Coexisting autoantibodies against transcription factor Sp4 are associated with decreased cancer risk in dermatomyositis patients with anti-TIF1γ autoantibodies

Patients and serum samples

The discovery cohort consisted of 67 patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center Longitudinal study between 2002 and 2016 with a diagnosis of DM based on the criteria of Bohan and Peter^{7, 8} whose serum tested negative for all MSAs by line blot (EUROLINE myositis profile).

The screening cohort included myositis patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center Longitudinal Cohort study between 2002 and 2018. This included patients with DM based on the criteria of Bohan and Peter^{7, 8}, ASyS defined by the presence of anti-Jo1 autoantibodies, IMNM defined by the presence of anti-SRP or anti-HMGCR autoantibodies, IBM defined by the Lloyd and Greenberg criteria, as well as PM patients defined as those who fulfilled the criteria of Bohan and Peter for PM but who did not have ASyS or IMNM. Patients were considered positive for autoantibodies recognizing Mi2, NXP2, TIF1γ, MDA5, Jo1, SRP, HMGCR, SAE, or PmScl if they tested positive by at least two immunologic techniques from among the following: ELISA (including the MBL anti-TIF1γ ELISA, RG-7854R), in vitro transcription and translation immunoprecipitation, line blotting (EUROLINE myositis profile), Phip-seq,⁹ immunoprecipitation from S35-labeled HeLa cell lysates, or immunoprecipitation blotting.^10-12.

A validation cohort included serum from 23 DM patients from Spain who tested positive for anti-TIF1γ autoantibodies by both an in-house line blot as well as the EUROLINE myositis profile line blot.

Serum from 25 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 25 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, 25 patients with Sjögren’s syndrome, and 200 healthy controls, all enrolled in studies at the National Institutes of Health, were also screened by ELISA for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies. Additional healthy control samples used for the analysis of peptidome data were from subjects self-reported to be free of autoimmune disease.

In the screening cohort, muscle strength was evaluated by the examining physician using the Medical Research Council scale. This scale was transformed to Kendall’s 0-10 scale for analysis purposes as previously described.¹³ Serial strength measurements for each patient were made by the same physician but more than 10 different physicians contributed to the measurements. For the purposes of analyses, right- and left-side measurements for arm abduction and hip flexion strength were combined and the average was used for calculations (possible range 0–10). Serum creatine kinase (CK) levels were included for the longitudinal analysis if obtained within a period of 6 weeks before or after strength testing. Skin manifestations (i.e., heliotrope rash or Gottron’s sign), weakness, symptoms of esophageal involvement, antisynthetase syndrome-associated clinical features (e.g. mechanics hands, Raynaud’s phenomenon, arthritis, fever), and other clinical features were documented both retrospectively at the onset of the disease (by asking patients about features present at the onset of disease) and prospectively at each visit. Interstitial lung disease was defined through a multidisciplinary approach as recommended by the American Thoracic Society.¹⁴ Cancer-associated myositis was defined as a malignancy occurring within 3 years either before or after the onset of myositis symptoms.

Standard protocol approvals and patient consents

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Johns Hopkins, the National Institutes of Health, and the Vall d’Hebron and Clinic Hospitals; written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Screening for autoantibodies by PhIP-Seq

The standard PhIP-Seq procedure⁹ was used to profile sera from 67 DM patients that were seronegative for Mi2, NXP2, TIF1γ or MDA5 by EUROLINE line blot (discovery cohort). Briefly, the IgG concentration of each serum sample was measured via ELISA assay, which allowed normalization of the IgG input (2 μg per reaction) into the PhIP-Seq assay. Serum antibody was mixed with the 90-aa human peptidome library¹⁵ and incubated overnight. Antibody and antibody-bound phage were captured using protein A and protein G coated Dynal magnetic beads (Invitrogen #10002D & #10004D). The immunoprecipitated phage DNA library was then amplified using PCR, with sample-specific DNA barcodes added during a second PCR reaction. Pooled amplicons were sequenced using an Illumina NextSeq instrument. An informatics pipeline was used for sample demultiplexing and alignment. Data normalization was performed by comparison of each sample against a set of mock immunoprecipitations as described previously¹⁶. Finally, the normalized PhIP-Seq profiles were compared against a previously established PhIP-Seq database of healthy volunteers using a custom case-control analysis script to identify reactivities specifically associated with DM (https://brandonsie.github.io/phipcc/).

Immunoprecipitation using ³⁵S-labeled in vitro transcription/translated (IVTT) Sp4

DNA encoding full-length human Sp4 was purchased (Origene) and used in IVTT reactions (Promega), generating ³⁵S-labeled Sp4 protein. Immunoprecipitation of radiolabeled Sp4 was performed using patient serum or a mouse monoclonal anti-Sp4 positive control antibody (sc-515738, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), as previously described¹⁷.Immunoprecipitates were reduced, boiled, subjected to electrophoresis on 10% sodium dodecyl sulfated-polyacrylamide gels, and visualized by fluorography.

Anti-Sp4 ELISA

ELISA plates (96-well) were coated overnight at 4°C with 100 ng of human recombinant Sp4 protein (H00006671-P01, Abnova Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan) diluted in 100 μL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). After washing the plates with PBS including 0.05% Tween-20 (PBS-T) and blocking with 300 µl of 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) in PBS-T for 1 hour at 37°C, the plates were washed with PBS-T. 100 µl of diluted human serum samples (1:400 with 1% BSA/PBS-T) was added to each well and incubated for 1 hour at 37°C. After washing with PBS-T, 100 µl of HRP-labeled goat anti-human antibody (1:10,000, catalog# 109-036-088, Jackson ImmunoResearch Lab, PA, USA) was added and incubated for 30 minutes at 37°C in the dark. After washing the plate with PBS-T and PBS, 100 µl of SureBlue TMB microwell peroxidase enzyme substrate kit (95059-286, KPL, MA, USA) was added. Reactions were stopped after 8 minutes. The absorbance at 450 nm was determined. Test sample absorbances were normalized to the sera of an arbitrary positive control sample, a reference sample included in every ELISA. The cutoff for a normal anti-Sp4 autoantibody titer (0.29 arbitrary units was defined as the mean plus two standard deviations of the normalized absorbances of the 200 healthy comparators. This cutoff was determined to be optimal based on a graphical analysis of the normalized absorbances.

Statistical analysis

Dichotomous variables were expressed as percentages and absolute frequencies, and continuous features were reported as means and standard deviations (SD). Pairwise comparisons for categorical variables between groups were made using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Student’s t-test was used to compare continuous variables among groups and paired t-test was used to compare the level of weakness of different muscle groups. CK, a highly positively skewed variable, was expressed as median, first, and third quartile for descriptive purposes, and was transformed through a base-10 logarithm for regression analysis.

Statistical analyses related to clinical variables were performed using Stata/MP 14.1. A 2-sided p-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Patient and Public Involvement statement

Patients and the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of the present research.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are either included in the article or will be shared upon request.

Identification of Sp4 as a novel autoantigen

In an effort to discover novel DM-associated autoantibodies, we assembled a cohort of sera from DM patients who were negative for MSAs by EUROIMMUN line blot, which tests for DM-specific autoantibodies including anti-TIF1γ, anti-NXP2, anti-Mi2, anti-MDA5, and anti-SAE. These 67 serum samples were used in the PhIP-Seq assay with a T7 phage display library spanning all open reading frames in the human genome as overlapping 90 amino acid peptides¹⁵. While PhIP-Seq does not detect antibodies directed against conformational or post-translational epitopes, the approach is unbiased and provides a higher resolution map of autoantibody binding specificities¹⁸. Among the 67 serum samples analyzed, 13 recognized from 1 to 4 peptides corresponding to Transcription factor Sp4 (Table 1). Recognition of non-overlapping epitopes is indicative of a polyclonal antibody response that is more likely to be antigen-driven.

To determine which sera had immunoreactivity against native Sp4, we generated full-length radiolabeled Sp4 protein by IVTT and used human serum or a rabbit anti-Sp4 positive control antibody to immunoprecipitate the protein. The positive control anti-Sp4 antibody and each of the 6 serum samples that recognized 3 or 4 distinct Sp4 peptides by PhIP-Seq (lanes 3-8) efficiently immunoprecipitated full-length Sp4 protein. In contrast, serum samples that recognized just 1 or 2 Sp4 peptides only weakly immunoprecipitated full-length Sp4 protein (lanes 9-15).

Unexpectedly, since they had each tested negative for anti-TIF1γ autoantibodies by EUROIMMUN line blot, we noted that all 6 serum samples that efficiently immunoprecipitated full-length Sp4 protein also recognized a peptide corresponding to TIF1γ by the PhIP-Seq assay (data not shown). This demonstrates the high sensitivity of PhIP-Seq and suggests that the line blot test may not be a sufficiently sensitive assay for detecting anti-TIF1γ autoantibodies. Indeed, a recent report showed that the EUROIMMUN line blot has good specificity but poor sensitivity for detecting anti-TIFγ autoantibodies compared to immunoprecipitation detection methods¹⁹.

Screening for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies in patients with IIM, other rheumatologic conditions, and healthy controls

To screen patients rapidly for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies, we developed an ELISA. We defined a serum sample as being positive for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies if the relative absorbance was two standard deviations or higher than the mean value of 200 healthy control subjects. Using this method, we found that 6 of the 13 samples recognizing Sp4 peptides by PhIP-Seq were also ELISA positive; these were the same 6 samples that recognized 3 or 4 Sp4 peptides and which most efficiently immunoprecipitated full-length Sp4 protein (Figure 1, lanes 3-8). In contrast, among the 54 samples that did not recognize Sp4 peptides by PhIP-Seq, 50 were available for further testing and each of these was negative for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies by ELISA.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Human serum samples from DM patients immunoprecipitate full-length Sp4 protein.

Sera from DM patients that recognized at least one Sp4 peptide by PhIP-Seq were used to immunoprecipitate radiolabeled full-length Sp4 protein. The Sp4 peptides recognized by each serum using PhIP-Seq are indicated below each lane. Those serum samples recognizing 3-4 distinct Sp4 peptides (lanes 3-8) by PhIP-Seq immunoprecipitated full-length Sp4 protein more-efficiently than those serum samples that only recognized 1-2 Sp4 peptides by PhIP-Seq (lanes 9-15). The input Sp4 protein used for immunoprecipitation is shown in lane 1. A commercial rabbit anti-Sp4 autoantibody was used to immunoprecipitate radiolabeled Sp4 in lane 2. Healthy control sera did not immunoprecipitate full-length Sp4 protein (lanes 16-19).

The screening cohort consisted of an additional 321 serum samples from myositis patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center. Taken together, the discovery and screening cohorts included sera from 371 myositis patients (255 with DM, 28 with ASyS, 40 with IMNM, 19 with PM, and 29 with IBM). Among these, 29 (7.8%) sera samples were anti-Sp4-positive by ELISA (Figure 2) and all of them had DM. 90% of the anti-SP4-positive DM were TIF1γ-positive (n=26). Out of 39 DM patients with anti-NXP2 autoantibodies and 55 DM patients with anti-Mi2 autoantibodies, 2 (5.1%) and 1 (1.8%) were anti-SP4-positive, respectively. In contrast, no patient with anti-MDA5, anti-SAE, or anti-PMScl autoantibodies also had anti-Sp4 autoantibodies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. The prevalence of anti-Sp4 autoantibodies in patients with myositis, other rheumatologic conditions, and healthy comparators.

Sera from 371 adult myositis patients, 25 lupus patients, 25 Sjogren’s syndrome patients, 25 rheumatoid arthritis patients, and 200 healthy comparators were used in an anti-Sp4 ELISA assay. The dotted line indicates the cut-off used to define anti-Sp4 positive sera.

We also tested for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies in 25 patients with Sjogren’s syndrome, 25 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and 25 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Two (8%) of the rheumatoid arthritis patients were anti-Sp4-positive whereas the rest of the patients with other rheumatologic conditions were negative for these autoantibodies (Figure 2). Taken together, these results indicate that anti-Sp4 autoantibodies can be considered relatively specific for anti-TIF1γ-positive DM.

The clinical features of TIF1γ-positive DM patients with and without co-existing anti-Sp4 autoantibodies

Most demographic (Table 2) and clinical (Tables 3 and 4) features were similar between TIF1γ-positive DM patients with and without anti-Sp4 autoantibodies. However, patients with anti-Sp4 autoantibodies had measures of muscular strength that were significantly higher than those who were anti-Sp4-negative (Table 4). We also noted that among 26 TIF1γ-positive patients from Johns Hopkins with anti-Sp4 autoantibodies, none had cancer. In contrast, among 35 TIF1γ-positive patients without anti-Sp4 autoantibodies, 5 (14%) had cancer (p=0.04). To confirm that anti-Sp4 autoantibodies are associated with absence of cancer in anti-TIF1γ-positive DM patients, we screened an additional cohort of 23 TIF1γ-positive DM patients from Spain for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies, 13 of whom had cancer. From among 84 total TIF1γ-positive patients, 18 had cancer and none (0%) of these had anti-Sp4 autoantibodies. In contrast, from among 66 patients without cancer, 26 (39%) had anti-Sp4 autoantibodies. Thus, anti-Sp4 autoantibodies are associated with a reduced risk of cancer in anti-TIF1γ-positive DM patients (p=0.001).

We next analyzed the evolution of anti-Sp4 autoantibody titers during the disease course by analyzing longitudinally collected serum samples. We found that titers decreased in many patients but did not normalize after treatment of the DM (data not shown). Finally, to determine whether anti-TIF1γ-positive patients without anti-Sp4 autoantibodies at their initial visit to the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center might develop them during the course of the disease, we screened the most recently collected serum samples from 24 TIF1γ-positive and anti-Sp4-negative patients. During an average of 4.7 years (SD 2.3) between the collection of the first and most recent serum samples, only 2 (8.3%) of these became positive for anti-Sp4 autoantibodies.