Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42707449›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of biological chemistry2026

Advances and pitfalls in anti-double-stranded DNA autoantibody detection and interpretation.

Abdellatif Bouayad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of biological chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Abdellatif BouayadDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Oujda, Mohammed First University, Oujda-Angad 4867, Oriental Region, Morocco. a.bouayad@ump.ac.ma.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) autoantibodies are detected in 20%-90% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with prevalence varying according to disease activity, patient population, and assay methodology. Traditionally, four categories of anti-DNA autoantibodies have been described. The first recognizes only native dsDNA; the second recognizes both dsDNA and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA); the third reacts predominantly with denatured or ssDNA; and the fourth comprises anti-nucleosome autoantibodies, which recognize DNA-histone complexes and may yield results that differ from those obtained with assays specific for native dsDNA. Combining the Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test with solid-phase immunoassays improves the diagnostic accuracy for anti-dsDNA antibody screening in patients with SLE. However, several limitations remain in the performance and interpretation of anti-dsDNA immassays, potentially leading to diagnostic errors. These pitfalls may arise mainly from analytical variability, assay design constraints, and a lack of standardized interpretation. Recent advances indicate a growing shift toward solid-phase multi-analyte arrays coupled with algorithm-based analysis, which may help reduce the seronegative gap in SLE while improving the harmonization of anti-dsDNA testing. This minireview critically evaluates current immunoassays for anti-dsDNA antibody testing, with particular emphasis on their analytical limitations, diagnostic pitfalls, and emerging advances.

Indexed as

Anti-double-stranded DNA autoantibodiesCrithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescenceLimitationsPitfallsSolid-phase immunoassaysSystemic lupus erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID42707449
PMCPMC13548148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.