| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of antibody response against IFNß in patients with multiple sclerosisCentro di Riferimento Regionale Sclerosi Multipla (CReSM) and Neurobiologia Clinica, ASO S. Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Torino, Italy, neurobiologia{at}sanluigi.piemonte.it
Department of Research, University Hospitals Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Centro di Riferimento Regionale Sclerosi Multipla (CReSM) and Neurobiologia Clinica, ASO S. Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
Centro di Riferimento Regionale Sclerosi Multipla (CReSM) and Neurobiologia Clinica, ASO S. Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
Centro di Riferimento Regionale Sclerosi Multipla (CReSM) and Neurobiologia Clinica, ASO S. Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
Centro di Riferimento Regionale Sclerosi Multipla (CReSM) and Neurobiologia Clinica, ASO S. Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
Department of Neurology, University Hospitals Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Centro di Riferimento Regionale Sclerosi Multipla (CReSM) and Neurobiologia Clinica, ASO S. Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano, Torino, Italy
Department of Research, University Hospitals Basel, Basel, Switzerland
To date, inter-and intra-laboratory consistency of binding assays for measuring anti-interferon (IFN)ß antibodies has not been assessed. In this investigation, two independent laboratories tested a library of 80 serum specimens obtained from multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated with IFNß. For binding antibodies (BAbs) evaluations, each laboratory used both a capture-ELISA (cELISA) and an enzyme-immuno-assay (EIA), which is commercially available. Samples were also tested for neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Data demonstrated good intra-laboratory reliability (rpearson
Key Words: binding antibodies ELISA IFNß multiple sclerosis neutralizing antibodies
Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 12, No. 6,
738-746 (2006) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0.86), and a good overall agreement between the results obtained from the two centers, using both the cELISA (69/80 of observed agreements) and the EIA (67/80). Accordingly, kappa coefficients (K) showed good concurrence (K 
