Search

Carbamylation and citrullination are both post-translational modifications against which (auto)antibodies can be detected in sera of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Carbamylation is the chemical modification of a lysine into a homocitrulline, whereas citrullination is an enzymatic conversion of an arginine into a citrulline. It is difficult to distinguish between the two resulting amino acids due to similarities in structure. However, differentiation between citrulline and homocitrulline is important to understand the antigens that induce antibody production and to determine which modified antigens are present in target tissues. We have observed in literature that conclusions are frequently drawn regarding the citrullination or carbamylation of proteins based on reagents that are not able to distinguish between these two modifications. Therefore, we have analyzed a wide spectrum of methods and describe here which method we consider most optimal to distinguish between citrulline and homocitrulline. We have produced several carbamylated and citrullinated proteins and investigated the specificity of (commercial) antibodies by both ELISA and western blot. Furthermore, detection methods based on chemical modifications, such as the anti-modified citrulline-"Senshu" method and also mass spectrometry were investigated for their capacity to distinguish between carbamylation and citrullination. We observed that some antibodies are able to distinguish between carbamylation and citrullination, but an overlap in reactivity is often present in the commercially available anti-citrulline antibodies. Finally, we conclude that the use of mass spectrometry is currently essential to differentiate between citrullinated and carbamylated proteins present in complex biological samples., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies have recently been reported to occur in around 45% of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and to have prognostic and diagnostic properties. At present, the breadth and molecular make-up of the anti-CarP antibody response is ill defined. To understand the anti-CarP antibody immune response and potential immune effector mechanisms it can recruit, we determined the anti-CarP antibody isotype and IgG-subclass usage in RA patients., Methods: Anti-CarP antibody IgM, IgA, and IgG or IgG subclasses were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in sera from 373 unselected RA patients and 196 healthy controls. An additional 114 anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and anti-CarP IgG double-positive patients were selected to study the concomitant presence of both antibody systems., Results: Anti-CarP IgG was present in around 45% of the patients and comprised all anti-CarP IgG subclasses. The presence of anti-CarP IgG1 particularly associates with radiological damage. Anti-CarP IgM was detected in 16% of RA patients, even in anti-CarP IgG-positive individuals, and is indicative of an actively ongoing immune response. Around 45% of the patients were positive for IgA which included ACPA-positive cases but also 24% of the ACPA-negative cases. In ACPA and anti-CarP double-positive patients, the distribution and number of isotypes and IgG subclasses was similar for both autoantibodies at the group level, but substantial variation was observed within individual patient samples., Conclusions: In RA, the anti-CarP antibody response uses a broad spectrum of isotypes and seems to be an actively ongoing immune reaction. Furthermore, the anti-CarP and ACPA autoantibody responses seems to be differentially regulated.