Search

The presence of KIR4.1 antibodies has been proposed to be a characteristic of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This could have a significant impact on disease management. However, the validation of the initial findings has failed till date. Conflicting results have been attributed to difficulties in isolating the lower-glycosylated (LG) KIR4.1 expressed in oligodendrocytes, the putative target antigen of autoantibodies. The aim of this study is to verify the presence of KIR4.1 antibodies in MS patients, by independently replicating the originally-described procedure. Assay procedure consisted of KIR4.1 expression in HEK293 cells, 3-step elution to isolate LG-KIR4.1 in elution fraction 3, and ELISA. Sera of 48 MS patients and 46 HCs were studied in 21 working sessions. In a preliminary analysis, we observed different KIR4.1 antibody levels between MS patients and Healthy Controls (HCs). However, a high variability across working sessions was observed and the sensitivity of the assay was very low. Thus, stringent criteria were established in order to identify working sessions in which the pure LG-KIR4.1 was isolated. As per these criteria, we detected LG-KIR4.1 antibodies in 28% of MS patients and 5% of HCs. Unlike previous findings, this study is in agreement with the original report. We propose further efforts be made towards the development of a uniform method to establish the detection of KIR4.1 antibodies in MS patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

To date, inter- and intra-laboratory consistency of binding assays for measuring anti-interferon (IFN)beta antibodies has not been assessed. In this investigation, two independent laboratories tested a library of 80 serum specimens obtained from multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated with IFNbeta. For binding antibodies (BAbs) evaluations, each laboratory used both a capture-ELISA (cELISA) and an enzyme-immuno-assay (EIA), which is commercially available. Samples were also tested for neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Data demonstrated good intra-laboratory reliability (r(pearson) > or = 0.86), and a good overall agreement between the results obtained from the two centers, using both the cELISA (69/80 of observed agreements) and the EIA (67/80). Accordingly, kappa coefficients (K) showed good concurrence (K > or = 0.651). There was also substantial agreement between cELISA and EIA measurements, as performed in both centers (Orbassano, 66/80, K = 0.631; Basel, 70/80, K = 0.717). However, by comparing NAbs and BAbs titers obtained with both assays, we found that a high degree of BAb-negative samples were positive in NAb-assay. Thus, our study does not support the usefulness of ELISA-based BAb assays as a screening tool for NAbs. Otherwise, BAb-assays can be used as a confirmation test, indicating that the decrease of the biological effects is due to antibodies. In this context, both ELISA-based assays are equally reliable techniques.