4.6 Article

Anti-pan-neurofascin IgG3 as a marker of fulminant autoimmune neuropathy

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000603

关键词

-

资金

  1. Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research
  2. European Academy of Neurology
  3. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
  4. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  5. Clinical Competence Network for Multiple Sclerosis
  6. [SFBTR128]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To identify and characterize patients with autoantibodies against different neurofascin (NF) isoforms. Methods Screening of a large cohort of patient sera for anti-NF autoantibodies by ELISA and further characterization by cell-based assays, epitope mapping, and complement binding assays. Results Two different clinical phenotypes became apparent in this study: The well-known clinical picture of subacute-onset severe sensorimotor neuropathy with tremor that is known to be associated with IgG4 autoantibodies against the paranodal isoform NF-155 was found in 2 patients. The second phenotype with a dramatic course of disease with tetraplegia and almost locked-in syndrome was associated with IgG3 autoantibodies against nodal and paranodal isoforms of NF in 3 patients. The epitope against which these autoantibodies were directed in this second phenotype was the common Ig domain found in all 3 NF isoforms. In contrast, anti-NF-155 IgG4 were directed against the NF-155-specific Fn3Fn4 domain. The description of a second phenotype of anti-NF-associated neuropathy is in line with some case reports of similar patients that were published in the last year. Conclusions Our results indicate that anti-pan-NF-associated neuropathy differs from anti-NF-155-associated neuropathy, and epitope and subclass play a major role in the pathogenesis and severity of anti-NF-associated neuropathy and should be determined to correctly classify patients, also in respect to possible differences in therapeutic response.

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

4.6
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