Evaluation of cell-based and tissue-based immunofluorescent assays for detection of glial fibrillary acidic protein autoantibodies in the cerebrospinal fluid of dogs with meningoencephalitis of unknown origin and other central nervous system disorders
Search for other papers by Aaron J. Rozental in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stephanie McGrath in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Allison P. Mooney in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Shannon R. Hinson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrew McKeon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sean J. Pittock in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chase C. Gross in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kenneth L. Tyler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate whether cell-based and tissue-based immunofluorescent assays (IFAs) run in parallel could be used to detect glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) autoantibodies in the CSF of dogs with meningoencephalitis of unknown origin (MUO) and other CNS disorders
ANIMALS
15 CSF samples obtained from dogs with presumed MUO (n = 5), CNS disease other than MUO (5), and idiopathic epilepsy (5).
PROCEDURES
All CSF samples underwent parallel analysis with a cell-based IFA that targeted the α isoform of human GFAP and a tissue-based IFA that involved mouse brain cryosections. Descriptive data were generated.
RESULTS
Only 1 CSF sample yielded mildly positive results on the cell-based IFA; that sample was from 1 of the dogs with presumed MUO. The remaining 14 CSF samples tested negative on the cell-based IFA. All 15 CSF samples yielded negative results on the tissue-based IFA.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Results suggested that concurrent use of a cell-based IFA designed to target the human GFAP-α isoform and a tissue-based IFA that involved mouse tissue cryosections was inadequate for detection of GFAP autoantibodies in canine CSF samples. Given that GFAP autoantibodies were likely present in the CSF samples analyzed, these findings suggested that epitopes differ substantially between canine and human GFAP and that canine GFAP autoanti-body does not bind to mouse GFAP. Without a positive control, absence of GFAP autoantibody in this cohort cannot be ruled out. Further research is necessary to develop a noninvasive and sensitive method for diagnosis of MUO in dogs.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 350 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 10008 | 7759 | 152 |
| PDF Downloads | 857 | 186 | 3 |
