3.8 Article

CD8+ T cell gene expression analysis identifies differentially expressed genes between multiple sclerosis patients and healthy controls

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2055217320978511

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; T-Lymphocytes; gene expression; RNA; autoimmunity; neurology

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council [240102]
  2. South-Eastern Norway Health Authorities grant [276940/2017114]
  3. MultipleMS consortium in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
  4. Odd Fellow society Norway
  5. Sanofi Genzyme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Genetic and clinical observations have indicated T cells are involved in MS pathology. There is little insight in how T cells are involved and whether or not these can be used as markers for MS. Objectives Analysis of the gene expression profiles of circulating CD8(+) T cells of MS patients compared to healthy controls. Methods RNA from purified CD8(+) T cells was sequenced and analyzed for differential gene expression. Pathway analyses of genes at several p-value cutoffs were performed to identify putative pathways involved. Results We identified 36 genes with significant differential gene expression in MS patients. Four genes reached at least 2-fold differences in expression. The majority of differentially expressed genes was higher expressed in MS patients. Genes associated to MS in GWAS showed enrichment amongst the differentially expressed genes. We did not identify enrichment of specific pathways amongst the differentially expressed genes in MS patients. Conclusions CD8(+) T cells of MS patients show differential gene expression, with predominantly higher activity of genes in MS patients. We do not identify specific biological pathways in our study. More detailed analysis of CD8(+) T cells and subtypes of these may increase understanding of how T cells are involved in MS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available