High incidence of anti-cytokine autoantibodies in dogs with immune diseases suggests important immuno-regulatory functions

Autran-Martínez, M.; Cortes-Acevedo, Paulina; Ceron-Gutierrez, Lourdes; Davies, Sophie; Mendoza-Elvira, E.S.; Martinez-Rodriguez, H. A.; Liboni, Cristina; Pérez-Valencia, V.; Döffinger, Rainer; Barcenas-Morales, Gabriela

doi:10.1016/j.vetimm.2019.109902

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies were first evaluated for relevance. Relevance criteria included: (1) evaluation of an autoantibody biomarker; (2) autoantibody evaluation with regard to a specific disease or organ system (vs studies of autoantibodies in autoimmune disease more broadly, such as cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated protein 4 [CTLA‐4] 56 or anticytokine antibodies) 57 ; (3) autoantibody studied in the context of spontaneous autoimmune disease; (4) autoantibody used to discriminate between diseased and nondiseased state (eg, not studies measuring baseline concentrations of autoantibodies in certain populations or following autoantibody concentrations longitudinally in certain populations over time).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of autoantibodies as biomarkers for canine autoimmune disease

Treeful

Coffey

Friedenberg

2022

Veterinary Internal Medicne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Autoantibody biomarkers are valuable tools used to diagnose and manage autoimmune diseases in dogs. However, prior publications have raised concerns over a lack of standardization and sufficient validation for the use of biomarkers in veterinary medicine. Objectives Systematically compile primary research on autoantibody biomarkers for autoimmune disease in dogs, summarize their methodological features, and evaluate their quality; synthesize data supporting their use into a resource for veterinarians and researchers. Animals Not used. Methods Five indices were searched to identify studies for evaluation: PubMed, CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, Agricola, and SCOPUS. Two independent reviewers (AET and ELC) screened titles and abstracts for exclusion criteria followed by full‐text review of remaining articles. Relevant studies were classified based on study objectives (biomarker, epitope, technique). Data on study characteristics and outcomes were synthesized in independent data tables for each classification. Results Ninety‐two studies qualified for final analysis (n = 49 biomarker, n = 9 epitope, and n = 34 technique studies). A high degree of heterogeneity in study characteristics and outcomes reporting was observed. Opportunities to strengthen future studies could include: (1) routine use of negative controls, (2) power analyses to inform sample sizes, (3) statistical analyses when appropriate, and (4) multiple detection techniques to confirm results. Conclusions These findings provide a resource that will allow veterinary clinicians to efficiently evaluate the evidence supporting the use of autoantibody biomarkers, along with the varied methodological approaches used in their development.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%