4.7 Review

Proteomics of Multiple Sclerosis: Inherent Issues in Defining the Pathoetiology and Identifying (Early) Biomarkers

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147377

Keywords

proteoforms; bioinformatics; cuprizone; experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; top-down proteomics; protein species; post-translational modifications; bottom-up proteomics; neurodegenerative disease

Funding

  1. Rotary Club of Narellan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review examines proteomic studies of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and animal models to assess their effectiveness in mimicking MS and identifying potential biomarkers. The importance of evaluating proteoforms and challenges in identifying rational biomarkers are discussed, highlighting the need for preclinical biomarkers for early diagnosis and treatment.
Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease of the human central nervous system having an unconfirmed pathoetiology. Although animal models are used to mimic the pathology and clinical symptoms, no single model successfully replicates the full complexity of MS from its initial clinical identification through disease progression. Most importantly, a lack of preclinical biomarkers is hampering the earliest possible diagnosis and treatment. Notably, the development of rationally targeted therapeutics enabling pre-emptive treatment to halt the disease is also delayed without such biomarkers. Using literature mining and bioinformatic analyses, this review assessed the available proteomic studies of MS patients and animal models to discern (1) whether the models effectively mimic MS; and (2) whether reasonable biomarker candidates have been identified. The implication and necessity of assessing proteoforms and the critical importance of this to identifying rational biomarkers are discussed. Moreover, the challenges of using different proteomic analytical approaches and biological samples are also addressed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available