4.3 Article

Elevated immunoglobulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid from lupus-prone mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMMUNOLOGY
卷 165, 期 1-2, 页码 104-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2005.04.022

关键词

autoimmunity; autoantibodies; lupus; blood-brain barrier; cerebrospinal fluid; immunoglobulin; albumin; Fluoro Jade B; Western blotting; mass spectrometry; MRL mice

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R21 AR049163, 1R21 AR49163-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The systemic autoimmune disease lupus erythematosus (SLE) is frequently accompanied by neuropsychiatric manifestations and brain lesions of unknown etiology. The MRL-lpr mice show behavioral dysfunction concurrent with progression of a lupus-like disease, thus providing a valuable model in understanding the pathogenesis of autoimmunity-induced CNS damage. Profound neurodegeneration in the limbic system of MRL-lpr mice is associated with cytotoxicity of their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to mature and immature neurons. We have recently shown that IgG-rich CSF fraction largely accounts for this effect. The present study examines IgG levels in serum and CSF, as well as the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in mice that differ in immune status, age, and brain morphology. In comparison to young MRL-lpr mice and age-matched congenic controls, a significant elevation of IgG and albumin levels were detected in the CSF of aged autoimmune MRL-lpr mice. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and MALDI-TOF MS confirmed elevation in IgG heavy and Ig light chain isoforms in the CSF. Increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier correlated with neurodegeneration (as revealed by Fluoro Jade B staining) in periventricular areas. Although the source and specificity of neuropathogenic antibodies remain to be determined, these results support the hypothesis that a breached blood-brain barrier and IgG molecules are involved in the etiology of CNS damage during SLE-like disease. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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