Journal of Nippon Medical School = Nippon Ika Daigaku zasshi · 2024
Immunohistochemical Diagnosis of Amyloid Typing: Utility and Limitations as Determined by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Shintani-Domoto Yukako, Ishino Kousuke, Fujii Takenori, Kitamura Taeko, Teduka Kiyoshi, Naiki Hironobu, Sakatani Takashi, Ohashi Ryuji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although immunohistochemical techniques and proteomic analysis are widely used for typing diagnosis of amyloidosis, the diagnostic utility of immunohistochemical evaluation is not well understood.
METHODS: We used immunohistochemical techniques to characterize staining patterns of in-house rabbit polyclonal anti-κ, anti-λ, anti-transthyretin antibodies, and commercial anti-amyloid A and anti-β2-microglobulin antibodies in 40 autopsy cases.
RESULTS: In thirty cases (75%), the subtype was determined by using the criterion that amyloid is strongly and diffusely positive for one antibody while negative for other antibodies. We then performed proteomic analysis of all 40 cases. In 39 cases, we identified only one amyloid protein and confirmed the immunohistochemically determined subtypes of the abovementioned 30 cases. In seven other cases, we could retrospectively determine subtypes with immunohistochemistry by using information from proteomic analysis, which increased the immunohistochemistry diagnosis rate to 92.5% (37/40). In one case, we identified double subtypes, both immunohistochemically and with proteomic analysis. In the remaining three cases, proteomic analysis was essential for typing diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that combined immunohistochemistry and proteomic analysis is more useful than immunohistochemistry alone. Our findings highlight the importance of carefully interpreting immunohistochemistry for anti-TTR and light chain and offer insights that can guide amyloid typing through immunohistochemistry.
METHODS: We used immunohistochemical techniques to characterize staining patterns of in-house rabbit polyclonal anti-κ, anti-λ, anti-transthyretin antibodies, and commercial anti-amyloid A and anti-β2-microglobulin antibodies in 40 autopsy cases.
RESULTS: In thirty cases (75%), the subtype was determined by using the criterion that amyloid is strongly and diffusely positive for one antibody while negative for other antibodies. We then performed proteomic analysis of all 40 cases. In 39 cases, we identified only one amyloid protein and confirmed the immunohistochemically determined subtypes of the abovementioned 30 cases. In seven other cases, we could retrospectively determine subtypes with immunohistochemistry by using information from proteomic analysis, which increased the immunohistochemistry diagnosis rate to 92.5% (37/40). In one case, we identified double subtypes, both immunohistochemically and with proteomic analysis. In the remaining three cases, proteomic analysis was essential for typing diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that combined immunohistochemistry and proteomic analysis is more useful than immunohistochemistry alone. Our findings highlight the importance of carefully interpreting immunohistochemistry for anti-TTR and light chain and offer insights that can guide amyloid typing through immunohistochemistry.