The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Immunol.
Sec. T Cell Biology
Volume 16 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1518208
Superior Precision in Lupus Diagnosis: T Cell Autoantibodies and TC4d Outperform Conventional Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Biomarkers
Provisionally accepted- 1 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- 2 Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States
- 3 Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
- 4 Exagen, Inc., Vista, California, United States
- 5 Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Introduction: T Cell autoantibodies, TIgG and TIgM, as well as the T Cell-bound complement protein fragment C4d (TC4d) are novel diagnostic biomarkers that have demonstrated high specificity and sensitivity for SLE. The present study aims to characterize the clinical performance characteristics of the emergent T Cell biomarkers in a multi-center clinical validation cohort.Methods: A cohort of 400 adult patients enrolled across 3 academic and 2 community-based autoimmune rheumatic centers, comprised of 105 SLE patients, 173 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD), 83 apparently healthy volunteers (AHV) and 39 other (non-autoimmune) disease (OD) controls were tested for TC4d, TIgG, TIgM and an extensive autoantibody profile. Diagnostic specificity was assessed against the ARD, AHV and OD groups, individually. Semi-quantitative flow cytometry analysis included TIgG and TIgM autoantibodies, cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs), TC4d, erythrocyte-bound C4d (EC4d) and B lymphocyte-bound C4d (BC4d). Conventional autoantibodies and soluble complement proteins, C3 and C4, were assessed by ELISA and immunoturbidimetry, respectively. Results:ROC analysis distinguishing ANA-positive (ANA+) SLE (N = 91) from ARD, TIgG, BC4d and TC4d demonstrated AUC values 0.81, 0.80 and 0.79, respectively, outperforming anti-dsDNA (0.72), C3 (0.69), TIgM (0.67), C4 (0.66) and anti-Smith (0.61). A similar ranking of discriminatory power was observed in ROC analysis distinguishing ANA+ SLE vs. OD as well as ANA+ SLE vs. AHV. At 95% diagnostic specificity for SLE vs. AHV, the sensitivity (95% CI) of TC4d, TIgG and TIgM for SLE was 58.1% (48.1 – 67.7%), 31.4% (22.7 – 41.2%) and 29.5% (21.0 – 39.2%), respectively. The T Cell SLE biomarkers uniquely identified 19% (20/105) of SLE patients who were otherwise negative (serologically inactive) for conventional SLE autoantibodies and had normal serum complement levels. Among the serologically inactive SLE subset, the T Cell SLE biomarkers collectively identified 53% of subjects.Conclusions: The novel SLE biomarkers TC4d, TIgG and TIgM consistently outperform conventional markers across multiple cohorts. Their integration enhances diagnostic sensitivity, especially in SLE-specific autoantibody negative patients with normal complement levels. When coupled with conventional biomarkers, these novel tests may enable earlier and more accurate SLE detection, leading to more timely diagnosis and treatment.
Keywords: T cell biology, lymphocyte autoantibodies, Complement activation in SLE, SLE biomarkers, diagnostic biomarkers
Received: 28 Oct 2024; Accepted: 24 Jan 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Kyttaris, Wallace, Khosroshahi, Concoff, Wilson, Liu, Manzi, Ahearn, Taghavi, Warsi, Park, Schleif, Partain and O'Malley. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Tyler Matthew O'Malley, Exagen, Inc., Vista, 92081, California, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.