We appreciate the comments of Dale et al and fully
recognize their pioneering efforts in this field. We are pleased that no issue is raised about the failure of our ELISA and
immunoblotting assays using fresh human postmortem caudate, putamen, and
BA10, to distinguish the PANDAS or Tourette syndrome cohorts from controls. [1]
Dale et al have successfully identified several neuronal
surface glycolytic enzymes as possible autoantigen targets in post-
streptococcal disease including aldolase C, neuron-specific enolase, non-
neuronal enolase, and pyruvate kinase M1. [4] As we describe, we used commercially prepared preparations for each of these
specific epitopes. Both neuron-specific enolase and non-neuronal enolase
were derived from human brain. Since no human preparations are available
for pyruvate kinase M1 and aldolase C, we used antigens prepared from
rabbit skeletal muscle. These
preparations have a 93% and 79% homology, respectively, with their human
brain isoforms. If provided, we would be pleased to replicate our studies
using recombinant human isoforms as epitopes.
A second issue raised by Dale et al relates to the quantity
of commercial protein used in our Western immunoblotting assays. Their
concern was that only 1 µg of commercial protein was loaded per gel, an
amount substantially less than that used by their group. For the record,
we loaded 1 µg per lane not per gel. Preliminary studies using serial
dilutions of the candidate antigens indicated that 1 µg per lane was
optimal for the assays. Additionally, we used a detection system
(electrochemiluminescence) that has a high degree of sensitivity. [5]
Finally, Dale et al noted the high degree of positivity of aldolase
C reactivity, at least 91% among patients and controls. In order to
determine the quality of signal to all specific antigens, each gel was
stripped and reprobed with a commercially purchased monoclonal antibody
specific to that antigen. Only bands from serum that overlapped with those
from the monoclonal antibody were considered positive.
We believe that there is ongoing controversy over the presence and
role of autoantibodies, perhaps due to methodological variations. [5] Before accepting a proposed
autoimmune hypothesis, future studies must establish a correlation among
antineuronal antibodies, clinical symptomatology, and a streptococcal
infection.
Additionally, proponents must confirm the preabsorption of
antibodies by Group A -(beta)hemolytic streptococci and show antibody binding
to membrane bound glycolytic enzymes on intact neurons. We look forward
to possible collaborative efforts with our friends across the pond.
References
References
1. Singer HS, Hong JJ, Yoon DY, Williams PN. Serum autoantibodies do
not differentiate PANDAS and Tourette syndrome from controls. Neurology 2005;65:1701-1707
2. Church AJ, Dale RC, Lees AJ, Giovannoni G, Robertson MM.
Tourette's syndrome: a cross sectional study to examine the PANDAS
hypothesis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003 May;74:602-607.
3. Church AJ, Dale RC, Giovannoni G. Anti-basal ganglia antibodies: a
possible diagnostic utility in idiopathic movement disorders? Arch Dis
Child. 2004 Jul;89:611-614.
4. Dale RC, Candler PM, Church AJ, Wait R, Pocock JM, Giovannoni G.
Neuronal surface glycolytic enzymes are candidate autoantigens in post-
streptococcal autoimmune CNS disease. J Neuroimmunol 2006 (in press).
5. Rippel CA, Hong JJ, Yoon DY, Williams PN, Singer HS.
Methodological factors affect the measurement of anti-basal ganglia
antibodies. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2005;35(2).
Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.