Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2001
Clinical phenotype and anti-desmoglein autoantibody profile in paraneoplastic pemphigus.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ohyama M, Amagai M, Hashimoto T, Nousari H C, Anhalt G J, Nishikawa T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) has similar features to pemphigus vulgaris (PV), including circulating anti-desmoglein (Dsg) IgG as pathogenic autoantibodies. When PV is divided into mucosal dominant type and mucocutaneous type, mucosal dominant type has only anti-Dsg3 IgG, whereas the mucocutaneous type has both anti-Dsg3 and anti-Dsg1 IgG.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in anti-Dsg autoantibody profile between mucosal dominant PNP and mucocutaneous PNP.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients with PNP were categorized as mucosal dominant and mucocutaneous types based on clinical information. Antibody titers against Dsg3 and Dsg1 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay by means of recombinant Dsg1 and Dsg3.
RESULTS: There were 9 cases of mucosal dominant type and 12 cases of mucocutaneous type. Eight of 9 cases of mucosal dominant type were positive for anti-Dsg3 IgG, but 3 of them were also positive for anti-Dsg1 IgG. All 12 cases of mucocutaneous type were positive for anti-Dsg3 IgG, whereas only 6 of them were positive for anti-Dsg1 IgG.
CONCLUSION: There was no clear association between the clinical phenotype and anti-Dsg antibody profile in PNP as seen in PV. This finding suggests that besides anti-Dsg IgG other pathologic mechanisms such as lichenoid reaction or interface dermatitis may be involved in the blister formation in PNP.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in anti-Dsg autoantibody profile between mucosal dominant PNP and mucocutaneous PNP.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients with PNP were categorized as mucosal dominant and mucocutaneous types based on clinical information. Antibody titers against Dsg3 and Dsg1 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay by means of recombinant Dsg1 and Dsg3.
RESULTS: There were 9 cases of mucosal dominant type and 12 cases of mucocutaneous type. Eight of 9 cases of mucosal dominant type were positive for anti-Dsg3 IgG, but 3 of them were also positive for anti-Dsg1 IgG. All 12 cases of mucocutaneous type were positive for anti-Dsg3 IgG, whereas only 6 of them were positive for anti-Dsg1 IgG.
CONCLUSION: There was no clear association between the clinical phenotype and anti-Dsg antibody profile in PNP as seen in PV. This finding suggests that besides anti-Dsg IgG other pathologic mechanisms such as lichenoid reaction or interface dermatitis may be involved in the blister formation in PNP.