4.7 Article

Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein revisited-sensitive detection of MOG-specific T-cells in multiple sclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF AUTOIMMUNITY
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 38-49

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.04.013

关键词

Autoimmunity; Multiple sclerosis; Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein; Autoantigen; T-cell

资金

  1. CBD solutions
  2. Neuroforbundet
  3. Swedish Research Council [2017-00777]
  4. Swedish Brain Foundation
  5. Margareta of Ugglas Foundation
  6. Stratneuro
  7. DFG [SFB TR128]
  8. Swedish Research Council [2017-00777] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autoreactive CD4(+) T-cells are believed to be a main driver of multiple sclerosis (MS). Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) is considered an autoantigen, yet doubted in recent years. The reason is in part due to low frequency and titers of MOG autoantibodies and the challenge to detect MOG-specific T-cells. In this study we aimed to analyze T-cell reactivity and frequency utilizing a novel method for detection of antigen-specific T-cells with bead-bound MOG as stimulant. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from natalizumab treated persons with MS (n = 52) and healthy controls (HCs) (n = 24) were analyzed by IFN gamma/IL-22/IL-17A FluoroSpot. A higher number of IFN gamma (P = 0.001), IL-22 (P = 0.003), IL-17A (P < 0.0001) as well as double and triple cytokine producing MOG-specific T-cells were detected in persons with MS compared to HCs. Of the patients, 46.2-59.6% displayed MOG-reactivity. Depletion of CD4(+) T-cells or monocytes or blocking HLA-DR completely eliminated the MOG specific response. Anti-MOG antibodies did not correlate with T-cell MOG-responses. In conclusion, we present a sensitive method to detect circulating autoreactive CD4(+) T-cells producing IFN gamma, IL-22 or IL-17A using MOG as a model antigen. Further, we demonstrate that MOG-specific T-cells are present in approximately half of persons with MS.

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

4.7
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