Antibodies to double-stranded (ds)DNA, Sm, and U1 RNP

INTRODUCTION

Selected antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), including anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (dsDNA) and anti-Sm, are highly specific for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Antibodies directed against the U1 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex are markers for mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) and may be seen in patients with SLE and other disorders. (See "Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus in adults" and "Definition and diagnosis of mixed connective tissue disease".)

The sensitivity of anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm, and anti-U1 RNP antibodies for the diagnosis of SLE is relatively low, but the specificity of anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm antibodies for SLE makes them invaluable tools to assist in the diagnosis of this disease.

This topic will review the clinical significance of anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm, and anti-U1 RNP autoantibodies. The clinical significance of anti-ribosomal P autoantibodies, which are also highly specific for the diagnosis of SLE, and of other antinuclear antibodies is discussed separately. (See "Antiribosomal P protein antibodies" and "Measurement and clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies" and "Miscellaneous antinuclear antibodies".)

ANTI-DNA ANTIBODIES

Antibodies to DNA can be primarily divided into two groups: those reactive with denatured, single-stranded (ss)DNA and those recognizing native, double-stranded (ds)DNA [1]. Autoantibodies to DNA were first described in the 1950s. Their binding to cell nuclei, using a Hep-2 cell line substrate, for example, may be visualized by indirect immunofluorescent (IIF) staining (picture 1). (See 'Anti-ssDNA antibodies' below and 'Anti-dsDNA antibodies' below.)

Anti-ssDNA antibodies — Anti-ssDNA antibodies are generally not useful in the diagnosis and management of SLE. Antibodies that identify ssDNA react primarily with the purine and pyrimidine bases that are buried within the beta helix of dsDNA [2]. Because these epitopes are “hidden” when DNA is in its native configuration, antibodies directed against ssDNA do not usually crossreact with dsDNA. Antibodies to ssDNA have the following general properties:

           

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article you must have access through your hospital or your group practice, log in to your personal subscription, or purchase a personal subscription. For more information, click below.
Literature review current through: May 2013. | This topic last updated: Nov 5, 2012.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2013 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Isenberg DA, Manson JJ, Ehrenstein MR, Rahman A. Fifty years of anti-ds DNA antibodies: are we approaching journey's end? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46:1052.
  2. Hahn BH. Antibodies to DNA. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1359.
  3. Koffler D, Agnello V, Winchester R, Kunkel HG. The occurrence of single-stranded DNA in the serum of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and other diseases. J Clin Invest 1973; 52:198.
  4. Miles S, Isenberg D. A review of serological abnormalities in relatives of SLE patients. Lupus 1993; 2:145.
  5. Kavanaugh AF, Solomon DH, American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-DNA antibody tests. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47:546.
  6. Nossent JC, Huysen V, Smeenk RJ, Swaak AJ. Low avidity antibodies to dsDNA as a diagnostic tool. Ann Rheum Dis 1989; 48:748.
  7. Swaak AJ, Groenwold J, Bronsveld W. Predictive value of complement profiles and anti-dsDNA in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 1986; 45:359.
  8. ter Borg EJ, Horst G, Hummel EJ, et al. Measurement of increases in anti-double-stranded DNA antibody levels as a predictor of disease exacerbation in systemic lupus erythematosus. A long-term, prospective study. Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33:634.
  9. Schur PH, Sandson J. Immunologic factors and clinical activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 1968; 278:533.
  10. Rothfield NF, Stollar BD. The relation of immunoglobulin class, pattern of anti-nuclear antibody, and complement-fixing antibodies to DNA in sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Invest 1967; 46:1785.
  11. Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Font J, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical and immunologic patterns of disease expression in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The European Working Party on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Medicine (Baltimore) 1993; 72:113.
  12. Cortés-Hernández J, Ordi-Ros J, Labrador M, et al. Antihistone and anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid antibodies are associated with renal disease in systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Med 2004; 116:165.
  13. Bootsma H, Spronk P, Derksen R, et al. Prevention of relapses in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet 1995; 345:1595.
  14. Nossent JC, Huysen V, Smeenk RJ, Swaak AJ. Low avidity antibodies to double stranded DNA in systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal study of their clinical significance. Ann Rheum Dis 1989; 48:677.
  15. Busch H, Reddy R, Rothblum L, Choi YC. SnRNAs, SnRNPs, and RNA processing. Annu Rev Biochem 1982; 51:617.
  16. Hylkema MN, van Bruggen MC, ten Hove T, et al. Histone-containing immune complexes are to a large extent responsible for anti-dsDNA reactivity in the Farr assay of active SLE patients. J Autoimmun 2000; 14:159.
  17. Aarden LA, de Groot ER, Feltkamp TE. Immunology of DNA. III. Crithidia luciliae, a simple substrate for the determination of anti-dsDNA with the immunofluorescence technique. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1975; 254:505.
  18. Smeenk R, van der Lelij G, Aarden L. Avidity of antibodies to dsDNA: comparison of IFT on Crithidia luciliae, Farr assay, and PEG assay. J Immunol 1982; 128:73.
  19. Crowe W, Kushner I, Clough JD, Vignos PJ Jr. Comparison of the Crithidia lucilia, millipore filter, Farr, and hemagglutination methods for detection of antibodies to DNA. Arthritis Rheum 1978; 21:390.
  20. Miller TE, Lahita RG, Zarro VJ, et al. Clinical significance of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies detected by a solid phase enzyme immunoassay. Arthritis Rheum 1981; 24:602.
  21. Aviña-Zubieta JA, Galindo-Rodriguez G, Kwan-Yeung L, et al. Clinical evaluation of various selected ELISA kits for the detection of anti-DNA antibodies. Lupus 1995; 4:370.
  22. Haugbro K, Nossent JC, Winkler T, et al. Anti-dsDNA antibodies and disease classification in antinuclear antibody positive patients: the role of analytical diversity. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63:386.
  23. Binder SR. Autoantibody detection using multiplex technologies. Lupus 2006; 15:412.
  24. Kumar V, Krasny S, Beutner EH. Specificity of the Crithidia luciliae method for detecting anti-DNA antibodies. Effect of absorption for lipoproteins. Immunol Invest 1985; 14:199.
  25. Vlahakos DV, Foster MH, Adams S, et al. Anti-DNA antibodies form immune deposits at distinct glomerular and vascular sites. Kidney Int 1992; 41:1690.
  26. D'Andrea DM, Coupaye-Gerard B, Kleyman TR, et al. Lupus autoantibodies interact directly with distinct glomerular and vascular cell surface antigens. Kidney Int 1996; 49:1214.
  27. Chubick A, Sontheimer RD, Gilliam JN, Ziff M. An appraisal of tests for native DNA antibodies in connective tissue diseases. Clinical usefulness of Crithidia luciliae assay. Ann Intern Med 1978; 89:186.
  28. Lloyd W, Schur PH. Immune complexes, complement, and anti-DNA in exacerbations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Medicine (Baltimore) 1981; 60:208.
  29. Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Keystone EC. Serologically active clinically quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus: a discordance between clinical and serologic features. Am J Med 1979; 66:210.
  30. Winfield JB, Brunner CM, Koffler D. Serologic studies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and central nervous system dysfunction. Arthritis Rheum 1978; 21:289.
  31. Ho A, Magder LS, Barr SG, Petri M. Decreases in anti-double-stranded DNA levels are associated with concurrent flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44:2342.
  32. Tan EM, Kunkel HG. Characteristics of a soluble nuclear antigen precipitating with sera of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Immunol 1966; 96:464.
  33. Tsokos GC. In the beginning was Sm. J Immunol 2006; 176:1295.
  34. Pannone BK, Wolin SL. Sm-like proteins wRING the neck of mRNA. Curr Biol 2000; 10:R478.
  35. Benito-Garcia E, Schur PH, Lahita R, American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Immunologic Testing Guidelines. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases: anti-Sm and anti-RNP antibody tests. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51:1030.
  36. Kurata N, Tan EM. Identification of antibodies to nuclear acidic antigens by counterimmunoelectrophoresis. Arthritis Rheum 1976; 19:574.
  37. Houtman PM, Kallenberg CG, Limburg PC, et al. Quantitation of antibodies to nucleoribonucleoprotein by ELISA: relation between antibody levels and disease activity in patients with connective tissue disease. Clin Exp Immunol 1985; 62:696.
  38. Barada FA Jr, Andrews BS, Davis JS 4th, Taylor RP. Antibodies to Sm in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Correlation of Sm antibody titers with disease activity and other laboratory parameters. Arthritis Rheum 1981; 24:1236.
  39. Beaufils M, Kouki F, Mignon F, et al. Clinical significance of anti-Sm antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Med 1983; 74:201.
  40. Phan TG, Wong RC, Adelstein S. Autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens: making detection and interpretation more meaningful. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002; 9:1.