Evaluation of anti-CENP reactivity in samples with centromere HEp-2 pattern and correlation with Systemic Sclerosis clinical features ===================================================================================================================================== * Gerson D. Keppeke * Diana Landoni * Cristiane Kayser * Pedro Matos * Larissa Diogenes * Jessica Keppeke * Silvia Helena Rodrigues * Luis Eduardo C. Andrade ## Abstract **Background/Objectives** Anti-centromere antibodies are associated with limited cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis (lcSSc) and in general, with a more favorable prognosis for SSc. Centromere pattern (AC-3) observed in the immunofluorescence assay in HEp-2 cells (HEp-2-IFA) suggests the presence of antibodies against CENP antigens, mainly CENP-B/A. In this study, we evaluated the frequency of reactivity to CENP-B and CENP-A in samples with an AC-3 pattern in the HEp-2-IFA. We also correlated the demographic and clinical characteristics of SSc patients according to the presence of the AC-3 pattern. **Methods** Samples from 39 SSc patients with AC-3 pattern were included and evaluated for CENP-B/A reactivity by line-blot and indirect ELISA. As controls, 48 lcSSc without the AC-3 pattern (Non-AC-3 group) were included. Clinical characteristics were recovered for 69 patients, 21 with AC-3 and all those in the Non-AC-3 group. **Results** Out of 39 samples with AC-3, 33 (84.6%) were reactive against CENP-B and 32 (82.1%) were reactive against CENP-A using the line-blot assay. Using anti-CENP-B ELISA, 36 (92.3%) of the samples with AC-3 were positive for anti-CENP-B. There was 79.5% concordance for CENP-B reactivity between ELISA and line-blot. Using the immunoblot assay, 27 (69.2%) of the samples with AC-3 were reactive against CENP-B and CENP-A, and one sample was positive only for CENP-A. Altogether, 38 samples (97.4%) were reactive against CENP-B by at least one method and all 39 samples (100%) were positive for either CENP-B or CENP-A in at least one of the tests. Regarding the clinical features, interstitial lung disease was less frequent in patients with AC-3 pattern compared to Non-AC-3 (10% *versus* 54.2%; p=0.001). Other organ involvement parameters had similar frequencies between the groups. **Conclusions** In conclusion, the HEp-2-IFA method was 100% sensitive in detecting antibodies to CENP-A and CENP-B. Anti-CENP-B is the predominant autoantibody in samples yielding the AC-3 pattern, but exclusive anti-CENP-A reactivity was observed less frequently. Among lcSSc patients, anti-centromere reactivity was associated with less frequent lung involvement. Keywords * Systemic Sclerosis * autoantibodies * HEp-2-IFA * centromere pattern * solid-phase assay ## 1. INTRODUCTION Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic, heterogeneous autoimmune rheumatic disease characterized by high mortality and morbidity. This condition involves immune dysregulation, vasculopathy in small arteries, and excessive collagen production, resulting in fibrosis of the skin and organs [1-5]. SSc can be classified in two ways. The first is based on the extent of skin involvement: a) Limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), involves the skin distal to the elbows, knees, and the face; b) Diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), involves the skin both distal and proximal to the elbows and knees, as well as the face, chest, trunk, and thighs; c) Absent, with no visible skin involvement [6]. The second classification is based on the presence of autoantibodies (AAb). Some are more associated with lcSSc, such as anti-centromere, anti-Th/To and anti-PM-Scl (among others), while others are more associated with dcSSc and multi-organ involvement, such as anti-topoisomerase I, anti-RNA polymerase III, and anti-fibrillarin (a comprehensive review can be found elsewhere [5]). Since the expression of these autoantibodies is mutually exclusive and related to specific disease subsets, they are valuable tools for diagnosis and prognosis [5]. Furthermore, the 2013 American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification for SSc improved previous criteria by introducing a scoring system that includes both clinical aspects and laboratory results that evaluate the presence of AAb [7]. Together with anti-Topoisomerase I, one of the most frequent AAb in SSc is anti-centromere. However, these can also be found at lower frequencies in other autoimmune diseases, not just SSc, including Sjögren’s syndrome (SjS), primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), isolated Raynaud’s phenomenon, and overlap syndromes [8]. Nevertheless, they are highly specific for SSc (>90%) and have been reported to be present before the onset of clinical disease [9]. In fact, the guidelines of ACR/EULAR indicate that the overall diagnostic sensitivity of anti-centromere detected by indirect immunofluorescence assay in HEp-2 cells (HEp-2-IFA), comparing patients with SSc to those with other connective tissue diseases (CTD), was 31%, and the specificity was 97.4% [6, 10, 11]. When tested by HEp-2-IFA, anti-centromere AAbs reveal a characteristic discrete coarse speckled pattern scattered throughout in interphase cells and are aligned at the chromatin mass on mitotic cells that shows staining of the centromere (Figure 1A), an AC-3 pattern according to the International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Patterns (ICAP) classification guidelines [12]. Structurally, the centromere is the region where condensed chromatin assembles to the kinetochore (inner and outer kinetochore) to attach to the microtubules, which are responsible for chromosome segregation during cell division. Although there are many CENP antigens (CENP-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, etc. [13]) in this structure, CENP-B and CENP-A are the main autoantigens (sometimes CENP-C is also recognized) [14], as they are most consistently correlated with the AC-3 positive pattern on HEp-2-IFA [11]. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F1) Figure 1. Representative images of the HEp-2 IFA test for the samples with centromere pattern. (A) The typical AC-3 pattern. (B) Sample 34 at 1/640 dilution showed the centromere AC-3 in addition to the NuMA-like AC-26. (C) At 1/320, sample 47 showed three patterns, Nuclear Fine speckled AC-4 plus Nucleolar AC-8 plus Centromere AC-3. (D-E) Example of two samples that were negative for CENP-B reactivity by ELISA, but shows the AC-3 pattern. Arrows in all panels indicate the characteristic metaphase plate of this pattern. Scale bar = 10 μm. CENP-A is a small protein of 17 kDa, while CENP-B is a protein of about 80 kDa. They share a cryptic linear epitope motif of cross-reaction named G/A-P-R/S-R-R, the main epitope target of the AAbs, mapped towards the C-terminal portion of CENP-B [13, 15, 16]. This may explain the nearly identical prevalence of reactivity to CENP-A and CENP-B among samples with centromeric patterns when comparing solid-phase assays with HEp-2-IFA, leading some authors to suggest that ELISA could replace IFA, considering the level of expertise required for the HEp-2 pattern analysis [11]. However, it is important to remember that HEp-2-IFA is a screening assay and does not provide the exact specificity for the nuclear antigen. Although the correlation of the AC-3 pattern with CENP-B/A AAbs is high, it is not infallible, especially if the sample produces multiple HEp-2-IFA patterns. Therefore, it is essential to perform a more in-depth analysis to determine the specific antigenic targets [5]. For detection of anti-cellular antibodies (AC) [17], or simply ANA, HEp-2-IFA is the recommended screening assay, this method is highly sensitive and provides information on the antibody titer when tested with serial dilutions. Various techniques can be applied to detect specific antigen reactivity, such as against the CENP-B/A, those techniques includes IFA, ELISA, CLIA (chemiluminescent immunoassay), immunodiffusion, and immunoblotting [5]. Multiplex ELISA and dot/line-blots allows for the simultaneous testing of several AAbs. However non-IFA immunoassays usually use recombinant CENP-B or CENP-A proteins [11, 18], which could affect sensibility, as demonstrated for other AAbs [19]. Second-generation assays, like CytoBeads, combine HEp-2-IFA cells with antigen-coated beads, creating a “2-in-1” solution for a one-step, two-level ANA test [20]. This approach can be useful for diagnosing patients who might not be detected with a negative HEp-2-IFA test but are positive for CENP-B by other methods. In general, samples positive for CENP-B/A tend to be positive across different platforms, showing good agreement between solid-phase assays like immunoblotting and ELISA [21], although new studies with different cohorts are always necessary to confirm such previous observations. In this study, anti-CENP reactivity and clinical characteristics were evaluated in AC-3 pattern SSc patients from Brazil. ### 1.1. Objective The centromere pattern (AC-3) when tested by HEp-2-IFA suggests the presence of antibodies against CENP antigens, especially CENP-B/A. In this study, we evaluated the frequency of reactivity to CENP-B and CENP-A in samples with an AC-3 pattern in the HEp-2-IFA. We also correlated the demographic and clinical characteristics of SSc patients according to the presence of the AC-3 pattern. ## 2. METHODS ### 2.1. Patient samples The patients were recruited from the Rheumatology outpatient clinic at the Federal University of Sao Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. The samples had previously undergone routine HEp-2-IFA testing, but as part of this study, all samples were retested to confirm the pattern as AC-3 or Non-AC-3. In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the patients signed an informed consent form to participate in the study, and the research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of São Paulo (Plataforma Brasil CAAE: 59126320.1.0000.5505). Patients meet the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) 2013 classification criteria for SSc [7]. Demographic and clinical features were obtained from electronic medical records and reviewed by rheumatologists with expertise in SSc (C.K. and P.M.) as previously described [19, 22]. In brief, clinical data included age, sex, disease subtype, and disease duration (defined as the time between the first non-Raynaud symptom and baseline visit). Interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) was defined as the presence of interstitial abnormalities in chest high resolution computerized tomography (HRCT) and a forced vital capacity (FVC) on pulmonary function test lower than 80%. Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) was considered in patients with group I PAH confirmed by right heart catheterization, accordingly with previous established criteria [23]. Esophageal dysmotility was considered when confirmed in esophagogram or esophageal manometry exams. ### 2.2. Assays The pattern and titer of the HEp-2-IFA were determined using commercial HEp-2 cell slides (#FA 1520-2010, Euroimmun), following the manufacturer’s protocol, starting with a 1/80 dilution and serial dilutions up to the final titer. The slides were analyzed and images captured at 400x magnification using a fluorescent microscope (Axio Imager.M2, Carl Zeiss). Anti-CENP-B reactivity was assessed using an indirect ELISA kit (#ORG 633, Orgentec), following the manufacturer’s protocol. A four-parameter logistic curve with four known concentration standards was applied (Figure 2B), and the interpolation of the sample’s optical density allowed the calculation of anti-CENP-B reactivity in each sample in U/ml. Samples with >10 U/ml were considered positive for anti-CENP-B, as recommended by the manufacturer. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F2) Figure 2. Reactivity to CENP-B by ELISA. (A) Anti-CENP-B reactivity tested by indirect ELISA. Distribution of anti-CENP-B reactivity in U/mL, the cutoff was set at 10 U/mL as recommended by the manufacturer. (B) An example of the standard four parameter logistic curve for the ELISA performed in this study. lcSSc stands for limited cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis. To detect reactivity to CENP-A and CENP-B by immunoblot, the Euroline Systemic Sclerosis (Nucleoli) profile kit (Cat# DL 1532-6401 G, Euroimmun) was used (Figure 3), following the manufacturer’s protocol. Although this kit can determine reactivity to other antigens, for this study we only considered reactivity to the CENP antigens. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F3) Figure 3. Anti-CENP reactivity by line-blot. (A-E) Euroline Systemic Sclerosis profile, (A-C) examples of samples with 3 cross (+++) reactivity to CENP-A and B, (D) example of a sample with CENP-A reactivity only and (E) example of a sample with CENP-B reactivity only. ### 2.3. Data analysis Immunofluorescence images were processed and panels assembled using ImageJ v1.53r software. Statistical analyses were performed using the software GraphPad Prism v7.0. Two-tailed Chi squared test was applied when comparing proportions. Quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters were accessed for normality distribution with D’Agostino and Pearson test, followed by comparison with Mann-Whitney or Student t-test according to the distribution pattern. Correlations were evaluated with Spearman r test. P values were considered significant when below 0.05. ## 3. RESULTS To evaluate the correlation between the centromeric pattern and CENP-B/A antigenic reactivity, we included 37 samples from SSc patients that exhibited the AC-3 pattern in routine HEp-2-IFA tests (Figure 1A). Considering that the presence of the centromeric pattern is related to lcSSc [5, 11], as a control we also included 50 samples from lcSSc patients who showed other patterns or negative results in the routine HEp-2-IFA (Non-AC-3 group). The samples were first evaluated for anti-CENP-B reactivity by an indirect ELISA (Figure 2), and two samples initially included in the Non-AC-3 group tested positive, with reactivity above the cutoff of 10 U/mL. These two samples were re-evaluated by HEp-2-IFA with serial dilution, and indeed, at higher dilutions (1/640 and 1/320 for samples S-34 and S-47, respectively), the typical metaphase plate of the centromeric pattern was observed (arrows in Figure 1B and 1C). Consequently, we reclassified these two samples as containing more than one pattern, including the AC-3, and moved them to the AC-3 group. Thus, our final grouping was 39 samples with the AC-3 pattern and 48 samples from lcSSc patients in the Non-AC-3 group. Among the 39 samples with AC-3, 30 (76.9%) showed only the AC-3 pattern and 9 (23.1%) showed multiple patterns together with AC-3 (Table 1). The mean of AC-3 titer was 1/797. The 48 samples in the Non-AC-3 group included six negative samples and 44 with various patterns such as Nuclear fine speckled (AC-4), Nuclear coarse speckled (AC-5), Nucleolar (AC-8/9/10), DNA topoisomerase I-like (AC-29), among others. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/T1) Table 1. Anti-CENP-B/A reactivity among samples with AC-3 pattern. Regarding anti-CENP-B reactivity measured by ELISA, 3 (7.7%) of the 39 samples with AC-3 had results below the cutoff (Figure 2) despite showing the AC-3 pattern (examples in Figures 1D and 1E). Therefore, 36 (92.3%) of the samples with AC-3 were positive for anti-CENP-B by ELISA (Table 1). Reactivity to CENP-B and CENP-A was also evaluated through a line-blot assay (Figure 3A). When the immunostaining intensity was ≥++ (two crosses), the sample was considered positive for the respective antigen (Figure 3B and C). Some samples reacted only with CENP-A (Figure 3D) and others only with CENP-B (Figure 3E). Ultimately, by line-blot, 33 (84.6%) were positive for CENP-B and 32 (82.1%) were positive for CENP-A (Table 1). When comparing reactivity for CENP-B/A between methods, 27 (69.2%) of the samples with AC-3 pattern were positive for both CENP-B and CENP-A by both line-blot and ELISA (Figure 4). Only one sample was positive only for CENP-A by line-blot, meaning that 38 (97.4%) were positive for CENP-B by at least one method. Only one sample was positive for CENP-B only by ELISA, and two samples were positive for CENP-B only by line-blot. Additionally, 31 (79.5%) samples were positive for CENP-B in both ELISA and line-blot methods. In fact, all 39 samples with AC-3 pattern (100%) showed positive reactivity for either CENP-B or CENP-A in at least one of the Ab-specific tests (Figure 4). ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/F4) Figure 4. Venn diagram for anti-CENP-B/A reactivity. The correlation between the AC-3 titer in the HEp-2-IFA and the CENP-B reactivity in U/mL levels obtained by ELISA in the 39 samples was high, r=0.763 (95% Confidence Interval 0.583-0.871; p<0.001). The correlation between the intensity of CENP-B reactivity indicated by ELISA versus the crosses (intensity) in the line-blot was also satisfactory, r=0.608 (95% CI 0.354-0.779; p<0.001) (Table 1). Next, we analyzed the demographic and clinical characteristics of 69 SSc patients according to the presence of AC-3 pattern in the HEp-2-IFA (Table 2). Clinical information was available for 21 patients with AC-3 pattern (of whom 20 showed positive anti-CENP-B reactivity by both ELISA and line-blot, and one showed reactivity only to CENP-A) and for 48 patients in the Non-AC-3 group. SSc patients with the centromeric pattern were significantly older compared to those in the Non-AC-3 group (mean age 59.1 ± 12.2 versus 50.5 ± 12.9 years, p=0.012). Only one patient with AC-3 pattern had dcSSc, therefore to ensure a fair comparison, the Non-AC-3 group was intentionally composed only of lcSSc patients. The duration of the disease was similar between the two groups. Regarding organ involvement, interstitial lung disease (ILD) was less frequently observed in patients with the anti-centromere pattern (n=2, 10%) compared to those without this pattern (n=26, 54.2%; p=0.001), but the other parameters of organ involvement were similar between the groups (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/09/2024.08.08.24311414/T2) Table 2. Demographic and clinical features of SSc patients according to the presence of anti-centromere pattern (AC-3). ## 4. DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION In this study, we explored anti-CENP-B/A reactivity in samples displaying the AC-3 pattern in routine HEp-2-IFA testing, and indeed, 100% of the samples were positive for CENP-B or CENP-A in at least one of the applied tests. However, the concordance of CENP-B reactivity between the ELISA and line-blot methods was 79.5%, although 97.4% of the samples were positive for CENP-B in at least one method, and only one sample was positive solely for CENP-A. This result aligns with the literature, where most (if not all) samples with the AC-3 pattern show reactivity to CENP-A, CENP-B, or both [11, 14, 24]. Previous studies also associate the AC-3 pattern with lcSSc, indicating that a patient with SSc who displays the centromeric pattern in HEp-2-IFA has a less severe disease prognosis [10, 24]. AC-3 pattern positivity correlates with less frequent elevations in creatine kinase, digital ulcers, joint contractures, interstitial lung disease (ILD), scleroderma renal crisis, inflammatory arthritis and myositis, among others [11, 24]. In our cohort, we observed a lower frequency of ILD among patients with AC-3 pattern compared with the Non-AC-3 group; however the novelty in our study is that we compared the patients with AC-3 pattern with a control group composed of lcSSc only, suggesting that presence of the AC-3 pattern may further differentiate a subgroup of patients within those presenting lcSSc. As proposed by a recent publication, individual autoantibodies associate with specific SSc characteristics [24]. Since ILD is the leading cause of death in SSc patients [25], our results suggest a less severe disease indicated by the less frequent ILD in patients with CENP-B/A reactivity, i.e., those presenting the centromeric pattern in HEp-2-IFA. In conclusion, all samples with the AC-3 centromere pattern in HEp-2-IFA displayed reactivity to CENP-B or CENP-A in at least one of the applied tests, meaning the HEp-2-IFA method was 100% sensitive in detecting antibodies to CENP-A and CENP-B. One sample showed reactivity only to CENP-A, and of the 39 samples with AC-3, ∼82% were positive for CENP-A. Regarding CENP-B reactivity, ∼85% were positive by line-blot and ∼92% by ELISA, but only 31 samples were positive for CENP-B in both the ELISA and line-blot methods, with a concordance of ∼80%. This means that anti-CENP-B is the predominant autoantibody in samples yielding the AC-3 pattern, but exclusive anti-CENP-A reactivity was observed less frequently. Finally, regarding clinical characteristics, lcSSc patients with anti-CENP reactivity appear to have a less severe prognosis, as ILD was less frequent in patients with positive AC-3 pattern. In summary, this study suggests that detecting CENP-B/A reactivity is important in SSc patients, and both HEp-2-IFA and antigen-specific solid-phase assays are valid and should complement each other, especially because, in some cases, the AC-3 pattern can be masked by the presence of other autoantibodies in the screening dilutions of HEp-2-IFA. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors by qualified researchers. ## 5. DECLARATIONS ### Author contributions G.D.K. conceived the study, designed and performed the experiments and wrote the manuscript; D.L. wrote the manuscript; C.K. and P.M. collected and interpret patients’ clinical data; L.D., J.K. and S.H.R. handle patient samples, performed experiments and interpret data; L.E.C.A. conceived the study and critically reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ### Declarations of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ### Funding This work was supported by Sao Paulo Government agency FAPESP (Sao Paulo State Research Foundation) grant numbers #2017/20745-1 and #2021/04588-9, granted to G.D.K. and L.D. Additionally, L.E.C.A. was supported by the Brazilian research agency National Council for Research (CNPq), grant # PQ-1D 310334/2019-5. ### Ethics approval and consent to participate In compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, the patients signed an informed consent form to participate in the study before donating their samples. The research was approved by Local Ethics Committee at the Federal University of Sao Paulo (Plataforma Brasil CAAE: 59126320.1.0000.5505). * Received August 8, 2024. * Revision received August 8, 2024. * Accepted August 9, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Denton C.P. and Khanna D., Systemic sclerosis. Lancet (London, England), 2017. 390(10103): p. 1685–1699. 2. 2.Roofeh D. and Khanna D., Management of systemic sclerosis: the first five years. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 2020. 32(3): p. 228–237. 3. 3.Kowalska-Kępczyńska A., Systemic Scleroderma-Definition, Clinical Picture and Laboratory Diagnostics. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2022. 11(9): p. 2299. 4. 4.Leeuwen N.M., Boonstra M., Bakker J.A., Grummels A., Jordan S., et al., Anticentromere Antibody Levels and Isotypes and the Development of Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 2021. 73(12): p. 2338–2347. 5. 5.Stochmal A., Czuwara J., Trojanowska M., and Rudnicka L., Antinuclear Antibodies in Systemic Sclerosis: an Update. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, 2020. 58(1): p. 40–51. 6. 6.Johnson S.R., New ACR EULAR Guidelines for Systemic Sclerosis Classification. Current Rheumatology Reports, 2015. 17(5): p. 32. 7. 7.van den Hoogen F., Khanna D., Fransen J., Johnson S.R., Baron M., et al., 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2013. 72(11): p. 1747–1755. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6ImFubnJoZXVtZGlzIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3Mi8xMS8xNzQ3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMDkvMjAyNC4wOC4wOC4yNDMxMTQxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 8. 8.Kajio N., Takeshita M., Suzuki K., Kaneda Y., Yamane H., et al., Anti-centromere antibodies target centromere–kinetochore macrocomplex: a comprehensive autoantigen profiling. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2021. 80(5): p. 651–659. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6ImFubnJoZXVtZGlzIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjgwLzUvNjUxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMDkvMjAyNC4wOC4wOC4yNDMxMTQxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 9. 9.Koenig M., Joyal F., Fritzler M.J., Roussin A., Abrahamowicz M., et al., Autoantibodies and microvascular damage are independent predictive factors for the progression of Raynaud’s phenomenon to systemic sclerosis: A twenty-year prospective study of 586 patients, with validation of proposed criteria for early systemic sclerosis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2008. 58(12): p. 3902–3912. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.24038&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19035499&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261587500029&link_type=ISI) 10. 10.Reveille J.D., Solomon D.H., and American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee of Immunologic Testing G., Evidence-based guidelines for the use of immunologic tests: anticentromere, Scl-70, and nucleolar antibodies. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 2003. 49(3): p. 399–412. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.11113&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12794797&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183415500018&link_type=ISI) 11. 11.Hudson M., Mahler M., Pope J., You D., Tatibouet S., et al., Clinical Correlates of CENP-A and CENP-B Antibodies in a Large Cohort of Patients with Systemic Sclerosis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 2012. 39(4): p. 787–794. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoianJoZXVtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjM5LzQvNzg3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMDkvMjAyNC4wOC4wOC4yNDMxMTQxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 12. 12.Chan E.K.L., Damoiseaux J., Carballo O.G., Conrad K., de Melo Cruvinel W., et al., Report of the First International Consensus on Standardized Nomenclature of Antinuclear Antibody HEp-2 Cell Patterns 2014–2015. Frontiers in Immunology, 2015. 6. 13. 13.Akbarali Y., Matousek-Ronck J., Hunt L., Staudt L., Reichlin M., et al., Fine specificity mapping of autoantigens targeted by anti-centromere autoantibodies. J Autoimmun, 2006. 27(4): p. 272–80. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jaut.2006.10.001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17210244&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) 14. 14.Earnshaw W., Bordwell B., Marino C., and Rothfield N., Three human chromosomal autoantigens are recognized by sera from patients with anti-centromere antibodies. J Clin Invest, 1986. 77(2): p. 426–30. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI112320&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3511098&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986A100000012&link_type=ISI) 15. 15.Mahler M. and Fritzler M.J., Epitope specificity and significance in systemic autoimmune diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2010. 1183: p. 267–87. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05127.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20146721&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000274519000018&link_type=ISI) 16. 16.Fritzler M.J., Rattner J.B., Luft L.M., Edworthy S.M., Casiano C.A., et al., Historical perspectives on the discovery and elucidation of autoantibodies to centromere proteins (CENP) and the emerging importance of antibodies to CENP-F. Autoimmunity Reviews, 2011. 10(4): p. 194–200. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.autrev.2010.09.025&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20933614&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) 17. 17.Damoiseaux J., Andrade L.E.C., Carballo O.G., Conrad K., Francescantonio P.L.C., et al., Clinical relevance of HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescent patterns: the International Consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP) perspective. Ann Rheum Dis, 2019. 78(7): p. 879–889. 18. 18.Mahler M., You D., Baron M., Taillefer S.S., Hudson M., et al., Anti-centromere antibodies in a large cohort of systemic sclerosis patients: Comparison between immunofluorescence, CENP-A and CENP-B ELISA. Clinica Chimica Acta, 2011. 412(21-22): p. 1937–1943. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cca.2011.06.041&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21756890&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F09%2F2024.08.08.24311414.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000295074100007&link_type=ISI) 19. 19.Keppeke G.D., Satoh M., Kayser C., Matos P., Hasegawa T., et al., A cell-based assay for detection of anti-fibrillarin autoantibodies with performance equivalent to immunoprecipitation. Front Immunol, 2022. 13: p. 1011110. 20. 20.Sowa M., Hiemann R., Schierack P., Reinhold D., Conrad K., et al., Next-Generation Autoantibody Testing by Combination of Screening and Confirmation-the CytoBead(R) Technology. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol, 2017. 53(1): p. 87–104. 21. 21.Jang J., Kim S., Kim H.-S., Lee K.-A., Park J., et al., Comparison of antinuclear antibody profiles obtained using line immunoassay and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay. Journal of International Medical Research, 2021. 49(6): p. 030006052110143. 22. 22.de Oliveira S.M., Martins L.V.d.O., Lupino-Assad A.P., Medeiros-Ribeiro A.C., de Moraes D.A., et al., Severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with systemic sclerosis: a Brazilian multicenter study. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 2022. 55: p. 151987. 23. 23.Humbert M., Kovacs G., Hoeper M.M., Badagliacca R., Berger R.M.F., et al., 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. European Respiratory Journal, 2023. 61(1): p. 2200879. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI2MS8xLzIyMDA4NzkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wOC8wOS8yMDI0LjA4LjA4LjI0MzExNDE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 24. 24.Żebryk P., Przymuszała P., Nowak J.K., Piorunek T., Mularek-Kubzdela T., et al., Autoantibodies and Clinical Correlations in Polish Systemic Sclerosis Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2023. 12(2): p. 657. 25. 25.de Oliveira Martins L.V., Oliveira S.M., Silvatti J., de Amorim F.G., Agapito Tito C.V., et al., Mortality in Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease in Brazil: A Real-Life, Long-Term Follow-up Observational Study. JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 2022. 28(2): p. e532–e538.