Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026

12:23
Granulocyte-dependent Autoantibody-induced Skin Blistering
Published on: October 12, 2012
Anti-endothelial cell antibodies in Behçet's disease
1Cardeza Foundation for Hematologic Research, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas, Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. adinc@gata.edu.tr
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology
|January 20, 2004
Summary
Antibodies against endothelial cells (AECA) prevalence in Behçet's disease is not statistically significant between patients and controls. Methodological variations in ELISA assays likely explain discrepancies in AECA research.
Area of Science:
- Immunology
- Vascular Biology
- Rheumatology
Background:
- Circulating antibodies binding to human endothelial cells (AECA) are found in various diseases, including Behçet's disease.
- Previous studies report widely varying prevalence of AECA in Behçet's disease.
- Assay variability, due to differing conditions and reagents in ELISA, is a likely cause for inconsistent findings.
Purpose of the Study:
- To re-examine the frequency of AECA in Turkish Behçet's disease patients and healthy controls.
- To compare the impact of different human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC) preparation methods on AECA detection.
- To investigate the influence of cell fixation and TNF alpha-stimulation on AECA prevalence.
Main Methods:
- Evaluated AECA frequency in 132 Behçet's patients and 50 healthy controls.
- Utilized fresh, non-treated HUVEC, fixed HUVEC, and TNF alpha-stimulated HUVEC for ELISA assays.
- All procedures were conducted at room temperature.
Main Results:
- Using fresh HUVEC, 13.1% of patients and 4.0% of controls were positive for IgG-AECA; 6.8% of patients and 8.0% of controls were positive for IgM-AECA.
- No statistically significant difference in AECA frequency was observed between Behçet's patients and controls with fresh HUVEC.
- Fixed and TNF alpha-stimulated HUVEC yielded similar results, though the mean for IgG-AECA with stimulated HUVEC reached statistical significance.
Conclusions:
- Discrepancies in reported AECA prevalence likely stem from methodological differences in ELISA assays.
- Interpreting ELISA results for AECA requires careful consideration of assay conditions.
- Further standardization of AECA detection methods is needed for reliable clinical application.

