,34,35 The prevalence of anti-P antibodies in SLE ranges from 10 to 47%, being higher in Asians and lower in Caucasian and African American patients. 32–34 This variability in the prevalence is due to the immunoassay used, the ethnic distribution of the patients studied, the cohorts studied and the patients’ age at disease onset. 32 In fact, the positivity of anti-P antibodies is associated with a younger mean age among SLE patients being more prevalent in juvenile-onset SLE (26.7–42%) than in adult-onset SLE (6.5%–7.7%).…”

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anti-P antibodies, as discussed previously in this review, are particularly associated with episodes of psychosis and severe depression in SLE. 32,36 However, they are not valuable in differentiating among various neuropsychiatric phenotypes and measurements in CSF may be more accurate for diagnosis than measurement in serum. 169,172…”

Section: Biomarkers In Neuropsychiatric Slementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systemic lupus erythematosus: The search for the ideal biomarker

González

Ugarte‐Gil

Alarcón

2020

Lupus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decades, there has been an increased interest in the discovery and validation of biomarkers that reliably reflect specific aspects of lupus. Although many biomarkers have been developed, few of them have been validated and used in clinical practice, but with unsatisfactory performances. Thus, there is still a need to rigorously validate many of these novel promising biomarkers in large-scale longitudinal studies and also identify better biomarkers not only for lupus diagnosis but also for monitoring and predicting upcoming flares and response to treatment. Besides serological biomarkers, urinary and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers have emerged for assessing both renal and central nervous system involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus, respectively. Also, novel omics techniques help us to understand the molecular basis of the disease and also allow the identification of novel biomarkers which may be potentially useful for guiding new therapeutic targets.

show abstract

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diagnostic Biomarkers Frequently Used In Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biomarkers In Neuropsychiatric Slementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systemic lupus erythematosus: The search for the ideal biomarker

González

Ugarte‐Gil

Alarcón

2020

Lupus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus: A scoping review

Zhang,

Xu,

Kang

2024

Immunity Inflam & Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn recent years, newly discovered potential biomarkers have great research potential in the diagnosis, disease activity prediction, and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectiveIn this study, a scoping review of potential biomarkers for SLE over several years has identified the extent to which studies on biomarkers for SLE have been conducted, the specificity, sensitivity, and diagnostic value of potential biomarkers of SLE, the research potential of these biomarkers in disease diagnosis, and activity detection is discussed.MethodsIn PubMed and Google Scholar databases, “SLE,” “biomarkers,” “predictor,” “autoimmune diseases,” “lupus nephritis,” “neuropsychiatric SLE,” “diagnosis,” “monitoring,” and “disease activity” were used as keywords to systematically search for SLE molecular biomarkers published from 2020 to 2024. Analyze and summarize the literature that can guide the article.ConclusionsRecent findings suggest that some potential biomarkers may have clinical application prospects. However, to date, many of these biomarkers have not been subjected to repeated clinical validation. And no single biomarker has sufficient sensitivity and specificity for SLE. It is not scientific to choose only one or several biomarkers to judge the complex disease of SLE. It may be a good direction to carry out a meta‐analysis of various biomarkers to find SLE biomarkers suitable for clinical use, or to evaluate SLE by combining multiple biomarkers through mathematical models. At the same time, advanced computational methods are needed to analyze large data sets and discover new biomarkers, and strive to find biomarkers that are sensitive and specific enough to SLE and can be used in clinical practice, rather than only staying in experimental research and data analysis.

show abstract

Overview of autoantibodies in COVID‐19 convalescents

Dobrowolska

Zarębska-Michaluk

Siller‐Matula

et al. 2023

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulating evidence shows that SARS‐CoV‐2 can potentially trigger autoimmune processes, which can be responsible for the long‐term consequences of COVID‐19. Therefore, this paper aims to review the autoantibodies reported in COVID‐19 convalescents. Six main groups were distinguished: (i) autoantibodies against components of the immune system, (ii) autoantibodies against components of the cardiovascular system, (iii) thyroid autoantibodies, (iv) autoantibodies specific for rheumatoid diseases, (v) antibodies against G‐protein coupled receptors, and (vi) other autoantibodies. The evidence reviewed here clearly highlights that SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may induce humoral autoimmune responses. However, the available studies share number of limitations, such as: (1) the sole presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily implicate the clinically‐relevant risks, (2) functional investigations were rarely performed and it is often unknown whether observed autoantibodies are pathogenic, (3) the control seroprevalence, in healthy, noninfected individuals was often not reported; thus it is sometimes unknown whether the detected autoantibodies are the result of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or the accidental post‐COVID‐19 detection, (4) the presence of autoantibodies was rarely correlated with symptoms of the post‐COVID‐19 syndrome, (5) the size of the studied groups were often small, (6) the studies focused predominantly on adult populations, (7) age‐ and sex‐related differences in seroprevalence of autoantibodies were rarely explored, (8) genetic predispositions that may be involved in generation of autoantibodies during SARS‐CoV‐2 infections were not investigated, and (9) the autoimmune reactions following infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 variants that vary in the clinical course of infection remain unexplored. Further longitudinal studies are advocated to assess the link between identified autoantibodies and particular clinical outcomes in COVID‐19 convalescents.

show abstract

A review and meta-analysis of anti-ribosomal P autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus

Cited by 76 publications

References 95 publications

Systemic lupus erythematosus: The search for the ideal biomarker

Systemic lupus erythematosus: The search for the ideal biomarker

Biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus: A scoping review

Overview of autoantibodies in COVID‐19 convalescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About