4.7 Article

Related B cell clones populate the meninges and parenchyma of patients with multiple sclerosis

期刊

BRAIN
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 534-541

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awq350

关键词

multiple sclerosis; B cells; clonal expansion; antigen experience; central nervous system

资金

  1. Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla [FISM-Cod. 2008/B/3]
  2. Jacob Javits Neuroscience Investigator Merit Award [R37 NS024247]
  3. US National Institutes of Health [P01AI39671]
  4. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [RG2172C9, RG3308A10]
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  6. UK Medical Research Council [G0700356]
  7. MRC [G0700356] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0700356] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the central nervous system of patients with multiple sclerosis, B cell aggregates populate the meninges, raising the central question as to whether these structures relate to the B cell infiltrates found in parenchymal lesions or instead, represent a separate central nervous system immune compartment. We characterized the repertoires derived from meningeal B cell aggregates and the corresponding parenchymal infiltrates from brain tissue derived primarily from patients with progressive multiple sclerosis. The majority of expanded antigen-experienced B cell clones derived from meningeal aggregates were also present in the parenchyma. We extended this investigation to include 20 grey matter specimens containing meninges, 26 inflammatory plaques, 19 areas of normal appearing white matter and cerebral spinal fluid. Analysis of 1833 B cell receptor heavy chain variable region sequences demonstrated that antigen-experienced clones were consistently shared among these distinct compartments. This study establishes a relationship between extraparenchymal lymphoid tissue and parenchymal infiltrates and defines the arrangement of B cell clones that populate the central nervous system of patients with multiple sclerosis.

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

4.7
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