Detection of Anti-Nuclear Antibodies Indirect Immunofluorescence vs Immunoblot

Aim: Detecting Anti- nuclear antibodies (ANA) Indirect Immunofluorescence or Immuno blot which is more specific and sensitivity help in diagnosis & Prognosis. Method and Result: Patient attending OP/IP in tertiary care hospital of 100 cases, excluding criteria ruled out other disorders showing similar symptoms, including criteria both male and female patient age group above 18yrs. All samples are sent for IIF and immunoblot detection test and out of 100, where only 35 positive with both IIF and immunoblot positive , 65 cases IIF negative but immunoblot positive with titters higher then 1+ for more than one antigen. Discussion: Indirect Immunofluorescence method reported in titre, highest dilution antibodies 1:100 is positive for auto immune disorders. IIF technique required skilled operators, detecting on monolayers of cultured epithelial cells. It tells presence of ANA but not specific antibodies clearly. In contrast, Immunoblot uses specific antigens attached to a solid surface to detect antibodies in patient sample. When specific antibodies are present, they bind to the antigen on the membrane, resulting in a visible dark line. This method is more specific, easier to train personnel and more costeffective. Additionally, long term analysis of immunoblot pattern can offer important insights into disease prognosis. Diagnosis & Conclusion: prognosis of ANA is easier with Immunoblot detecting specific antigen then indirect immunofluorescence method which required high technology and skilled personal and less prognostic value.