4.5 Review

Antiglycolipid antibodies in Guillain-Barre syndrome and related diseases: Review of clinical features and antibody specificities

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 1-17

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.20395

关键词

antiglycolipid antibodies; Guillain-Barre syndrome; glycosphingolipids

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS26994] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is an acute inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy that usually develops following a respiratory or intestinal infection. Although the pathogenic mechanisms of GBS have not been fully established, both humoral and cell-mediated immune factors have been shown to contribute to the disease process. Several antiglycosphingolipid (anti-GSL) antibodies have been found in the sera of patients with GBS or related diseases. Measurements of these antibody titers are very important in the diagnosis of GBS and in evaluating the effectiveness of treatments in clinical trials. The most common treatment strategies for these disorders involve plasmapheresis and the use of steroids for reducing anti-GSL antibody titers to ameliorate patients' clinical symptoms. Administration of intravenous immunoglobulin may also be beneficial in the treatment of neuropathies by suppressing the immune-mediated processes that are directed against antigenic targets in myelin and axons. In certain demyelinating neuropathies, the destruction or malfunctioning of the blood-nerve barrier, which results in the leakage of circulating antibodies into the peripheral nerve parenchyma, has been considered to be an initial step in development of the disease process. In addition, anti-GSL antibodies, such as anti-GM1, may cause nerve dysfunction and injury by interfering with the ion channel function at the nodes of Ranvier, where carbohydrate epitopes of glycoconjugates are located. These malfunctions thus contribute to the pathogenic mechanisms of certain demyelinating neuropathies. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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