Next Article in Journal
The Impact of the Angulus Biopsy on the Detection of Staging and the Grading of Chronic Gastritis
Next Article in Special Issue
The Performance of Pulmonary Function Tests in Predicting Systemic Sclerosis—Interstitial Lung Disease in the European Scleroderma Trial and Research Database
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing X-ray-Based Wrist Fracture Diagnosis Using HyperColumn-Convolutional Block Attention Module
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pulmonary Nodules in Juvenile Systemic Sclerosis: A Case-Series from the National Registry for Childhood Onset Scleroderma (NRCOS)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 18
10.3390/diagnostics13182929
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Autoantibody Array Assay: A Novel Autoantibody Detection Method

by
Yuta Norimatsu
1,2,
Kazuki Mitsuru Matsuda
1,
Kei Yamaguchi
3,4,
Chihiro Ono
4,
Taishi Okumura
4,
Emi Kogo
4,
Hirohito Kotani
1,
Teruyoshi Hisamoto
1,
Ai Kuzumi
1,
Takemichi Fukasawa
1,5,
Asako Yoshizaki-Ogawa
1,
Naoki Goshima
3,4,
Shinichi Sato
1 and
Ayumi Yoshizaki
1,5,*
1
Department of Dermatology, The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan
2
Department of Dermatology, International University of Health and Welfare Narita Hospital, Chiba 286-8520, Japan
3
Molecular Profiling Research Center for Drug Discovery, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tokyo 100-0013, Japan
4
ProteoBridge Corporation, Tokyo 135-0064, Japan
5
Department of Clinical Cannabinoid Research, The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2023, 13(18), 2929; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182929
Submission received: 19 August 2023 / Revised: 6 September 2023 / Accepted: 12 September 2023 / Published: 13 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Identification and Management of Systemic Sclerosis)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Systemic sclerosis (SSc) and dermatomyositis (DM) are autoimmune collagen diseases. Specific autoantibodies are known to be involved in their pathogeneses, each presenting with a different clinical manifestation. Although immunoprecipitation is the gold standard method for detecting autoantibodies, it is difficult to perform in all cases owing to the use of radioisotopes. In this study, we developed a new detection method for SSc and DM autoantibodies (A-cube) using cell-free protein synthesis and examined its validity. Proteins were synthesized using wheat germ cell-free protein synthesis. A total of 100 cases of SSc, 50 cases of DM, and 82 healthy controls were examined. The validity of the method was examined by a comparison with existing test results. Anti-centromere antibody, anti-topoisomerase I antibody, anti-RNA polymerase III antibody, anti-U1RNP anti-body, anti-Jo-1 antibody, anti-TIF1γ antibody, anti-Mi-2 antibody, and anti-ARS antibody were tested for. The results suggested that A-cube is comparable with existing testing methods or has a high sensitivity or specificity. In addition, there was a case in which the diagnosis was reconsidered using the A-cube. The quality of the A-cube was ensured, and its usefulness for a comprehensive analysis was demonstrated. The A-cube can therefore contribute to the clinical assessment and treatment of SSc and DM.

1. Introduction

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a collagen disease that involves three pathological conditions: autoimmunity, vascular damage, and fibrosis [1]. B cells are thought to play an important role in the pathogenesis of SSc, but recently, Th17 has also been thought to play an important role and is attracting attention as a new therapeutic target for SSc [2,3,4]. Autoantibodies such as anti-topoisomerase I, anti-centromere, and anti-RNA polymerase III (RNAP3) are known to be involved in the pathogenesis of SSc, and each has a different clinical appearance. For example, anti-centromere antibody-positive systemic sclerosis often results in localized systemic sclerosis, whereas anti-topoisomerase I antibody-positive systemic sclerosis and anti-RNAP3 antibody-positive systemic sclerosis result in diffuse systemic sclerosis. In anti-topoisomerase I-positive systemic sclerosis, interstitial pneumonia should be considered, whereas in anti-RNAP3 antibody-positive systemic sclerosis, severe skin sclerosis and complications of malignancy should be considered [5]. These autoantibodies are also known to appear prior to the characteristic symptoms of SSc, and their detection is considered to be important in the diagnosis of early and mild cases [6]. In addition, it is believed that the autoantibodies characteristic of SSc do not change to other antibodies or disappear spontaneously once they have appeared, and the autoantibody titer of the anti-topoisomerase I antibody is correlated with the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), the presence of ulcers, and the severity of interstitial pneumonia [7,8,9]. Thus, the measurement of the autoantibody titer characteristic of SSc is considered to be important not only for diagnosis, but also for understanding the disease status.
Dermatomyositis (DM) is also an autoimmune disease, in which characteristic autoantibodies such as anti-MDA5, anti-Jo-1, and anti-TIF1γ are involved in its pathogenesis, each presenting a different clinical picture [10,11,12].
Immunoprecipitation is the gold standard for detecting autoantibodies [13]. However, because immunoprecipitation uses radioisotopes, it is difficult to perform immunoprecipitation in all cases; therefore, analyses are often limited to immunoblotting and ELISA [13]. Although immunoblotting is a simpler method than immunoprecipitation, it is not a useful test because of its high false negative rate of 19% [14,15]. In particular, the false negative rate of immunoblotting for anti-OJ antibodies is 100%, and it is thought that anti-OJ antibodies cannot be detected by immunoblotting.
It is also known that isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase (IARS), which is considered to be a major anti-OJ antibody antigen, does not react with anti-OJ antibodies, even if it is prepared via the existing ELISA method using Escherichia coli [16]. Major anti-OJ antibody antigens are glutamyl-prolyl-tRNA synthetase (EPRS), leucine tRNA synthetases, methotionyl-tRNA synthetase (MARS), glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase (QARS), lysyl-tRNA synthetase (KARS), and arginyl-tRNA synthetase (RARS). Anti-OJ antibody antigen is a component of the enzyme complex consisting of eight aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (EPRS, MARS, QARS, KARS, RARS, and aspartyl-tRNA synthetase (DARS)), along with the aminoacyl- tRNA synthetase complex interacting with (AIMP)1, AIMP2, and AIMP3. It has been suggested that the higher-order structure of the enzyme complex may be important for the recognition of anti-OJ antibodies [16,17]. Thus, the detection of autoantibodies is difficult in some cases using the existing test methods.
The wheat germ cell-free system is known to have higher expressions of proteins of any molecular weight than existing protein synthesis systems, such as E. coli and silkworm. Conventional tests have used E. coli to synthesize proteins, but the number of proteins that can be synthesized is limited, because they are prokaryotic organisms and their translation reaction patterns are different from those of humans. The seed embryos of higher organisms, such as wheat germ, are thought to be excellent materials for the preparation of cell-free systems because they store a large amount of highly active translation factors (50% of the germ weight) in preparation for germination. On the other hand, it is known that the method using these higher organisms is, at the same time, susceptible to translation inhibitory factors, and protein synthesis tends to be unstable. The germ cell-free system was thought to be as unstable as other synthesis methods because of the translation enzyme system, however, the reaction duration and amount of protein synthesized have been improved by washing, and the germ cell-free system is now attracting attention as a useful method [18,19,20]. Therefore, in this study, we developed a new test method known as A-cube using this technology and validated it by comparing it with the existing test methods. Our results suggest that A-cube is comparable with existing tests or has a high sensitivity or specificity. Additionally, A-cube detected anti-OJ antibodies that could not be detected by conventional tests.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

We studied 100 patients diagnosed with SSc, 50 patients with DM, and 82 healthy participants at our hospital. SSc was diagnosed using the 2013 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria [21]. DM was diagnosed using the 2017 EULAR/ACR criteria [22]. The sera of patients with benign skin tumors who visited the dermatology department of our hospital and provided consent were used as controls. The backgrounds of the patients with SSc and DM and the healthy participants are shown in Table 1. We excluded serum when the patient was suffering from an infectious disease.

2.2. Specimens

Sera stored at −80 °C in our hospital were used.

2.3. Preparation of New Arrays

Wheat germ cell-free protein synthesis technology was selected as the protein synthesis system [18,19,20]. The synthesized proteins were captured on array plates under wet conditions. For preparing the array plates, amino-group-modified glass plates (SDM0011, Matsunami Glass, Osaka, Japan) were coated with 50 mM of glutathione (GSH) via Sulfo-SMPB (22317, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The translation reaction mixture containing the FLAG-GST-tagged target protein was diluted 5 times with PBS and simultaneously spotted onto 4 GSH-coated glass plates (240 spots/plate) using a 1536-channel independent cylinder system (BIOTEC, Tokyo, Japan). The translation reaction mixture was spotted in duplicate. After spotting, the plates were incubated at room temperature for 30 min and washed with Tris-buffered saline containing 0.1% Tween 20 (TBST; 9997S, Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA, USA). The plates were then incubated in blocking buffer (50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 200 mM NaCl, 0.08% Triton-X, 25% Glycerol, 5 mM GSH, 0.3% skim milk, and 1 mM DTT) and stored at −80 °C until use. The autoantibody assay using this array plate was named A-Cube. To maintain the higher-order structure of the synthesized proteins, a solution containing the undenatured antigen proteins was spotted on the substrate and frozen (Figure 1), which enabled us to keep the proteins in a wet state without drying until the serum reaction took place.
Unlike existing testing, the A-cube did not dry once before measurement because the protein solution was spotted onto the array as it was.
The existing tests used for comparison included:
  • Anti-centromere antibody (MESACUP-2)
  • Anti-Topo1 antibody (MESACUP-3)
  • Anti-RNAP3 antibody (IMESACUP)
  • Anti-U1RNP antibody (ThermoFisher)
  • Anti-Jo-1 antibody (MESACUP-3)
  • Anti-TIF1γ antibody (MESACUP)
  • Anti-Mi-2 antibody (MESACUP)
  • Anti-ARS antibody
A statistical analysis was performed using Spearman’s rank correlation test, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05. Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) was used for all the statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Determination of Reference Values

The reference values were determined using the measurement results of the 82 healthy participants. The reference values were determined based on the mean +3 SD and mean +5 SD. CENP-A, RNAPII, and SMN were classified as follows: (Unit_Index) (−): less than 10.0; (±): greater than 10.0, to less than 13.0; and (+): greater than 13.0. Other antibodies were classified as (Unit_Index) (−): less than 7.0; (±): greater than 7.0, to less than 10.0; and (+): greater than 10.0.

3.2. For Healthy Participants

It is known that various antibodies, such as antinuclear antibodies, are positive in healthy participants [23]; thus, the fact that 100% specificity was not achieved for all antibodies was considered to be a natural result.

3.3. Anti-Centromere Antibodies

Of the 20 ELISA (CENP-B)-positive cases, all 20 were consistent with the A-cube-positive cases (Table 2). One case was negative for ELISA and positive for A-cube (Table 2). This case was followed-up for limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) with an unknown antibody. Additional antinuclear antibodies were submitted by our department, and the result was centromere pattern positive. This suggested that this was a false negative ELISA case. Therefore, anti-centromere antibodies are considered to be more sensitive to the A-cube than MESACUP.
Table 2 shows the results for each antibody.
The correlation between the autoantibody titer of the existing test (MESACUP-2) and the autoantibody titer detected by the A-cube was examined, and the result was significant (p < 0.0001, (r = 0.9421)), indicating a good correlation (Figure 2A).

3.4. Anti-Topoisomerase I Antibody

Of the 31 ELISA (topoisomerase I)-positive cases, 30 were positive for the A-cube (Table 2). In one case, the antibody titer was weakly positive (22.5) using ELISA and no anti-topoisomerase I antibody was detected using immunoprecipitation, suggesting a false positive ELISA. Of the 67 ELISA-negative cases, all 67 were consistent with the A-cube-negative cases (Table 2).
Therefore, the anti-topoisomerase I antibody is considered to be more specific to the A-cube than MESACUP3.
In addition, the correlation between the autoantibody titer of the existing test (MESACUP-3) and the autoantibody titer detected by the A-cube was examined, and the result was significant (p < 0.0001, (r = 0.906)), indicating a good correlation (Figure 2B).

3.5. Anti-RNA Polymerase III Antibody

Of the 14 ELISA (RP155)-positive cases, 13 were A-cube-positive (Table 2). This case was considered a false positive case because the antinuclear antibody was also negative and the ELISA titer was low. Of the 75 ELISA-negative cases, all 75 were A-cube-negative (Table 2).
Therefore, RP155 was considered to be a test with a higher specificity than the ELISA.
The correlation between the autoantibody titer of the existing test (IMESACUP) and the autoantibody titer detected by the A-cube was p = 0.0001 and r = 0.934, suggesting a good correlation (Figure 2C).

3.6. U1RNP and SNRNP70

Of the 15 ELISA-positive cases, 12 were positive for SNRNP70, SNRPA, or SNRPC by the A-cube (Table 2). Out of the 82 ELISA-negative cases, all 82 were consistent with the A-cube (Table 2). We performed additional double immunodiffusion assays on the discordant cases and found that all three cases were negative, so they were considered to be false positive ELISA results. Therefore, the anti-U1RNP antibody was considered to be a highly specific test compared to ThermoFisher.

3.7. Anti-Jo-1 Antibody MESACUP-3

The anti-Jo-1 antibody MESACUP-3 was positive in two of the two cases confirmed by ELISA (MESACUP-3) (Table 2). Further, 34 of the 34 ELISA-negative cases were consistent with the 34 negative cases of the A-cube (Table 2).

3.8. Anti-TIF1γ Antibody

Of the nine patients that tested positive for the anti-TIF1γ antibody using ELISA (MESACUP) (Table 2), nine were A-cube-positive. In total, 10 out of 10 patients tested negative for ELISA, which was consistent with the 10 cases that tested negative for the A-cube (Table 2).

3.9. Anti-Mi-2 Antibody

One case of anti-Mi-2 antibody positivity tested using ELISA (MESACUP) was also positive for the A-cube (Table 2). Fifteen cases of negative ELISA results were consistent with fifteen cases of negative A-cube results (Table 2).

3.10. Anti-PL-7 Antibody

Four of the four patients who tested positive for the anti-PL-7 antibody using the A-cube tested positive using ELISA (Table 2).

3.11. Anti-PL-12 Antibody

ELISA was positive in one out of four patients who tested positive for the anti-PL-12 antibody using the A-cube (Table 2).

3.12. Anti-EJ Antibody

One patient with positive the anti-EJ antibody in the A-cube tested positive using ELISA (Table 2).

3.13. Comparison with the Immunoprecipitation Method

Through the immunoprecipitation method, the anti-Th/To antibody, anti-U3RNP antibody, anti-NOR90 antibody, anti-PM-Scl antibody, anti-topoisomerase I antibody, anti-RNA polymerase I antibody, anti-RNA polymerase II antibody, anti-RNA polymerase III antibody, anti-Ku antibody, anti-Jo-1 antibody, anti-PL-7 antibody, anti-PL-12 antibody, anti-EJ antibody, anti-OJ antibody, anti-KS antibody, anti-SRP antibody, anti-SAE antibody, anti-TIF1α antibody, anti-TIF1β antibody, anti-TIF1γ antibody, anti-MXP2 antibody, and anti-Mi-2 antibody were detected in the samples from the cases and compared with the A-cube. The A-cube was able to detect the antibodies detected via immunoprecipitation in 60 of 61 cases, except for the anti-TIF1β antibody.

3.14. Cases in Which the Diagnosis Was Reconsidered by Using A-Cube

Figure 3 summarizes the results of the cases in which no SSc-specific autoantibodies or DM-specific autoantibodies were detected in SSc.
When we reconsidered the diagnoses of these cases, we found that they had DM-specific skin rashes and findings suggestive of muscle weakness. In addition, the diagnosis of SSc only met the VEDOSS criteria [24] and did not meet any other diagnostic criteria. Therefore, these cases were followed up as SSc or SSc + DM, but it was considered appropriate to treat them as DM. This suggests that some of the cases diagnosed using the VEDOSS criteria may have actually been DM or PM.
As for the cases in which both SSc- and DM-specific antibodies were detected, upon re-examination, we found that there were five cases (#6, #9, #10, #14, #15, and #16) that were originally followed up as SSc + polymyositis (DM), and these cases were considered to be consistent with SSc + DM. Although #1–5, #11, and #18 were followed up as SSc, it was considered appropriate to treat them as SSc + DM.
Figure 4 summarizes the results of the cases of DM in which either DM-specific autoantibodies were not detected or SSc-specific autoantibodies were detected.
As a result of the re-examination of cases #1 and #12, the VEDOSS diagnostic criteria for SSc were met, and it was considered appropriate to treat them as SSc rather than DM [24]. The remaining cases were considered to be DM + SSc.

4. Discussion

The above results suggest that the A-cube is comparable with existing tests or has a high sensitivity or specificity. In addition, the A-cube was able to detect anti-OJ antibodies that could not be detected using conventional tests.
Conventional tests have previously used E. coli for protein synthesis, but the number of proteins that can be synthesized is limited, as the prokaryotic organism has a different translation reaction pattern than humans [25,26,27].
The cell-free protein synthesis method maintains the same speed and accuracy of peptide synthesis as that in living cells, and because it does not use living organisms, it is not subject to physiological constraints and is expected to dramatically expand the range of synthesizable molecular species [28,29]. The use of the wheat cell-free protein synthesis method may have enabled the detection of anti-OJ antibodies, because proteins that could not be synthesized using conventional methods could be synthesized. In addition, the A-cube retained the higher-order structure of the protein by spotting a solution containing the undenatured antigen protein on the substrate and freezing it. The preservation of the higher-order structure of the enzyme complex containing IARS, which is considered to be a major anti-OJ antibody antigen, may have led to the recognition of anti-OJ antibodies [16,17].
Antibodies specific for SSc, such as anti-topoisomerase I, anti-centromere, and anti-RNAP3, are rarely detected when one of them is detected [30]. The clinical picture of systemic scleroderma is similar to that of SSc, even when multiple antibodies are present. In addition, the clinical picture of SSc strongly reflects the clinical picture of SSc-specific antibodies and is not affected by other antibodies, even if multiple antibodies are present [31]. In contrast, anti-centromere antibodies and anti-topoisomerase I antibodies are said to be co-positive at a rate of 0.05–5.6% [32,33,34,35,36,37]. According to an article that investigated cases of co-positivity between anti-topoisomerase I and anti-centromere antibodies, the rate of co-positivity was lower than the rate of co-positivity when anti-topoisomerase I and anti-centromere antibodies were assumed to exist independently without affecting each other. It is also known that, in co-positive cases, there are strong clinical findings of vascular and other visceral effects [33]. In addition, studies in New Zealand have suggested that antibody profiles differ between countries, such as Denmark, the US, Sweden, Canada, France, the UK, and Italy [38,39,40,41,42,43]. It is possible that a comprehensive analysis of these autoantibodies using the A-cube may clarify the characteristics of the antibody profile of SSc, which has been unknown until now. Moreover, a comprehensive analysis using the A-cube may enable a more accurate diagnosis of SSc or DM in cases that meet only the early diagnosis criteria, which are difficult to diagnose with existing tests.
In the treatment of SSc, skin sclerosis and abnormalities in capillaroscopy are important for diagnosis [44,45,46,47], but this judgment requires training and may be difficult to perform without SSc specialists. In particular, when CENPB, Topo1, and RNAP3 are not detected, even specialists may have difficulty in making this diagnosis, as we experienced in our case. Our hospital has a scleroderma center, is one of the leading hospitals in Japan for the treatment of SSc, and plays a central role in the treatment of SSc in Japan.
The A-cube is useful for SSc specialists, as well as SSc non-specialists, and may become a useful diagnostic tool for both types of clinicians.
In addition, it is noteworthy that there were cases in which the possibility of DM was suggested by a comprehensive analysis. Although it is recommended in current medical practice to perform only the necessary tests for a differential diagnosis, the results of this study suggest the usefulness of a comprehensive analysis in SSc treatment.
On the other hand, there were some cases of DM that were diagnosed as SSc or DM + SSc by a comprehensive measurement.
This suggests that SSc and DM are both difficult to differentiate from each other, and that a comprehensive analysis may facilitate differentiation between them.
As for the differentiation between SSc and DM, SSc-ILD is known to be more difficult to treat than other CTD-ILD, especially in pulmonary treatment [48], and the treatment strategies are different. Therefore, it is important to diagnose SSc and DM accurately.
In conclusion, the quality of the A-cube was assured and the usefulness of a comprehensive analysis was demonstrated by this study, thereby showing that the A-cube can contribute to the clinical treatment of SSc and DM.

Author Contributions

A.Y. and S.S. designed and supervised the study. Y.N., A.Y., K.Y., E.K., T.O., C.O. and N.G., performed the experiments and analyzed the data. Y.N., A.Y., H.K., T.H., K.M.M., A.K., T.F., and A.Y.-O. collected human samples and patient clinical data. A.K., K.M.M. and T.F. provided essential reagents and expertise. Y.N., A.Y., K.Y. and S.S. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Reviewed and approved by The University of Tokyo’s IRB; approval #695.

Informed Consent Statement

All study participants provided informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from Ayumi Yoshizaki.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Medsger, T.A., Jr. Natural History of Systemic Sclerosis and the Assessment of Disease Activity, Severity, Functional Status, and Psychologic Well-Being. Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2003, 29, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ebata, S.; Yoshizaki, A.; Oba, K.; Kashiwabara, K.; Ueda, K.; Uemura, Y.; Watadani, T.; Fukasawa, T.; Miura, S.; Yoshizaki-Ogawa, A.; et al. Safety and efficacy of rituximab in systemic sclerosis (DESIRES): A double-blind, investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021, 3, e489–e497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Murdaca, G.; Colombo, B.M.; Puppo, F. The role of Th17 lymphocytes in the autoimmune and chronic inflammatory diseases. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2011, 6, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fukasawa, T.; Yoshizaki, A.; Ebata, S.; Fukayama, M.; Kuzumi, A.; Norimatsu, Y.; Matsuda, K.M.; Kotani, H.; Sumida, H.; Yoshizaki-Ogawa, A.; et al. Interleukin-17 pathway inhibition with brodalumab in early systemic sclerosis: Analysis of a single-arm, open-label, phase 1 trial. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2023, 89, 366–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hamaguchi, Y. Autoantibody Profiles in Systemic Sclerosis: Predictive Value for Clinical Evaluation and Prognosis. J. Dermatol. 2010, 37, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Burbelo, P.D.; Gordon, S.M.; Waldman, M.; Edison, J.D.; Little, D.J.; Stitt, R.S.; Bailey, W.T.; Hughes, J.B.; Olson, S.W. Autoantibodies Are Present Before the Clinical Diagnosis of Systemic Sclerosis. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, P.Q.; Fertig, N.; Medsger, T.A., Jr.; Wright, T.M. Correlation of Serum Anti-DNA Topoisomerase I Antibody Levels with Disease Severity and Activity in Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48, 1363–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nihtyanova, S.I.; Denton, C.P. Autoantibodies as Predictive Tools in Systemic Sclerosis. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2010, 6, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kuwana, M.; Kaburaki, J.; Mimori, T.; Kawakami, Y.; Tojo, T. Longitudinal Analysis of Autoantibody Response to Topoisomerase I in Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000, 43, 1074–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Satoh, M.; Tanaka, S.; Ceribelli, A.; Calise, S.J.; Chan, E.K. A Comprehensive Overview on Myositis-Specific Antibodies: New and Old Biomarkers in Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2017, 52, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hamaguchi, Y.; Fujimoto, M.; Matsushita, T.; Kaji, K.; Komura, K.; Hasegawa, M.; Kodera, M.; Muroi, E.; Fujikawa, K.; Seishima, M.; et al. Common and Distinct Clinical Features in Adult Patients with Anti-Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase Antibodies: Heterogeneity Within the Syndrome. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Betteridge, Z.; Tansley, S.; Shaddick, G.; Chinoy, H.; Cooper, R.G.; New, R.P.; Lilleker, J.B.; Vencovsky, J.; Chazarain, L.; Danko, K.; et al. Frequency, Mutual Exclusivity and Clinical Associations of Myositis Autoantibodies in a Combined European Cohort of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy Patients. J. Autoimmun. 2019, 101, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Stochmal, A.; Czuwara, J.; Trojanowska, M.; Rudnicka, L. Antinuclear Antibodies in Systemic Sclerosis: An Update. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2020, 58, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mecoli, C.A.; Gutierrez-Alamillo, L.; Yang, Q.; Sampedro, M.; Woods, A.; Hummers, L.K.; Wigley, F.; Shah, A.A.; Casciola-Rosen, L. PM-Scl and Th/To in Systemic Sclerosis: A Comparison of Different Autoantibody Assays. Clin. Rheumatol. 2021, 40, 2763–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tansley, S.L.; Li, D.; Betteridge, Z.E.; McHugh, N.J. The Reliability of Immunoassays to Detect Autoantibodies in Patients with Myositis Is Dependent on Autoantibody Specificity. Rheumatology 2020, 59, 2109–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nakashima, R.; Imura, Y.; Hosono, Y.; Seto, M.; Murakami, A.; Watanabe, K.; Handa, T.; Mishima, M.; Hirakata, M.; Takeuchi, T.; et al. The Multicenter Study of a New Assay for Simultaneous Detection of Multiple Anti-Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases in Myositis and Interstitial Pneumonia. PLoS ONE. 2014, 9, e85062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vulsteke, J.B.; Satoh, M.; Malyavantham, K.; Bossuyt, X.; De Langhe, E.; Mahler, M. Anti-OJ Autoantibodies: Rare or Underdetected? Autoimmun. Rev. 2019, 18, 658–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sawasaki, T.; Ogasawara, T.; Morishita, R.; Endo, Y. A Cell-Free Protein Synthesis System for High-Throughput Proteomics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 14652–14657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Endo, Y.; Sawasaki, T. Cell-Free Expression Systems for Eukaryotic Protein Production. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2006, 17, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sawasaki, T.; Hasegawa, Y.; Tsuchimochi, M.; Kamura, N.; Ogasawara, T.; Kuroita, T.; Endo, Y. A Bilayer Cell-Free Protein Synthesis System for High-Throughput Screening of Gene Products. FEBS Lett. 2002, 514, 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. van den Hoogen, F.; Khanna, D.; Fransen, J.; Johnson, S.R.; Baron, M.; Tyndall, A.; Matucci-Cerinic, M.; Naden, R.P.; Medsger, T.A., Jr.; Carreira, P.E.; et al. 2013 Classification Criteria for Systemic Sclerosis: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Collaborative Initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2013, 65, 2737–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lundberg, I.E.; Tjärnlund, A.; Bottai, M.; Werth, V.P.; Pilkington, C.; de Visser, M.; Alfredsson, L.; A Amato, A.; Barohn, R.J.; Liang, M.H.; et al. 2017 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Adult and Juvenile Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies and Their Major Subgroups. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2017, 76, 1955–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tan, E.M.; Feltkamp, T.E.; Smolen, J.S.; Butcher, B.; Dawkins, R.; Fritzler, M.J.; Gordon, T.; Hardin, J.A.; Kalden, J.R.; Lahita, R.G.; et al. Range of Antinuclear Antibodies in “Healthy” Individuals. Arthritis Rheum. 1997, 40, 1601–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bellando-Randone, S.; Guiducci, S.; Matucci-Cerinic, M. Very Early Diagnosis of Systemic Sclerosis. Pol. Arch. Med. Wewn. 2012, 122 (Suppl. S1), 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Muro, Y.; Yamano, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Oto, Y.; Nakajima, K.; Mitsuma, T.; Kikuchi, S.; Matsumae, A.; Ogawa-Momohara, M.; Takeichi, T.; et al. Immune recognition of lysyl-tRNA synthetase and isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase by anti-OJ antibody-positive sera. J. Autoimmun. 2021, 122, 102680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Netzer, W.J.; Hartl, F.U. Recombination of Protein Domains Facilitated by Co-Translational Folding in Eukaryotes. Nature 1997, 388, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hartl, F.U.; Hayer-Hartl, M. Molecular Chaperones in the Cytosol: From Nascent Chain to Folded Protein. Science 2002, 295, 1852–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kurland, C.G. Translational Accuracy In Vitro. Cell 1982, 28, 201–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pavlov, M.Y.; Ehrenberg, M. Rate of Translation of Natural mRNAs in an Optimized In Vitro System. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1996, 328, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fanning, G.C.; Welsh, K.I.; Bunn, C.; Du Bois, R.; Black, C.M. HLA Associations in Three Mutually Exclusive Autoantibody Subgroups in UK Systemic Sclerosis Patients. Br. J. Rheumatol. 1998, 37, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Okano, Y. Antinuclear Antibody in Systemic Sclerosis (Scleroderma). Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 1996, 22, 709–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ho, K.T.; Reveille, J.D. The Clinical Relevance of Autoantibodies in Scleroderma. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2003, 5, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dick, T.; Mierau, R.; Bartz-Bazzanella, P.; Alavi, M.; Stoyanova-Scholz, M.; Kindler, J.; Genth, E. Coexistence of Antitopoisomerase I and Anticentromere Antibodies in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2002, 61, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kikuchi, M.; Kikuchi, T.; Inagaki, T. Bibliographical Study of the Concurrent Existence of Anticentromere and Antitopoisomerase I Antibodies. Clin. Rheumatol. 2000, 19, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jabłońska, S.; Błaszczyk, M.; Jarzabek-Chorzelska, M.; Chorzelski, T.; Kołacińska-Strasz, Z. Immunological Markers of the Subsets of Systemic Scleroderma and Its Overlap. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 1991, 39, 381–390. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jarzabek-Chorzelska, M.; Błaszczyk, M.; Kołacińska-Strasz, Z.; Jabłonska, S.; Chorzelski, T.; Maul, G.G. Are ACA and Scl 70 Antibodies Mutually Exclusive? Br. J. Dermatol. 1990, 122, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bunn, C.C.; Black, C.M. Systemic Sclerosis: An Autoantibody Mosaic. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 1999, 117, 207–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chang, W.S.J.; Schollum, J.; White, D.H.N.; Solanki, K.K. A Cross-Sectional Study of Autoantibody Profiles in the Waikato Systemic Sclerosis Cohort, New Zealand. Clin. Rheumatol. 2015, 34, 1921–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hudson, M.; Pope, J.; Mahler, M.; Tatibouet, S.; Steele, R.; Baron, M.; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG); Fritzler, M.J. Clinical Significance of Antibodies to Ro52/TRIM21 in Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2012, 14, R50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Harvey, G.R.; Butts, S.; Rands, A.L.; Patel, Y.; McHugh, N.J. Clinical and Serological Associations with Anti-RNA Polymerase Antibodies in Systemic Sclerosis. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 1999, 117, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Steen, V.D. Autoantibodies in Systemic Sclerosis. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 35, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bardoni, A.; Rossi, P.; Salvini, R.; Bobbio-Pallavicini, F.; Caporali, R.; Montecucco, C. Autoantibodies to RNA-Polymerases in Italian Patients with Systemic Sclerosis. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2003, 21, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Meyer, O.; De Chaisemartin, L.; Nicaise-Roland, P.; Cabane, J.; Tubach, F.; Dieude, P.; Hayem, G.; Palazzo, E.; Chollet-Martin, S.; Kahan, A.; et al. Anti-RNA Polymerase III Antibody Prevalence and Associated Clinical Manifestations in a Large Series of French Patients with Systemic Sclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Rheumatol. 2010, 37, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alspaugh, M.A.; Tan, E.M. Antibodies to Cellular Antigens in Sjögren’s Syndrome. J. Clin. Investig. 1975, 55, 1067–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. LeRoy, E.C.; Medsger, T.A., Jr. Criteria for the Classification of Early Systemic Sclerosis. J. Rheumatol. 2001, 28, 1573–1576. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bohan, A.; Peter, J.B. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (second of two parts). N. Engl. J. Med. 1975, 292, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dalakas, M.C.; Hohlfeld, R. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Lancet 2003, 362, 971–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Vij, R.; Strek, M.E. Diagnosis and Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease. Chest 2013, 143, 814–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 13 02929 g001
Figure 1. Characteristics of A-cube.
Figure 1. Characteristics of A-cube.
Diagnostics 13 02929 g001
Diagnostics 13 02929 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of autoantibody titers measured by A-cube with autoantibody titers measured by the existing test. (A) Autoantibody titers of anti-centromere antibodies measured with A-cube correlated with autoantibody titers measured with MESACUP, an existing test method (p < 0.0001, r = 0.9421). (B) Autoantibody titers of anti-topoisomerase I antibodies measured by A-cube correlated with those measured by MESACUP, an existing test method (p < 0.0001, r = 0.906). (C) Autoantibody titer of anti-RNA polymerase III antibody measured by A-cube correlated with autoantibody titer measured by MESACUP, an existing test method (p = 0.0001, r = 0.934).
Figure 2. Comparison of autoantibody titers measured by A-cube with autoantibody titers measured by the existing test. (A) Autoantibody titers of anti-centromere antibodies measured with A-cube correlated with autoantibody titers measured with MESACUP, an existing test method (p < 0.0001, r = 0.9421). (B) Autoantibody titers of anti-topoisomerase I antibodies measured by A-cube correlated with those measured by MESACUP, an existing test method (p < 0.0001, r = 0.906). (C) Autoantibody titer of anti-RNA polymerase III antibody measured by A-cube correlated with autoantibody titer measured by MESACUP, an existing test method (p = 0.0001, r = 0.934).
Diagnostics 13 02929 g002
Diagnostics 13 02929 g003
Figure 3. The results of cases in which no SSc-specific autoantibodies or DM-specific autoantibodies were detected in SSc. Autoantibodies marked with * are autoantibodies that are measured collectively in conventional tests. Autoantibodies in the orange area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in SSc, autoantibodies in the green area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in DM, and autoantibodies in the blue area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in both or in overlap syndrome.
Figure 3. The results of cases in which no SSc-specific autoantibodies or DM-specific autoantibodies were detected in SSc. Autoantibodies marked with * are autoantibodies that are measured collectively in conventional tests. Autoantibodies in the orange area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in SSc, autoantibodies in the green area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in DM, and autoantibodies in the blue area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in both or in overlap syndrome.
Diagnostics 13 02929 g003
Diagnostics 13 02929 g004
Figure 4. The results of cases in DM in which either DM-specific autoantibodies were not detected or SSc-specific autoantibodies were detected. Autoantibodies marked with * are autoantibodies that are measured collectively in conventional tests. Autoantibodies in the orange area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in SSc, autoantibodies in the green area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in DM, and autoantibodies in the blue area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in both or in overlap syndrome.
Figure 4. The results of cases in DM in which either DM-specific autoantibodies were not detected or SSc-specific autoantibodies were detected. Autoantibodies marked with * are autoantibodies that are measured collectively in conventional tests. Autoantibodies in the orange area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in SSc, autoantibodies in the green area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in DM, and autoantibodies in the blue area are autoantibodies that are more likely to be detected in both or in overlap syndrome.
Diagnostics 13 02929 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of systemic sclerosis, dermatomyositis, and healthy individuals participating in the study. SD: standard deviation. The age of the control group was 46.88 ± 16.95 and the male:female ratio of the control group was 46:44.
Table 1. Characteristics of systemic sclerosis, dermatomyositis, and healthy individuals participating in the study. SD: standard deviation. The age of the control group was 46.88 ± 16.95 and the male:female ratio of the control group was 46:44.
SScDM
MeanSDPhysical
Appearance (+:−)		 MeanSD
Age (Year)59.313.97Sex16:84Age (Year)58.9214.82Sex (+:−)17:33
Duration (year)10.899.78diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis:limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis70:29Duration (year)7.5668.872
Modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS)9.069.33Sclerodactyly46:11%Vital capacity (%)92.1917.19Treatment (+:−)
Right ventricular systolic pressure (mmHg)28.7413.72Nail fold bleeding50:21%Diffusing capacity of the lung carbon monoxide (%)91.6217.26Prednisolone33:17
%Vital capacity (%)83.4218.42Pitting scar20:34Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) (U/mL)478.6393.8Immuno-suppressant21:29
%Diffusing capacity of the lung carbon monoxide (%)77.5422.34ulcer29:18surfactant protein-D (SP-D) (ng/mL)130.5102.5
Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) (U/mL)641.2544Raynaud’s phenomenon64:14White blood cell (/μL)65682524
surfactant protein-D (SP-D) (ng/mL)153.9132.3telangiectasia20:29C-reactive protein (mg/L)0.80342.905
White blood cell (/μL)75834012calcinosis7:39Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h)28.1724.01
C-reactive protein (mg/L)0.812.32Contracture of phalanges20:23estimated glemerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2)79.8520.19
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h)22.2624.14arthralgia16:28Aldolase (IU/L)9.3857.473
estimated glemerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2)78.7322.84limited range of motion6:1D-dimer (μg/mL)2.3373.157
Aldolase (IU/L)6.3792.194Interstitial lung disease63:32Plasmin-α2 plasmin inhibitor complex (μg/mL)1.190.8595
D-dimer (μg/mL)1.5942.466Gastroesophageal Reflux Dis-ease70:17Brain natriuretic pepride (pg/mL)41.0350.82
Plasmin-α2 plas min inhibitor complex (μg/mL)0.960.67muscle disorder10:12Platelet (104/μL)23.479.125
Brain natriuretic pepride (pg/mL)110.1195.5heart failure10:48Ferritin (μg/L)131.7235.8
Platelet (104/μL)25.9713.13kidney disease7:90Hemoglobin (g/dL)12.521.931
Ferritin (μg/L)63.1282.28liver disease5:93Creatine Kinase5362537
Hemoglobin (g/dL)12.021.68thyroid disease9:33
Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome4:21
Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome antibody7:77
Sjögren’s syndrome16:20
Pulmonary arterial hypertension13:60
Treatment (+:−)
Prednisolone47:53
Immunosuppressant32:68
Table 2. The results for each antibody. SD: standard deviation.
Table 2. The results for each antibody. SD: standard deviation.
AutoantibodyAntigenAverageSDSpecificity in 82 Healthy Controls (%)Positive
Concordance Rate with Existing Tests (%)		Negative
Concordance Rate with
Existing Tests (%)
Anti CENPA antibody (CENP-A)Centromere protein A (CENPA)2.3 2.1 100
Anti CENPB antibody (CENP-B)Centromere protein B (CENPB)0.8 1.2 100100 (20/20)99 (74/75)
Anti CENPC antibody (CENP-C)Centromere protein B (CENPB)0.2 0.3 100
Anti Topo|antibody Topoisomerase I (Topo |)0.3 0.4 10097 (30/31)100 (67/67)
Anti RNAPⅢ(RP155) antibody RNA polymerase III subunit A (RNAPⅢ(RP155))0.4 0.7 10093 (13/14)100 (75/75)
Anti RNAPⅢ(RP11) antibodyRNA polymerase III subunit C (RNAPⅢ(RP11))0.7 1.3 100
Anti RNAP|(POLR1A) antibodyDNA-directed RNA polymerase I subunit RPA1 (RNAP1(POLR1A))0.3 0.3 100
Anti RNAPⅡ(POLR2A) antibodyRNA Polymerase II Subunit A (RNAPⅡ(POLR2A))1.5 1.9 100
Th/To (7-2RNP)Th/To ribonucleoprotein (POP1)0.6 0.7 100
Th/To (7-2RNP)Th/To ribonucleoprotein (RPP25)1.1 1.4 100
U3-RNP (fibrillarin)Fibrillarin1.2 1.0 100
hUBF (NOR90)Nucleolus-organizing region0.7 1.5 98.8
U11/U12-RNPRNPC30.2 0.3 100
SSSCA1Sjogren syndrome/scleroderma autoantigen 1 (SSSCA1)1.0 1.5 100
U1RNPSNRNP700.7 1.5 10080 (12/15)100 (82/82)
U1RNPSNRPA0.4 0.9 100
U1RNPSNRPC0.2 0.3 100
U2-RNPSNRPB20.8 1.7 98.8
KuXRCC50.3 0.4 100
KuXRCC60.6 0.6 100
PM-SCl100EXOSC101.4 1.4 97.6
PM-SCl75EXOSC90.3 0.5 100
KiPSME30.4 0.5 100
Jo-1*HARS0.7 1.0 100100 (2/2)100 (34/34)
PL-7*TARS0.4 0.7 100100 (4/4)
PL-12*AARS0.2 0.3 100100 (1/1)
EJ*GARS0.6 0.7 100100 (1/1)
KS*NARS0.4 0.5 100
OJIARS0.3 0.5 100
ZoFARSA1.0 1.2 100
ZoFARSB1.0 1.2 100
SRPSRP540.5 0.8 100
SRPSRP140.6 1.7 98.8
SRPSRP190.6 0.6 100
SRPSRP681.4 1.2 100
SRPSRP720.9 0.9 100
Mi-2CHD30.3 0.4 100
Mi-2CHD40.4 1.0 100100 (1/1)100 (15/15)
p155 (TIF1γ)TRIM330.6 0.7 100100 (9/9)100 (10/10)
p140 (TIF1α)TRIM241.1 1.4 100
TIF1βTRIM280.4 0.5 100
MJ (NXP2)MORC30.6 0.6 100
SMNSMN11.8 2.1 100
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Norimatsu, Y.; Matsuda, K.M.; Yamaguchi, K.; Ono, C.; Okumura, T.; Kogo, E.; Kotani, H.; Hisamoto, T.; Kuzumi, A.; Fukasawa, T.; et al. The Autoantibody Array Assay: A Novel Autoantibody Detection Method. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2929. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182929

AMA Style

Norimatsu Y, Matsuda KM, Yamaguchi K, Ono C, Okumura T, Kogo E, Kotani H, Hisamoto T, Kuzumi A, Fukasawa T, et al. The Autoantibody Array Assay: A Novel Autoantibody Detection Method. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(18):2929. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182929

Chicago/Turabian Style

Norimatsu, Yuta, Kazuki Mitsuru Matsuda, Kei Yamaguchi, Chihiro Ono, Taishi Okumura, Emi Kogo, Hirohito Kotani, Teruyoshi Hisamoto, Ai Kuzumi, Takemichi Fukasawa, and et al. 2023. "The Autoantibody Array Assay: A Novel Autoantibody Detection Method" Diagnostics 13, no. 18: 2929. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182929

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop