4.7 Review

Individuals at risk of seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: the evolving story

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 286, 期 6, 页码 627-643

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/joim.12980

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; presymptomatic individuals; HLA-shared epitope; risk factors; antibodies against citrullinated peptides; microbiota

资金

  1. Jerome L. Greene Foundation
  2. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 AR069569]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aetiology of the autoimmune disease rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors that initiate many years before the onset of clinical symptoms. These interactions likely include both protective and susceptibility factors which together determine the risk of developing RA. More than 100 susceptibility loci have been linked to RA. The strongest association is with HLA-DRB1 alleles encoding antigen presenting molecules containing a unique sequence in the peptide-binding grove called the 'shared epitope'. Female sex, infections during childhood, lifestyle habits (e.g. smoking and diet) and distinct microbial agents, amongst many others, are interacting risk factors thought to contribute to RA pathogenesis by dysregulating the immune system in individuals with genetic susceptibility. Interestingly, patients with RA develop autoantibodies many years before the clinical onset of disease, providing strong evidence that the lack of tolerance to arthritogenic antigens is amongst the earliest events in the initiation of seropositive RA. Here, we will discuss the clinical and mechanistic evidence surrounding the role of different environmental and genetic factors in the phases leading to the production of autoantibodies and the initiation of symptomatic RA. Understanding this complexity is critical in order to develop tools to identify drivers of disease initiation and propagation and to develop preventive therapeutics.

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