4.6 Article

Investigating Serum sHLA-G Cooperation With MRI Activity and Disease-Modifying Treatment Outcome in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.872396

关键词

multiple sclerosis; natalizumab; serum sHLA-G; cytokines; disease activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is associated with the HLA-G gene, which may play a role in regulating the disease. The study found that serum sHLA-G level is influenced by genotype and has an impact on treatment and MRI activity, but is not correlated with peripheral inflammation.
Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is a demyelinating disease in which pathogenesis T cells have a major role. Despite the unknown etiology, several risk factors have been described, including a strong association with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes. Recent findings showed that HLA class I-G (HLA-G) may be tolerogenic in MS, but further insights are required. To deepen the HLA-G role in MS inflammation, we measured soluble HLA-G (sHLA-G) and cytokines serum level in 27 patients with RRMS at baseline and after 12 and 24 months of natalizumab (NTZ) treatment. Patients were divided into high (sHLA-G>20 ng/ml), medium (sHLA-G between 10 and 20 ng/ml), and low (sHLA-G <10 ng/ml) producers. Results showed a heterogeneous distribution of genotypes among producers, with no significant differences between groups. A significant decrease of sHLA-G was found after 24 months of NTZ in low producers carrying the +3142 C/G genotype. Finally, 83.3% of high and 100% of medium producers were MRI-activity free after 24 months of treatment, compared to 63.5% of low producers. Of note, we did not find any correlation of sHLA-G with peripheral cell counts or cytokines level. These findings suggest that serum sHLA-G level may partly depend on genotype rather than peripheral inflammation, and that may have impacted on MRI activity of patients over treatment.

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