4.5 Article

Relevant antibody subsets against MOG recognize conformational epitopes exclusively exposed in solid-phase ELISA

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 11, Pages 3229-3239

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eji.200737249

Keywords

antigens/peptides/epitopes; autoantibodies; autoimmunity; human; neuroimmunology

Categories

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI 43073] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS4678-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A pathogenic role for circulating anti-myelin antibodies is difficult to establish in multiple sclerosis (MS). Here, we unravel a broad heterogeneity within the anti-myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies in humans and non-human primates, and demonstrate that detection of important epitopes of MOG within the pathogenic repertoire is exclusively dependent on presentation on a solid-phase MOG conformer. Results of ELISA and those of a liquid-phase assay were compared using a MOG protein with identical sequence but different conformations. We tested sera from 50 human subjects, plasma of Callithrix jacchus marmosets known to contain antibodies reactive to either conformational or linearized MOG, and monoclonal, conformation-dependent anti-MOG antibodies. We have found no antibody reactivity against the soluble MOG conformer in human serum, and show that this lack of detection is not due to technical artifacts. Rather, dominant epitopes of MOG are not displayed in soluble phase, as shown by a complete lack of binding of conformation-dependent mAb. In MP4-immune marmosets that exhibit demyelinating pathology due to spreading of antibody determinants to myelin-embedded MOG, only ELISA can detect pathogenic circulating anti-MOG antibodies. Thus, the accurate detection of important subsets of pathogenic anti-MOG antibodies requires methods in which MOG is displayed similarly to its natural conformation in myelin.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available