Background: Immunofluorescence (IFM) antigen mapping is the most commonly used technique to diagnose and differentiate epidermolysis bullosa (EB). In India, IFM is limited to few research laboratories and is not readily available, making the diagnosis largely clinical and often inaccurate. Ob  jective of the Study: To examine the diagnostic usefulness of immunohistochemistry (IHC) as compared to IFM in resource-limited settings. Methods: Forty-four consecutive EB patients were included in this study. IHC and IFM were performed on 7-µm frozen tissue sections using standard laboratory protocols with a limited panel of antibodies. The kappa coefficient of agreement was calculated with genetic analysis as the gold standard. Results: IFM and IHC accurately identified the subtype of EB in 80.9% (p < 0.001) of the cases, when a clear blister cavity was evident on biopsy. The sensitivities and specificities of IHC and IFM for diagnosing EB simplex, junctional EB, and dystrophic EB were 100, 100, and 60% and 82.4, 100, and 100%, respectively. IHC was equally effective (p < 0.001) in establishing the type of EB as IFM. Conclusions: IHC staining and its interpretation were simple and comparable to IFM. IHC had an advantage of showing subtle changes in the epidermal architecture that could not be appreciated on IFM and hence can be considered useful in resource-limited settings.

Keywords:
Immunohistochemistry, Immunofluorescence, Epidermolysis bullosa, India, Skin biopsy, Whole-exome capture sequencing
1.
Fine JD, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Eady RA, et al: Inherited epidermolysis bullosa: updated recommendations on diagnosis and classification. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;70:1103-1126.
2.
Pohla-Gubo G, Cepada-Valdes R, Hintner H: Immunofluorescence mapping for the diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatol Clin 2010;28:201-210, vii.
3.
Yiasemides E, Walton J, Marr P, et al: A comparative study between transmission electron microscopy and immunofluorescence mapping in the diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa. Am J Dermatopathol 2006;28:387-394.
4.
Petronius D, Bergman R, Ben Izhak O, et al: A comparative study of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy used in the diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa. Am J Dermatopathol 2003;25:198-203.
5.
Intong LR, Murrell DF: How to take skin biopsies for epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatol Clin 2010;28:197-200.
6.
Vellarikkal SK, Patowary A, Singh M, et al: Exome sequencing reveals a novel mutation, p.L325H, in the KRT5 gene associated with autosomal dominant epidermolysis bullosa simplex Koebner type in a large family from western India. Hum Genome Var 2014;1:14007.
7.
Barzegar M, Asadi-Kani Z, Mozafari N, et al: Using immunofluorescence (antigen) mapping in the diagnosis and classification of epidermolysis bullosa: a first report from Iran. Int J Dermatol 2015;54:e416-e423.
8.
Hiremagalore R, Kubba A, Bansel S, Jerajani H: Immunofluorescence mapping in inherited epidermolysis bullosa: a study of 86 cases from India. Br J Dermatol 2015;172:384-391.
9.
Berk DR, Jazayeri L, Marinkovich MP, et al: Diagnosing epidermolysis bullosa type and subtype in infancy using immunofluorescence microscopy: the Stanford experience. Pediatr Dermatol 2013;30:226-233.
10.
Hintner H, Stingl G, Schuler G, et al: Immunofluorescence mapping of antigenic determinants within the dermal-epidermal junction in the mechanobullous disorders. J Invest Dermatol 1981;76:113-118.
11.
Has C, He Y: Research techniques made simple: immunofluorescence antigen mapping in epidermolysis bullosa. J Invest Dermatol 2016;136:e65-e71.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.