Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Rheumatoid factor autoantibody repertoire profiling reveals distinct binding epitopes in health and autoimmunity
  1. Nienke Oskam1,
  2. Pleuni Ooijevaar-De Heer1,
  3. Dorien Kos2,
  4. Jorn Jeremiasse1,
  5. Laurette van Boheemen3,
  6. Gwenny M Verstappen4,
  7. Frans G M Kroese4,
  8. Dirkjan van Schaardenburg3,
  9. Gertjan Wolbink3,
  10. Theo Rispens1
  1. 1 Immunopathology, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Sanquin Reagents, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Nienke Oskam, Immunopathology, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands; n.oskam{at}sanquin.nl

Abstract

Background Rheumatoid factors (RF) are one of the hallmark autoantibodies characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and are frequently observed in other diseases and in healthy individuals. RFs comprise multiple subtypes with different specificities towards the constant region of human IgG. Studies indicate that these patterns differ between naturally occurring RFs and RFs associated with disease. However, individual specificities characteristic of either have not been clearly defined.

Methods In this study, we developed an extended set of engineered IgG-fragment crystallisable (Fc) targets with preferential RF binding to specific (conformational) epitopes, which was subsequently used for profiling of RF binding patterns in a compiled exploration cohort, consisting of sera from healthy donors with measurable RF and patients with RA, primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) and seropositive arthralgia.

Results We identified an epitope that is strongly associated with RA, which was targeted by both IgM-RF and IgA-RF. We also identified an epitope that is preferentially targeted by healthy donor (IgM) RFs. IgM-RFs derived from healthy donors and patients with RA and pSS all target distinct regions on the IgG-Fc, whereas overall, the IgA-RF repertoire is largely restricted to pathology-associated specificities. Using monoclonal RFs with different specificities, we furthermore demonstrate that the capacity to activate complement or even inhibit IgG-mediated complement activation varies according to the epitopes to which RFs bind.

Conclusions Our results demonstrate both the need and feasibility to redefine ‘RF’ into pathological and physiological autoantibody subtypes.

  • Sjogren's syndrome
  • rheumatoid factor
  • autoimmunity
  • autoantibodies
  • arthritis, rheumatoid

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

  • Contributors Designing research studies: NO, TR. Conducting experiments: NO, PO-DH, DK, JJ. Acquiring and analysing data: NO, GMV, FGMK, DvS, GJW. Writing the manuscript: NO, TR. Guarantor: TR.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation (grant 17-2-404).

  • Disclaimer The funders had no role in study design, data analyses or writing of the report.

  • Competing interests DvS, GJW and TR are inventors on a patent application based on the use of bioengineered IgG targets for the characterisation of rheumatoid factor reactivity patterns. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.