AC-XX in ANA IIF: When the Pattern Doesn’t Fit the Classification

Antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing is widely used in the evaluation of autoimmune connective tissue diseases, with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) commonly employed as a screening method. The fluorescence pattern observed by IIF is interpreted by trained laboratory personnel and recognition of specific staining patterns can provide valuable clues regarding the possible ANA subtype or underlying autoantibody specificity.

Identification of ANA patterns can assist clinicians in determining appropriate confirmatory antibody tests and enables a more specific interpretation of ANA results, rather than considering a positive ANA as a single, nonspecific finding. Although ANA positivity may occur in a variety of clinical conditions, higher ANA titers are more frequently associated with connective tissue diseases. Consequently, pattern recognition represents an important component of ANA testing, as it may improve diagnostic clarity when interpreted alongside the patient's clinical presentation, relevant laboratory findings and subsequent confirmatory testing.

The category designated AC-XX comprises a group of rare and unusual ANA patterns that have not yet been sufficiently characterized and are therefore not incorporated into the current International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP) classification tree. AC-XX serves as an umbrella category for these unclassified or insufficiently characterized patterns. Such patterns may be associated with staining of the nucleus, cytoplasm, or mitotic structures and may involve either known or unidentified autoantigens. For many of these patterns, the precise antigenic targets and their clinical significance remain uncertain. Nevertheless, recognition of these unusual patterns is important to minimize the risk of incorrectly classifying them as established ICAP patterns.

In routine laboratory practice, however, not every specimen demonstrates clearly distinguishable or characteristic fluorescence features. In such cases, interpretation should be approached with caution and should avoid assigning an overly specific pattern when the staining characteristics are ambiguous. A broader range of possible autoantibody associations should be considered, together with their potential clinical relevance. Ultimately, ANA pattern interpretation is most informative when integrated with ANA titer, clinical findings and appropriate follow-up antibody testing rather than being used as an isolated diagnostic finding.

References

1. Herold M, Klotz W, Andrade LEC, Conrad K, de Melo Cruvinel W, Damoiseaux J, Fritzler MJ, von Muhlen CA, Satoh M, Chan EKL. International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody Patterns: defining negative results and reporting unidentified patterns. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018 Sep 25;56(10):1799-1802.

2. Guffroy A, Dima A, Nespola B, Poindron V, Sibilia J, Herbrecht R, De Seze J, Habersetzer F, et al. Anti-pseudo-PCNA type 1 (anti-SG2NA) pattern: Track down Cancer, not SLE. Joint Bone Spine. 2016; 83:330-4.

3. Lakomy D, Goetz J. À propos des anticorps anti-PCNA, Revue Francophone des Laboratoires, 2014; 464:40-44.

4. Zuber M. Characterization of a cell cycle-dependent nuclear autoantigen. Mol Biol Rep. 1996;23(3-4):197-203.

5. Nombel A, Fabien N, Coutant F. Dermatomyositis with Anti-MDA5 Antibodies: Bioclinical Features, Pathogenesis and Emerging Therapies. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 20:12:773352. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.773352. eCollection 2021.

6. Wu Z, Xu H, Zhang S. AC-X: Characteristic Antinuclear Antibody Patterns of Two Anti-Mi-2 Autoantibody-Positive Dermatomyositis Patients-A Case Report. Front Immunol. 2022;13:857030.

7. Andrade LEC, Klotz W, Herold M, Musset L, Damoiseaux J, Infantino M, Carballo OG, Choi M, et al. Reflecting on a decade of the international consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP): Accomplishments and challenges from the perspective of the 7th ICAP workshop. Autoimmun Rev. 2024;23:103608.