Domain Specificity of Anti-Prothrombin Antibodies That Express Lupus Anticoagulant Activity

Background:

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by the persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). aPL are a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies directed against negatively charged phospholipids or phospholipid-binding proteins. Some of these autoantibodies exert lupus anticoagulant (LAC) activity, a laboratory phenomenon characterized by the prolongation of phospholipid-dependent coagulation tests. Recently, our group identified that LAC-positive anti-prothrombin antibodies activate platelets via the platelet receptor, FcγRIIA. However, a lot is still unclear regarding the mechanism by which these antibodies cause LAC and why some, but not all, antibodies in this heterogeneous group express LAC activity. Furthermore, experimental data on the binding site of these pathogenic anti-prothrombin antibodies are lacking.

Aims:

In this study we aimed to investigate the binding domain of LAC-positive monoclonal anti-prothrombin antibodies and APS patient derived anti-prothrombin antibodies.

Method:

Recombinant fragments of prothrombin were designed and produced in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Prothrombin fragment 1, fragment 2 and fragment 1.2 were coated on ELISA plates to study epitope specificity. Two LAC-positive monoclonal anti-prothrombin antibodies (3B1 and 28F4), two LAC-negative anti-prothrombin monoclonal antibodies (11H2 and 9C6), isolated anti-prothrombin antibodies derived from APS patients and plasma from APS patients were studied. A modified dilute Russell's viper venom time (DRVVT) test was used to evaluate whether the recombinant prothrombin constructs could neutralize the effect of LAC-positive monoclonal and patient derived anti-prothrombin antibodies. Furthermore, a fragment 1.2 nanobody was produced by immunizing Llama's followed by phage display. The ability of this nanobody to compete with LAC-positive monoclonal and patient derived anti-prothrombin antibodies for the prothrombin binding site was tested using a modified DRVVT test.

Results:

LAC-positive monoclonal anti-prothrombin antibodies recognized prothrombin fragment 2. Interestingly, LAC-negative anti-prothrombin antibodies bound exclusively to prothrombin fragment 1. In addition, LAC-ratios of patient samples correlated significantly with anti-fragment 2 antibody levels ( p<0.05, ρ=0.33), but not with anti-fragment 1 antibody levels. Furthermore, incubation with the prothrombin F1.2 nanobody almost completely reversed the prolonged DRVVT clotting time in plasma containing monoclonal and patient derived LAC-positive anti-prothrombin antibodies, but not in plasma containing LAC-positive anti-β2GP1 antibodies. This neutralising effect was also observed when the monoclonal anti-prothrombin antibody was incubated with prothrombin fragment 2. In contrast, the LAC-activity of anti-prothrombin antibodies was not inhibited when incubated with prothrombin fragment 1.

Conclusion:

Our data show that LAC-positive anti-prothrombin antibodies react with fragment 2 of prothrombin. Furthermore, a novel nanobody directed against prothrombin fragment 1.2 and prothrombin fragment 2 were able to neutralize a prothrombin-dependent LAC.