抗原-抗体结合率在临床诊断中的意义。

IF 6.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Yaxin Li, He S Yang, P J Klasse, Zhen Zhao
{"title":"抗原-抗体结合率在临床诊断中的意义。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

免疫球蛋白 G (IgG) 和免疫球蛋白 M (IgM) 检测通常用于确定感染状态。通常情况下,检测到 IgM 表示急性感染或近期感染,而仅出现 IgG 则表示慢性感染或既往感染。然而,仅仅依靠 IgG 和 IgM 抗体阳性可能不足以区分急性和慢性感染。这种局限性来自几个因素。IgM 的长期存在会使诊断解释复杂化,而 IgM 假阳性结果往往是由于抗体与各种抗原的交叉反应引起的。此外,在过早采集的样本中或在免疫力低下的个体中可能仍然检测不到 IgM,从而使准确诊断更加复杂。因此,需要额外的诊断工具来确认感染状态。效价是衡量抗原与抗体之间结合强度的指标。目前已针对弓形虫、巨细胞病毒 (CMV)、SARS-CoV-2 和禽流感等多种感染性病原体开发出了基于效价的检测方法,是临床诊断中很有前途的工具。通过测量抗体结合的强度,它们可以提供有关免疫反应成熟度的重要信息。这些检测有助于区分急性感染和慢性感染或既往感染、监测疾病进展和指导治疗决策。自动化平台的开发提高了效率,最大程度地降低了人工操作失误的风险,从而优化了检测流程。此外,最近出现的实时生物传感器免疫测定,包括无标记免疫测定(LFIA),进一步提高了这些检测方法的能力。这些进步扩大了基于热敏性检测的临床应用,使其成为诊断和管理各种传染病的有用工具。本综述围绕 IgG 阳性在临床诊断中的几个关键方面展开,包括:(i) IgG 亲和力成熟过程的详细阐述;(ii) IgG 阳性检测方法的深入讨论,包括最近出现的基于生物传感器的方法;以及 (iii) IgG 阳性在临床诊断中的应用研究。本综述旨在通过对目前基于亲和力检测的现状进行批判性评估,找出现有的知识空白并强调未来研究的重点领域,从而为开发更先进的诊断工具做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The significance of antigen-antibody-binding avidity in clinical diagnosis.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信