4.3 Article

Reduced cerebrospinal fluid BACE1 activity in multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 448-454

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458508100031

关键词

BACE1; cerebrospinal fluid; multiple sclerosis; myelination; neuroinflammation; systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. Anna-Lisa and Bror Bjornsson Foundation
  2. Swedish Association of Persons with Neurological Disabilities
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Sahlgrenska University Hospital
  5. Goteborg Medical Society
  6. Vastra Gotaland Region
  7. Alzheimerfonden
  8. Stiftelsen for Gamla Tjanarinnor
  9. MedCoast
  10. Swedish Brain Power
  11. Ake Wiberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cell and animal experiments have shown that beta-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) may be involved in myelination. Objective Here, we assess the association of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) BACE1 activity with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods BACE1 activity and levels of secreted amyloid precursor protein (APP) and amyloid-beta (A beta) isoforms were analyzed in CSF from 100 patients with MS and 114 neurologically healthy controls. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), 26 with and 41 without cerebral engagement, were also included to enable comparisons with regards to another autoimmune disease. A subset of patients with MS and controls underwent a second lumbar puncture after 10 years. Results MS patients had lower CSF BACE1 activity than controls (P = 0.03) and patients with cerebral SLE (P < 0.001). Patients with cerebral SLE had higher BACE1 activity than any other group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). BACE1 activity correlated with the different amyloid markers in all study groups. BACE1 activity decreased over 10 years in the MS group (P = 0.039) and correlated weakly with clinical disease severity scores in an inverse manner. Conclusions These results suggest an involvement of BACE1 in the MS disease process. Multiple Sclerosis 2009; 15: 448-454. http://msj.sagepub.com

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据