Relationship between anti-DFS70 autoantibodies and oxidative stress
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
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:
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:
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 (P = .038) and 11% lower concentration of UA (P = .005). TOS was 20% lower (P = .014). The activity of SOD was up to 5% higher (P = .037). The Pearson correlation showed weak negative correlation for LPH, UA, and TOS and a weak positive correlation for SOD activity.
Conclusion:
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.
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:
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:
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 (P = .038) and 11% lower concentration of UA (P = .005). TOS was 20% lower (P = .014). The activity of SOD was up to 5% higher (P = .037). The Pearson correlation showed weak negative correlation for LPH, UA, and TOS and a weak positive correlation for SOD activity.
Conclusion:
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.
Date Issued
2022-01-01
Date Acceptance
2021-11-19
Citation
Biomarker Insights, 2022, 17
ISSN
1177-2719
Publisher
SAGE Publishing
Journal / Book Title
Biomarker Insights
Volume
17
Copyright Statement
© The Author(s) 2022 Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
License URL
Identifier
https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000751858100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=a2bf6146997ec60c407a63945d4e92bb
Subjects
Antibodies
ANTIBODIES
ASSAY
biomarkers
CELLS
free radicals
GROWTH-FACTOR
LEDGF
LENS
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Medicine, Research & Experimental
NUCLEAR AUTOANTIGEN
oxidative stress
P75
REEVALUATION
Research & Experimental Medicine
Science & Technology
TARGETS
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
United States
Article Number
11772719211066791
Date Publish Online
2022-01-30