Cited by 7Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Implications of monoclonal gammopathy and isoelectric focusing pattern 5 on the free light chain kappa diagnostics in cerebrospinal fluid

Hannich, Malte J., Konen, Franz F., Gag, Konrad, Alkhayer, Aiham, Türker, Seda N., Budde, Kathrin, Nauck, Matthias, Wurster, Ulrich +3 more·2025·Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Abstract

Objectives Oligoclonal bands (OCB) analysis is the reference standard for detecting an intrathecal IgG synthesis. Alongside OCB, free light chains kappa (FLCκ) are considered an additional sensitive biomarker for determining patterns 2 or 3, indicating intrathecal Ig synthesis. However, kFLC IF is not suitable for detecting a monoclonal pattern 5. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of incorporating FLCκ analysis into routine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diagnostics instead of OCB testing on the rate of missed monoclonal IgG detection. Methods A two-center retrospective biomarker study was conducted. OCB were identified using isoelectric focusing in polyacrylamide gels followed by silver staining or in agarose gels followed by immunofixation. FLCκ were quantified using nephelometry and FLCκ assay (Siemens). Results Out of a combined total of 17,755 OCB analyses conducted between 2011 and 2021, a subset of 269 cases (1.5 %) exhibited pattern 5. 98 samples (36 %), which included 18 samples with intrathecal inflammation as determined by additional OCB pattern 2 were included in the FLCκ analysis. Of those, 16 (89 %) had intrathecal FLCκ synthesis. Conclusions While FLCκ offers a promising avenue for detecting an intrathecal inflammation, the pattern 5, though rare, remains a valuable additional finding of OCB analysis. A combined approach of FLCκ and OCB analysis is recommended for a comprehensive assessment of the humoral intrathecal immune response.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/cclm-2023-1468

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hannich, M. J., Konen, F. F., Gag, K., Alkhayer, A., Türker, S. N., Budde, K., Nauck, M., Wurster, U., Dressel, A., Skripuletz, T., & Süße, M.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • Medizinische Universität Lausitz - Carl Thiem (DE)
Corresponding author
Hannich, Malte J.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published
2024-07-23
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
147-153
ISSN
  • 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-4331
OpenAlex
W4400879557
Cited by
7
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Keywords
oligoclonal bands, monoclonal gammopathy, intrathecal IgG synthesis, intrathecal inflammation, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, intrathecal immune response
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Immunoglobulin G, Immunoglobulin kappa-Chains, Isoelectric Focusing, Male, Paraproteinemias, Retrospective Studies, Biomarkers, Oligoclonal Bands

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review