Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Relationship between anti-dsDNA, anti-nucleosome and anti-alpha-actinin antibodies and markers of renal disease in patients with lupus nephritis: a prospective longitudinal study

Jessica J Manson1, Alexander Ma1, Pauline Rogers2, Lesley J Mason1, Jo H Berden3, Johan van der Vlag3, David P D'Cruz4, David A Isenberg1 and Anisur Rahman1*

Author Affiliations

1 Centre for Rheumatology Research, University College London, Windeyer Institute, 46 Cleveland Street, London W1T 4JF, UK

2 Joint University College London Hospital/University College London and Royal Free Biomedical Research Unit, Research and Development (1st Floor Maple House), Rosenheim Wing, 25 Grafton Way, London WC1E 6DB, UK

3 Nephrology Research Laboratory, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Nephrology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands

4 Lupus Research Unit, The Rayne Institute, St Thomas' Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, London SE1 7EH, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Arthritis Research & Therapy 2009, 11:R154  doi:10.1186/ar2831


See related editorial by Youinou and Putterman, http://arthritis-research.com/content/11/6/137

Published: 14 October 2009

Abstract

Introduction

Glomerulonephritis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Deposition of autoantibodies in the glomeruli plays a key role in the development of lupus nephritis (LN). Different groups have proposed that either anti-nucleosome antibodies or antibodies that bind the intrinsic renal antigen, α-actinin, are central to the pathogenesis of LN. These theories have been based mainly on cross-sectional studies in patients and on experiments in animal models. No previous longitudinal studies have compared the relationships between levels of these antibodies and markers of renal function. We assessed how well anti-α-actinin, anti-nucleosome and anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies reflected renal outcome measures in patients with new-onset LN followed for up to 2 years.

Methods

Renal disease activity was monitored by measuring urine protein/creatinine ratio (PCR), serum albumin and a composite outcome of renal remission. At each time point, anti-nucleosome and anti-α-actinin antibodies were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. High-avidity anti-dsDNA antibodies were measured using the Farrzyme assay. We analysed relationships between levels of the three antibodies and between antibody levels and renal outcome measures over time.

Results

Levels of anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA were positively correlated with each other (r = 0.6, P = 0.0001) but neither correlated with anti-α-actinin level. At baseline, mean anti-nucleosome levels were higher in patients with LN than in healthy controls (0.32 versus 0.01, P < 0.001). The same was true for anti-dsDNA antibodies (0.50 versus 0.07, P < 0.001) but not for anti-α-actinin (0.33 versus 0.29). Over the follow-up period, anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA levels associated positively with urine PCR (P = 0.041 and 0.051, respectively) and negatively with serum albumin (P = 0.027 and 0.032, respectively). Both anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA levels were significantly lower during renal remission than when renal disease was active (P = 0.002 and 0.003, respectively). However, there was no relationship between anti-α-actinin levels and urine PCR, serum albumin or remission status.

Conclusions

This prospective longitudinal clinical study is the first to compare levels of anti-nucleosome, anti-dsDNA and anti-α-actinin antibodies in the same patients with SLE. Our results support the concept that, in the majority of patients, anti-nucleosome antibodies play a major role in pathogenesis of LN, in contrast to anti-α-actinin antibodies.