Clinical studies have reported different diagnostic/predictive values of antibodies to domain 1 or 4/5 of β2glycoproteinI in terms of risk of thrombosis and pregnancy complications in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. To obtain direct evidence for the pathogenic role of anti-domain 1 or anti-domain 4/5 antibodies, we analyzed the in vivo pro-coagulant effect of two groups of 5 sera IgG each reacting selectively with domain 1 or domain 5 in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated rats. Antibody-induced thrombus formation in mesenteric vessels was followed by intravital microscopy, and vascular deposition of β2glycoproteinI, human IgG and C3 was analyzed by immunofluorescence. Five serum IgG with undetectable anti-β2glycoproteinI antibodies served as controls. All the anti-domain 1-positive IgG exhibited potent pro-coagulant activity while the anti-domain 5-positive and the negative control IgG failed to promote blood clot and vessel occlusion. A stronger granular deposit of IgG/C3 was found on the mesenteric endothelium of rats treated with anti-domain 1 antibodies, as opposed to a mild linear IgG staining and absence of C3 observed in rats receiving anti-domain 5 antibodies. Purified anti-domain 5 IgG, unlike anti-domain 1 IgG, did not recognize cardiolipin-bound β2glycoproteinI while being able to interact with fluid-phase β2glycoproteinI. These findings may explain the failure of anti-domain 5 antibodies to exhibit a thrombogenic effect in vivo, and the interaction of these antibodies with circulating β2glycoproteinI suggests their potential competitive role with the pro-coagulant activity of anti-domain 1 antibodies. These data aim at better defining “really at risk” patients for more appropriate treatments to avoid recurrences and disability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Durigutto et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: