Prevalence and Correlates of Anti-DSG2 Antibodies in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy and Myocarditis: Immunological Insights from a Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Autoantibodies against Desmoglein-2 desmosomal protein (anti-DSG2-ab) were identified in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy (ARVC) by Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA); anti-intercalated disk autoantibodies (AIDAs) were identified in myocarditis and (ARVC) by indirect immunofluorescence (IFL). We aim to assess: (1) anti-DSG2-ab specificity in ARVC and myocarditis, (2) accuracy of anti-DSG2-ab detection by ELISA versus AIDA by IFL, and (3) clinical correlates of anti-DSG2-ab in ARVC. Methods: We included 77 patients with ARVC, 91 with myocarditis/dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), 27 with systemic immune-mediated diseases, and 50 controls. Anti-heart antibodies (AHAs) and AIDAs were assessed by IFL, and anti-DSG2-ab by ELISA (assessed both by optical density, OD, and U/L). Receiving operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to assess ELISA diagnostic accuracy. Results: A relevant proportion (56%) of ARVC patients was anti-DSG2-ab-positive, with higher anti-DSG2-ab levels than controls. Anti-DSG2-ab titer was not different between ARVC and myocarditis/DCM patients (48% anti-DSG-ab positive). Frequency of anti-DSG2 positivity by ELISA was higher in AIDA-positive cases by IFL than AIDA-negative cases (p = 0.039 for OD, p = 0.023 for U/L). In ARVC, AIDA-positive patients were more likely to be AHA-positive (p < 0.001), had pre-syncope (p = 0.025), and abnormalities in cardiac rhythm (p = 0.03) than ARVC AIDA-negative patients, while anti-DSG2-ab positivity did not have clinical correlates. Conclusions: Anti-DG2-ab detection in ARVC and myocarditis/DCM reflects immune-mediated pathogenesis to desmosomal proteins. Higher frequency of anti-DSG2-ab positivity by ELISA by U/L was higher in AIDA-positive cases by IFL than AIDA-negative cases, in keeping with the hypothesis that DSG2 is one of AIDA autoantigens. In ARVC, AIDA status but not anti-DSG2-ab showed distinct clinical correlates, possibly reflecting a wider AIDA autoantigenic spectrum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".