Relationship Between Anti-DFS70 Autoantibodies and Oxidative Stress.
Antibodies
biomarkers
free radicals
oxidative stress
Journal
Biomarker insights
ISSN: 1177-2719
Titre abrégé: Biomark Insights
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101288638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
29
07
2021
accepted:
19
11
2021
entrez:
7
2
2022
pubmed:
8
2
2022
medline:
8
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The anti-DFS70 autoantibodies are one of the most commonly and widely described agent of unknown clinical significance, frequently detected in healthy individuals. It is not known whether the DFS70 autoantibodies are protective or pathogenic. One of the factors suspected of inducing the formation of anti-DFS70 antibodies is increased oxidative stress. We evaluated the coexistence of anti-DFS70 antibodies with selected markers of oxidative stress and investigated whether these antibodies could be considered as indirect markers of oxidative stress. The intensity of oxidative stress was measured in all samples via indices of free-radical damage to lipids and proteins such as total oxidant status (TOS), concentrations of lipid hydroperoxides (LPH), lipofuscin (LPS), and malondialdehyde (MDA). The parameters of the non-enzymatic antioxidant system, such as total antioxidant status (TAS) and uric acid concentration (UA), were also measured, as well as the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD). Based on TOS and TAS values, the oxidative stress index (OSI) was calculated. All samples were also tested with indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and 357 samples were selected for direct monospecific anti DFS70 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing. The anti-DFS70 antibodies were confirmed by ELISA test in 21.29% of samples. Compared with anti-DFS70 negative samples we observed 23% lower concentration of LPH ( In samples positive for the anti-DFS70 antibody a decreased level of oxidative stress was observed, especially in the case of samples with a high antibody titer. Anti-DFS70 antibodies can be considered as an indirect marker of reduced oxidative stress or a marker indicating the recent intensification of antioxidant processes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The anti-DFS70 autoantibodies are one of the most commonly and widely described agent of unknown clinical significance, frequently detected in healthy individuals. It is not known whether the DFS70 autoantibodies are protective or pathogenic. One of the factors suspected of inducing the formation of anti-DFS70 antibodies is increased oxidative stress. We evaluated the coexistence of anti-DFS70 antibodies with selected markers of oxidative stress and investigated whether these antibodies could be considered as indirect markers of oxidative stress.
METHODS
METHODS
The intensity of oxidative stress was measured in all samples via indices of free-radical damage to lipids and proteins such as total oxidant status (TOS), concentrations of lipid hydroperoxides (LPH), lipofuscin (LPS), and malondialdehyde (MDA). The parameters of the non-enzymatic antioxidant system, such as total antioxidant status (TAS) and uric acid concentration (UA), were also measured, as well as the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD). Based on TOS and TAS values, the oxidative stress index (OSI) was calculated. All samples were also tested with indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and 357 samples were selected for direct monospecific anti DFS70 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The anti-DFS70 antibodies were confirmed by ELISA test in 21.29% of samples. Compared with anti-DFS70 negative samples we observed 23% lower concentration of LPH (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In samples positive for the anti-DFS70 antibody a decreased level of oxidative stress was observed, especially in the case of samples with a high antibody titer. Anti-DFS70 antibodies can be considered as an indirect marker of reduced oxidative stress or a marker indicating the recent intensification of antioxidant processes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35125863
doi: 10.1177/11772719211066791
pii: 10.1177_11772719211066791
pmc: PMC8808033
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
11772719211066791Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Jacek J. Jóźwiak and Maciej Banach have received an unrestricted educational grant from Valeant, and has served as a consultant or speaker for Valeant. Paweł Krzemień is employed by Euroimmun Polska Sp. z o.o. (Wroclaw, Poland), whose autoantibody reagents were used in the study. Peter E. Penson owns 4 shares in AstraZeneca PLC and has received honoraria and/or travel reimbursement for events sponsored by AKCEA, Amgen, AMRYT, Link Medical, Mylan, Napp, Sanofi. All others authors declare no conflicts of interest concerning the results of this analysis.
Références
Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Oct;26(19):7201-10
pubmed: 16980622
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Mar;50(3):684-8
pubmed: 15022305
Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019 Mar;15(3):241-250
pubmed: 30623687
Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2017 Apr;52(2):202-216
pubmed: 27350273
Cancer Res. 2007 Mar 15;67(6):2559-67
pubmed: 17363574
J Clin Invest. 1985 Jul;76(1):281-6
pubmed: 4019780
Isr Med Assoc J. 2019 Aug;21(8):509-511
pubmed: 31474007
Autoimmunity. 2002 Aug;35(5):319-27
pubmed: 12515286
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Jun;1107:174-83
pubmed: 17804545
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Aug;32(4):605-609
pubmed: 31174828
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 18;9(1):2177
pubmed: 30778125
Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Dec;63(12):4036-7; author reply 4037-8
pubmed: 22127717
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Apr 09;5:88
pubmed: 29686987
Arch Med Sci. 2020 Jun 04;18(3):604-616
pubmed: 35591817
Anal Biochem. 1984 Nov 1;142(2):290-6
pubmed: 6099057
Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jun 07;3:22
pubmed: 16759382
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Jan;64(1):2-5
pubmed: 19935820
Autoimmun Rev. 2008 Jul;7(7):567-73
pubmed: 18625446
Clin Exp Med. 2016 Aug;16(3):273-93
pubmed: 26088181
J Intern Med. 2008 May;263(5):479-88
pubmed: 18410591
Exp Eye Res. 1999 Jul;69(1):139-42
pubmed: 10375458
Methods Mol Biol. 2010;610:353-74
pubmed: 20013189
Reumatologia. 2018;56(4):243-248
pubmed: 30237629
Free Radic Biol Med. 2018 Sep;125:3-14
pubmed: 29859343
Auto Immun Highlights. 2016 Dec;7(1):1
pubmed: 26831867
EMBO J. 1998 Nov 16;17(22):6723-9
pubmed: 9822615
Clin Biochem. 2004 Apr;37(4):277-85
pubmed: 15003729
J Clin Invest. 2009 May;119(5):1335-49
pubmed: 19363291
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jul;78(7):879-889
pubmed: 30862649
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 15;11(1):e0146549
pubmed: 26771192
Anal Biochem. 1979 Jun;95(2):351-8
pubmed: 36810
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2002 May;21(3):341-58
pubmed: 12052388
J Urol. 1994 Mar;151(3):587-92
pubmed: 8308964
Autoimmun Rev. 2003 Sep;2(5):290-7
pubmed: 12965181
Gene. 2000 Jan 25;242(1-2):265-73
pubmed: 10721720
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jan;73(1):17-23
pubmed: 24126457
Front Immunol. 2015 Mar 20;6:116
pubmed: 25852687
Clin Biochem. 2005 Dec;38(12):1103-11
pubmed: 16214125
Auto Immun Highlights. 2020 Feb 3;11(1):3
pubmed: 32127038
Clin Dev Immunol. 2013;2013:703759
pubmed: 23476678
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Jun;105(6 Pt 1):1211-20
pubmed: 10856157
Science. 2005 Jul 15;309(5733):481-4
pubmed: 16020738
J Biochem Biophys Methods. 1998 Nov 18;37(3):137-46
pubmed: 9870188
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2012 Aug;19(8):803-10
pubmed: 22773103
Clin Chim Acta. 2015 Dec 7;451(Pt B):271-7
pubmed: 26471835
Cent Eur J Immunol. 2016;41(1):6-11
pubmed: 27095916
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 11;8(15):24915-24931
pubmed: 28212536
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Jun;40(7):1444-51
pubmed: 10359326
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014 Dec;13(12):3507-18
pubmed: 25231459
Free Radic Biol Med. 2010 Mar 15;48(6):749-62
pubmed: 20045723
Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019 May;15(5):445
pubmed: 30879347