ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Evaluation of Methodologies in Anti-nephrin Autoantibody Detection.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies discovered the prominent presence of anti-nephrin autoantibodies in minimal change disease, steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome and/or post-transplant recurrent focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). However, widely different, and often unconventional autoantibody detection methods were used among these studies, making it challenging to assess the pathogenic role for the antibodies. Here we examined methods of conventional ELISA, magnetic on-beads ELISA, immunoprecipitation-immunoblotting (IP-IB), and cell- and tissue-based antibody assays with 127 plasma samples of kidney and non-kidney diseases. On the antigen side, we compared commercially available recombinant human nephrin extracelluar domain (ECD) produced from human or mouse cell lines, as well as lab-made full length, ECD, and series of ECD truncates for measuring autoantibody reactivity and specificity. Surprisingly, different assay methods and different antigen preparations led to observation of assay-specific false-positive and false-negative results. In general, a set of tests that combines magnetic beads-enhanced ELISA, followed by IP-IB, and epitope mapping showed the most robust results for anti-nephrin autoantibodies, detected in two primary FSGS patients among all cases tested. It is interesting to note that cell/tissue-based results, also supported by antigen truncation studies, clearly suggest steric hindrance of reactive epitopes, as in full length nephrin that forms compact self-associated complexes. In conclusion, anti-nephrin positivity is rare among the tested patients (2/127), including those with FSGS (2/42), and autoantibody results can be affected by the choice of detection methods.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.