四种方法检测抗线粒体抗体M2亚型性能比较  

A Comparative Study of Four Methods for the Detection of Anti-Mitochondrial Antibody M2

作　　者：岳燕[1] 王玥文 白婕[1] 杨本善[1] 何小魁[1] 张明珍 郑宇淼 李宜桐 金文 刘向祎[1] YUE Yan;WANG Yuewen;BAI Jie;YANG Benshan;HE Xiaokui;ZHANG Mingzhen;ZHENG Yumiao;LI Yitong;JIN Wen;LIU Xiangyi(Department of Clinical Laboratory, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100730, China;Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China;Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China)

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院检验科,北京100730 [2]香港大学李嘉诚医学院,香港999077 [3]首都医科大学,北京100069

出　　处：《标记免疫分析与临床》2021年第5期853-857,共5页Labeled Immunoassays and Clinical Medicine

基　　金：首都医科大学本科生科研创新项目(编号:XSKY2020169)。

摘　　要：目的探讨抗线粒体抗体M2亚型不同检测方法的分析性能、相关性及其对原发性胆汁性胆管炎的诊断价值。方法选择2010年至2019年于北京同仁医院就诊的原发性胆汁性胆管炎(PBC)患者106例作为PBC组,同期其他自身免疫病组患者120例,100例体检健康人作为正常对照组。用免疫印迹、间接免疫荧光、酶联免疫吸附试验和胶体金4种方法分别测定三组的抗线粒体抗体M2亚型水平,比较不同方法的分析性能、相关性及诊断价值。结果灵敏度从高到低依次是酶联免疫吸附试验(96.2%,102/106)、免疫印迹(89.6%,95/106)、胶体金(87.7%,93/106)、间接免疫荧光法(73.6%,78/106)。特异性从高到低依次是间接免疫荧光(98.2%,216/220)、酶联免疫吸附试验(96.8%,213/220)、免疫印迹(87.7%,193/220)、胶体金法(85.5%,188/220)。免疫印迹与胶体金法之间检出率差异无统计学意义(P=0.736)。酶联免疫吸附试验与免疫印迹、酶联免疫吸附试验与间接免疫荧光、免疫印迹与胶体金法之间一致性较好(Kappa>0.75)。结论酶联免疫吸附试验是目前临床实验室检测抗线粒体抗体M2亚型的最佳方法。Objective In this paper,we evaluated the analytical performance as well as the correlation of different detection methods for anti-mitochondrial antibody M2 subtype and its diagnostic value for primary biliary cholangitis.Methods 106 patients with primary biliary cholangitis(PBC),120 patients with other autoimmune disease and 100 healthy controls who underwent physical examination from 2010 to 2019 at Tongren Hospital(Beijing)were collected as research objects.Among these three groups,the serum anti-M2 antibody levels were determined by western blotting(WB),indirect immuno-fluorescence(IIF),enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay(ELISA)and colloidal gold colloid immunochromatography assay(CGCIA),respectively and the analytical performance,correlation and diagnostic value were analyzed to compare the performances of these four methods.Results According to statistical analysis,the sensitivity of ELISA was the largest among these four methods(96.2%,102/106),followed by WB(89.6%,95/106),CGCIA(87.7%,93/106)and IIF(73.6%,78/106).In addition,IIF had the highest specificity(98.2%,216/220),followed by ELISA(96.8%,213/220),WB(87.7%,193/220)and CGCIA(85.5%,188/220).There was no significant difference in the detection rate between immunoblotting and colloidal gold method(P=0.736).The result measured by ELISA and WB,ELISA and IIF,WB and CGCIA were highly consistent(Kappa value>0.75).Conclusion The current study suggests that ELISA is the best method to detect the M2 subtype of anti-mitochondrial antibodies(AMA-M2)in clinical laboratories.

关 键 词：抗线粒体抗体M2亚型 胶体金法 免疫印迹法 间接免疫荧光法 酶联免疫吸附试验 

分 类 号：R392-33[医药卫生—免疫学]