{"title":"The significance of antigen-antibody-binding avidity in clinical diagnosis.","authors":"Yaxin Li, He S Yang, P J Klasse, Zhen Zhao","doi":"10.1080/10408363.2024.2379286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) testing are commonly used to determine infection status. Typically, the detection of IgM indicates an acute or recent infection, while the presence of IgG alone suggests a chronic or past infection. However, relying solely on IgG and IgM antibody positivity may not be sufficient to differentiate acute from chronic infections. This limitation arises from several factors. The prolonged presence of IgM can complicate diagnostic interpretations, and false positive IgM results often arise from antibody cross-reactivity with various antigens. Additionally, IgM may remain undetectable in prematurely collected samples or in individuals who are immunocompromised, further complicating accurate diagnosis. As a result, additional diagnostic tools are required to confirm infection status. Avidity is a measure of the strength of the binding between an antigen and antibody. Avidity-based assays have been developed for various infectious agents, including toxoplasma, cytomegalovirus (CMV), SARS-CoV-2, and avian influenza, and are promising tools in clinical diagnostics. By measuring the strength of antibody binding, they offer critical insights into the maturity of the immune response. These assays are instrumental in distinguishing between acute and chronic or past infections, monitoring disease progression, and guiding treatment decisions. The development of automated platforms has optimized the testing process by enhancing efficiency and minimizing the risk of manual errors. Additionally, the recent advent of real-time biosensor immunoassays, including the label-free immunoassays (LFIA), has further amplified the capabilities of these assays. These advances have expanded the clinical applications of avidity-based assays, making them useful tools for the diagnosis and management of various infectious diseases. This review is structured around several key aspects of IgG avidity in clinical diagnosis, including: (i) a detailed exposition of the IgG affinity maturation process; (ii) a thorough discussion of the IgG avidity assays, including the recently emerged biosensor-based approaches; and (iii) an examination of the applications of IgG avidity in clinical diagnosis. This review is intended to contribute toward the development of enhanced diagnostic tools through critical assessment of the present landscape of avidity-based testing, which allows us to identify the existing knowledge gaps and highlight areas for future investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10760,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2024.2379286","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) testing are commonly used to determine infection status. Typically, the detection of IgM indicates an acute or recent infection, while the presence of IgG alone suggests a chronic or past infection. However, relying solely on IgG and IgM antibody positivity may not be sufficient to differentiate acute from chronic infections. This limitation arises from several factors. The prolonged presence of IgM can complicate diagnostic interpretations, and false positive IgM results often arise from antibody cross-reactivity with various antigens. Additionally, IgM may remain undetectable in prematurely collected samples or in individuals who are immunocompromised, further complicating accurate diagnosis. As a result, additional diagnostic tools are required to confirm infection status. Avidity is a measure of the strength of the binding between an antigen and antibody. Avidity-based assays have been developed for various infectious agents, including toxoplasma, cytomegalovirus (CMV), SARS-CoV-2, and avian influenza, and are promising tools in clinical diagnostics. By measuring the strength of antibody binding, they offer critical insights into the maturity of the immune response. These assays are instrumental in distinguishing between acute and chronic or past infections, monitoring disease progression, and guiding treatment decisions. The development of automated platforms has optimized the testing process by enhancing efficiency and minimizing the risk of manual errors. Additionally, the recent advent of real-time biosensor immunoassays, including the label-free immunoassays (LFIA), has further amplified the capabilities of these assays. These advances have expanded the clinical applications of avidity-based assays, making them useful tools for the diagnosis and management of various infectious diseases. This review is structured around several key aspects of IgG avidity in clinical diagnosis, including: (i) a detailed exposition of the IgG affinity maturation process; (ii) a thorough discussion of the IgG avidity assays, including the recently emerged biosensor-based approaches; and (iii) an examination of the applications of IgG avidity in clinical diagnosis. This review is intended to contribute toward the development of enhanced diagnostic tools through critical assessment of the present landscape of avidity-based testing, which allows us to identify the existing knowledge gaps and highlight areas for future investigation.
期刊介绍:
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences publishes comprehensive and high quality review articles in all areas of clinical laboratory science, including clinical biochemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, transfusion medicine, genetics, immunology and molecular diagnostics. The reviews critically evaluate the status of current issues in the selected areas, with a focus on clinical laboratory diagnostics and latest advances. The adjective “critical” implies a balanced synthesis of results and conclusions that are frequently contradictory and controversial.