4.5 Article

The association of Epstein-Barr virus infection with CXCR3+ B-cell development in multiple sclerosis: impact of immunotherapies

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 626-633

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eji.202048739

关键词

EBV; memory B cells; multiple sclerosis; natalizumab; plasma cells

资金

  1. Dutch MS Research Foundation [14-875 MS, 15-490d MS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that EBV infection in B cells can lead to the preferential infiltration of CXCR3(+) B cells into the central nervous system in MS patients. Research on transplant recipients and MS patients treated with natalizumab indicated that EBV infection enhances antibody production and brain-homing B cell subsets.
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection of B cells is associated with increased multiple sclerosis (MS) susceptibility. Recently, we found that CXCR3-expressing B cells preferentially infiltrate the CNS of MS patients. In chronic virus-infected mice, these types of B cells are sustained and show increased antiviral responsiveness. How EBV persistence in B cells influences their development remains unclear. First, we analyzed ex vivo B-cell subsets from MS patients who received autologous bone marrow transplantation (n = 9), which is often accompanied by EBV reactivation. The frequencies of nonclass-switched and class-switched memory B cells were reduced at 3-7 months, while only class-switched B cells returned back to baseline at 24-36 months posttransplantation. At these time points, EBV DNA load positively correlated to the frequency of CXCR3(+), and not CXCR4(+) or CXCR5(+), class-switched B cells. Second, for CXCR3(+) memory B cells trapped within the blood of MS patients treated with natalizumab (anti-VLA-4 antibody n = 15), latent EBV infection corresponded to enhanced in vitro formation of anti-EBNA1 IgG-secreting plasma cells under GC-like conditions. These findings imply that EBV persistence in B cells potentiates brain-homing and antibody-producing CXCR3(+) subsets in 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

4.5
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