Gnals. A FACS based analysis would have several advantages. Signal strength correlates with antibody titers and is therefore a quantitative method Pinometostat web without the need for analyzing serial dilutions. In contrast to CBA, FACS based analysis does not rely on the experience of the investigators. Furthermore, once a sample has PX105684 supplier beenPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122037 March 27,13 /A Live Cell Based Assay for Detection of NMDAR Antibodiesanalyzed, original data can always be reevaluated. However, since the sensitivity of the FACS based analysis was lower (87 ), and the inter-assay variation was high, this method is currently not reliable for routine antibody testing. Moreover, FACS based analysis has limitations for the study of CSF samples, which in some patients is crucial for antibody detection. Future studies to improve sensitivity and reproducibility of the FACS based analysis should aim to use nonadherent cells to avoid differential destruction of epitopes by trypsinization. A further challenge will be to adjust cut-offs in every new experiment, e.g. by using internal reference samples or by readjusting the cut-off in every experiment using control sera. Hippocampal NMDAR form tetramers with two NR1 and two NR2 subunits, with an agedependent shift from NR2B to NR2A [18]. In contrast to existing testing methods using either transfected cells with only NR1 [23, 24] or in combination with NR2B [7, 16] we used NMDAR containing both NR2A and NR2B, aiming to increase the density of functional NMDAR expressed on the surface of HEK293A cells and not to miss any NMDAR antibodies due to age-dependent changes in subunit composition. NMDAR encephalitis is associated with antibodies recognizing a well-defined epitope on the extracellular region of the NR1 subunit of NMDAR [5, 16, 19]. In contrast, antibodies to the NR2A or NR2B subunits react with a linear epitope and their significance is unclear. In our testing methods, we used live cells expressing functional NMDAR without disruption of the native conformation. Since NR2A and NR2B cannot be expressed on the cell surface without the presence of NR1 [25, 26], we did not find any antibodies recognizing either NR2A or NR2B alone with this setting, neither in NMDAR encephalitis patients nor in controls. Moreover, with our assay we were able to avoid unspecific antibody binding to dead cells. This is not possible in assays where cells are fixed before [5, 15] or after [7, 16] serum (or CSF) incubation as it is done in other labs. In contrast to others that used NMDAR and EGFP co-transfected cells [7] we used NMDAR subunits directly fused to EmGFP (NR1) or GFP (NR2B) for transfection of cells, which enabled us to truly colocalize NMDAR with bound antibodies. Through the combination of using live cells and NMDAR directly linked to a fluorophore we could even visualize the internalization of NMDAR which is known to occur in response to NMDAR antibodies by applying patients’ antibodies to cultured neurons [27] or by intraventricular infusion of patients’ antibodies into mice [28]. And finally, to our knowledge this is the first live CBA that includes protection of the cells by (+)-MK-801 against excitotoxicity throughout the staining procedure, which we found is crucial for not losing living cells that bind NMDAR antibodies to their surface, particularly in the FACS based assay. This might also explain the discrepancy in sensitivity of our test compared to a lower sensitivity in live CBA found by others.Gnals. A FACS based analysis would have several advantages. Signal strength correlates with antibody titers and is therefore a quantitative method without the need for analyzing serial dilutions. In contrast to CBA, FACS based analysis does not rely on the experience of the investigators. Furthermore, once a sample has beenPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122037 March 27,13 /A Live Cell Based Assay for Detection of NMDAR Antibodiesanalyzed, original data can always be reevaluated. However, since the sensitivity of the FACS based analysis was lower (87 ), and the inter-assay variation was high, this method is currently not reliable for routine antibody testing. Moreover, FACS based analysis has limitations for the study of CSF samples, which in some patients is crucial for antibody detection. Future studies to improve sensitivity and reproducibility of the FACS based analysis should aim to use nonadherent cells to avoid differential destruction of epitopes by trypsinization. A further challenge will be to adjust cut-offs in every new experiment, e.g. by using internal reference samples or by readjusting the cut-off in every experiment using control sera. Hippocampal NMDAR form tetramers with two NR1 and two NR2 subunits, with an agedependent shift from NR2B to NR2A [18]. In contrast to existing testing methods using either transfected cells with only NR1 [23, 24] or in combination with NR2B [7, 16] we used NMDAR containing both NR2A and NR2B, aiming to increase the density of functional NMDAR expressed on the surface of HEK293A cells and not to miss any NMDAR antibodies due to age-dependent changes in subunit composition. NMDAR encephalitis is associated with antibodies recognizing a well-defined epitope on the extracellular region of the NR1 subunit of NMDAR [5, 16, 19]. In contrast, antibodies to the NR2A or NR2B subunits react with a linear epitope and their significance is unclear. In our testing methods, we used live cells expressing functional NMDAR without disruption of the native conformation. Since NR2A and NR2B cannot be expressed on the cell surface without the presence of NR1 [25, 26], we did not find any antibodies recognizing either NR2A or NR2B alone with this setting, neither in NMDAR encephalitis patients nor in controls. Moreover, with our assay we were able to avoid unspecific antibody binding to dead cells. This is not possible in assays where cells are fixed before [5, 15] or after [7, 16] serum (or CSF) incubation as it is done in other labs. In contrast to others that used NMDAR and EGFP co-transfected cells [7] we used NMDAR subunits directly fused to EmGFP (NR1) or GFP (NR2B) for transfection of cells, which enabled us to truly colocalize NMDAR with bound antibodies. Through the combination of using live cells and NMDAR directly linked to a fluorophore we could even visualize the internalization of NMDAR which is known to occur in response to NMDAR antibodies by applying patients’ antibodies to cultured neurons [27] or by intraventricular infusion of patients’ antibodies into mice [28]. And finally, to our knowledge this is the first live CBA that includes protection of the cells by (+)-MK-801 against excitotoxicity throughout the staining procedure, which we found is crucial for not losing living cells that bind NMDAR antibodies to their surface, particularly in the FACS based assay. This might also explain the discrepancy in sensitivity of our test compared to a lower sensitivity in live CBA found by others.
