This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jean Kanitakis, MD; Emanuele Cozzani, MD; Eric Peyron, MD; Dominique Bourchany; Alain Claudy, MD
Laboratory of Dermatopathology Department of Dermatology Hôpital Edouard Herriot Pavillon R 69437 Lyon Cedex 03, France

Arch Dermatol. 1994;130(12):1558.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

We read the article by Pang et al¹ concerning the use of frog skin for the differentiation of bullous pemphigoid (BP) from epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA). Based on sporadic observations of a floor-pattern indirect immunofluorescence on 1 mol/L of sodium chloride—split skin (SSS) obtained from BP sera, these authors used skin from a toad to establish a differential diagnosis between BP and EBA. Their rationale was the fact that, as suggested by earlier studies, the BP antigen is present in the skin of some animals,² from which the EBA antigen—being phylogenetically more restricted—is absent.³ Since this procedure seems attractive, we undertook a retrospective comparative study to better delineate the usefulness of animal skin substrates for the diagnosis, using indirect immunofluorescence, of subepidermal autoimmune bullous diseases.

During the last 3 years, we screened over 1500 human serum samples sent to us under the suspicion of a subepidermal autoimmune . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?