Biomarkers Blog chitinase Clinical Review Article micoRNAs ms neurofilaments oligoclonal bands osteopontin

Biomarkers in MS – the current state of play | ACNR

Biomarkers in MS – the current state of play

Posted in Medical Evaluate Article on 7th Might 2019

Francesca Ammoscato is a Postdoctoral Research Scientist working at the Neuroscience Centre at the Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London. Her research focuses on the discovery of novel biomarkers and improvement of diagnostic assays in the space of a number of sclerosis disease.

Sharmilee Gnanapavan is presently a Marketing consultant Neurologist at Barts Health and Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust and Honorary Senior Medical Lecturer in the Department of Neuroscience & Trauma, Queen Mary College of London. Her analysis focus is physique fluid biomarkers, starting from primary science by means of to translation work in medical apply, together with medical trials.

Correspondence to: Dr Sharmilee Gnanapavan Blizard Institute, Barts and the London Faculty of Drugs & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, UK. E: [email protected]
Battle of curiosity statement: Dr Gnanapavan has acquired consulting fees from Biogen-Idec, Genzyme and Novartis, journey help from Teva, Novartis, Genzyme, Biogen-Idec, NMSS and MS research Australia, and grant help NMSS, Genzyme and Takeda.
Provenance and peer evaluation:  Submitted and externally reviewed.
Date first submitted: 4/4/2018
Date submitted after peer evaluate: 25/1/19
Acceptance date: 30/1/19
To cite: Ammoscato F, Gnanapavan S. ACNR 2019;18(3):13-15.
Revealed on-line: 7/5/19

Abstract

Since the late 80s with the discovery of oligo-clonal bands (OCBs) in the CSF of A number of Sclerosis (MS) patients, scientists have made big efforts to develop prognostic biomarkers in each the CSF and blood. Normally phrases, the latter has resulted in the improvement of both immune system activation/regulation biomarkers, or neurodegenerative biomarkers. Simply put, from a biomarker perspective, disease progres-sion in MS is due not solely to the underlying autoimmunity, but neurodegeneration. As there was resurgence of curiosity in the OCBs with the 2018 McDonald criteria, we talk about this first in the evaluate.


Introduction

A number of sclerosis (MS) is a progressive inflam-matory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS). It’s now properly accepted that Th1 and Th17 cells play an essential position in the pathogenesis of MS, however opposite to belief, they don’t seem to be the only cells concerned. A mixture of antibody-producing B cells/plasma cells, macrophages, and NK cells are involved in illness pathogenesis, whilst demyelination, inflammation and axonal injury contribute to progressive disability in MS sufferers. Over the previous couple of years, scientists and clinicians have worked collectively in order to determine specific biomarkers capable of predict the onset and course of the disease. Nevertheless, regardless of the dramatic improve in publications, the biomarkers commonly used in medical follow still remain the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) oligoclonal bands, and more just lately the neurofilament proteins. In this evaluation we summarise the biomarkers which have made waves in MS analysis over the last ten years, together with osteopontin, microRNAs, neurofilaments, chitinase and chitinase-like proteins. We also talk about oligoclonal bands, notably as these have been reintroduced into the newest diagnostic criteria for MS.

Oligoclonal bands

Immunoglobulin IgG oligoclonal bands (OCB) are detected in about 95% of MS sufferers and are thought-about the greatest diagnostic aspect supportive of MS analysis. Although OCBs are discovered mainly in CSF of individuals with MS, additionally they occur in different inflammatory circumstances like paraneoplastic issues, CNS lupus, neurosarcoidosis, Behcet’s illness and numerous varieties of cerebral angiitis. OCB destructive MS patients have been reported to have fewer infratentorial and more juxtacortical lesions in comparison with OCB-positive patients.1 OCB negativity can also be related to better prognoses based mostly on bodily incapacity.2

If we give attention to the prognostic significance, Tintore et al. found that those that are OCB constructive had a better danger of conversion from a clinically remoted syndrome (CIS) to medical definite MS.Three It subsequently provides info to MRI in the first attacks of MS, and henceforth has been re-introduced back into the 2017 McDonald criteria.4 A number of studies have additionally investigated the correlation between OCBs and cerebral quantity. Ferreira et al., studied both grey and white matter volumes, and noted much less brain atrophy in those that have been OCB unfavorable.5 Whereas Fenu et al. discovered that mind atrophy in OCB constructive sufferers primarily concerned the white slightly than gray matter.6

Osteopontin

Osteopontin (OPN) is a pleiotropic cytokine expressed by immune cells, including T cells, dendritic cells, macrophages and pure killer cells.7 It’s concerned in a spread of physiological features and pathological states corresponding to bone remodelling, wound therapeutic, most cancers biology and vascular issues, and exerts pro-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic effects.Eight OPN is considered to be a pro-inflammatory mediator that amplifies the inflammatory process by enhancing the manufacturing of interferon gamma (IFN-γ) and IL-17 from T cells with consequent inhibition of IL-10.9

Elevated OPN gene expression was found in MS mind lesions compared to management mind tissue10 and these findings have been additionally confirmed in evaluation of spinal twine tissue in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE).11 Many studies have reported increased concentration of CSF OPN in relapsing remitting MS (RRMS) sufferers in comparison with CIS and secondary progressive MS (SPMS) sufferers. Similarly, plasma OPN ranges have been discovered to be increased in RRMS in comparison with healthy controls.12 Nevertheless, a raised CSF OPN or blood OPN just isn’t specific for MS, and has additionally been demonstrated in Alzheimer’s illness and Parkinson’s disease.13,14

MicroRNAs

Micro RNAs (miRNA) are brief non-coding RNAs with an necessary position in post-transcriptional gene expression by silencing; by way of binding of the target messenger (mRNAs) or by degrading the mRNA transcript. MiRNAs play a serious position in regulating key processes in immune cells, including Th1, Th17, T-regs,15 as well as being found in a quantity of neurological issues, including traumatic CNS injuries.16 Newer findings recommend a task for miRNAs as biomarkers in MS.17 Huang et al. recognized a link between dysregulated miRNAs and MS.18 Particularly, greater concentrations of miRNAs have been noticed in the serum of MS patients in comparison with controls19 and amongst these let-7i miRNA has been discovered to scale back the quantity of T-reg IFNy-IL17A-Fox3P-CD4+ cells, by concentrating on insulin like progress issue 1 receptor (IGF1R) and reworking progress factor beta receptor 1 (TGFBR1).20 The impairment of T Reg cells, with consequent disruption of the immune homeostasis, is considered crucial in the initiation and perpetuation of autoimmune illness.21

Neurofilaments

Neurofilaments, an plentiful protein in the cytoskeleton neurons are composed of the subunits mild (NfL; 60–70 kDa), medium (NfM; 130–170 kDa) and heavy chain (NfH; 180–200 kDa). Though the exact mechanism of axonal loss in MS continues to be not clear, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that neurofilaments are released into the blood and CSF of MS sufferers after episodes of relapses and with sluggish neurodegeneration. They’re detectable in most at analysis, and even at the early levels of CIS and radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS).

The research has come a great distance since MRI was the only software out there capable of monitor the course of the MS standing and there’s the have to discover biomarkers that may accurately be detected at a very early stage of the illness. Among these biomarkers, NfL emerged as a favourable candidate. There are various studies backing its usefulness early on in prognostication, with increased ranges predicting the improvement of MS in CIS and RIS.22

In MS, NfL levels in CSF and serum improve with EDSS, whilst the incremental rise correlates with lesion load and worsening EDSS.23 Following natalizumab use, a remedy impact on NfL ranges has been demonstrated in the CSF however not in the serum, indicating a relationship between anti-inflammatory therapy and axonal injury decision.24,25 Nevertheless, with the elevated sensitivity of Simoa platform, there was new thrilling analysis investigating NfL levels in the serum, raising the risk of a blood biomarker. Thus far good correlations have been demonstrated between serum NfL and CSF NfL,26 MRI exercise and incapacity in CIS patients. At a cohort degree serum NfL have definite utility in monitoring remedy impact and lowered levels have been documented with interferon beta27 and fingolimod,28 and may be a useful surrogate marker of remedy efficacy in medical trials. At a person degree, it’s long-term predictive capacity is uncertain.

NfH, like NfL is a bulk biomarker of neuronal injury and has been discovered to be elevated in optic neuritis,29 in RRMS and SPMS and correlates with EDSS in cross sectional and longitudinal studies.30,31 NfH ranges have been demonstrated to enhance following lamotrigine remedy in SPMS and phenytoin in optic neuritis; two neuroprotection studies in MS.32,33 Antibodies to NFL have additionally been recognized in MS, with elevated levels in CIS, main progressive MS (PPMS) and RRMS and have been linked with medical incapacity and progressive disease course. Their significance in MS is as yet not recognized.

Chitinase and Chitinase-like proteins

Chitinase (chitinase 1, CHIT1) and chitinase-like protein (chitinase Three-like protein 1, CHI3L1 and a couple of, CHI3L2) are chitin-binding proteins that belong to the glycohydrolase household 18 and may be indicators of irritation.

Current proof indicates CHIT1 gene expression is bigger in persistent lively MS lesions, infiltrated by microglia and macrophages, compared to expression in the rim of lively MS lesions.34 CHIT1 CSF ranges have been considerably greater in RRMS in comparison with controls. Novakova et al. confirmed a reduction in CSF CHIT1 in fingolimod-treated MS sufferers switched from first-line DMTs but they did not discover a comparable development in natalizumab-treated patients.35 Hinsinger et al. showed that chitinase-like proteins, CHI3L1 and CHI3L2 are highly expressed in white matter plaques, specifically in astrocytes and microglial cells of MS sufferers.36 CHI3L1 has drawn consideration in that it has been observed to be elevated in CIS instances changing to MS compared to non-converters37 and the similar development was not confirmed in RIS sufferers.38 This remark, along with the proof that CSF CHI3L1 improve accordingly to the progression of MS might characterize an alternate diagnostic worth to discriminate progressive patients at a really early stage. Since OCB testing fails to detect intrathecal IgG synthesis in about 5% of MS instances,39 willpower of CSF CHI3L1 levels by ELISA might symbolize a future various to be utilised in MS medical apply. In addition, lowered CSF CHI3L1 has been noticed after 12 months of natalizumab remedy,40 reflecting the initial observations that this can be a biomarker of irritation. CHI3L1, just isn’t specific for MS and has been discovered to be elevated in most cancers and rheumatoid arthritis.41

CHI3L2, on the other hand, was initially considered a secretory product of chondrocytes, and as such has only lately been studied in MS. In contrast to CHI3L1, CSF CHI3L2 decreased in PPMS in comparison with RRMS sufferers.36 A rise in CHI3L2 noticed in RRMS and in addition correlated with different biomarkers of inflammation and tissue injury resembling NfL, OPN and MBP,42 suggesting like the others an affiliation with inflammatory activity.

Conclusion

In the previous, MS was thought-about to be an solely T-cell mediated-disease, however more and more it’s clear that we are coping with a multifactorial disease pathogenesis resulting in progressive incapacity. Understanding the position of each of these elements might permit for higher definition of the under-lying predominant disease course of in every affected person, allowing more individualised therapeutic methods. The drive to seek out new validated biomarkers in MS to facilitate this process has typically had unpredictable results. We now perceive that the majority of these biomarkers are either indicators of bulk tissue damage i.e. neurodegeneration or inflammation, or impaired immune regulation in MS.

References

  1. Huttner HB, Schellinger PD, Struffert T, Richter G, Engelhorn T, Bassemir T, et al. MRI standards in MS patients with damaging and constructive oligoclonal bands: equal achievement of Barkhof’s criteria however totally different lesion patterns. J Neurol. 2009;256(7):1121-5.
  2. Joseph FG, Hirst CL, Pickersgill TP, Ben-Shlomo Y, Robertson NP, Scolding NJ. CSF oligoclonal band standing informs prognosis in multiple sclerosis: a case control research of 100 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80(3):292-6.
  3. Tintoré M1, Rovira A, Río J, Tur C, Pelayo R, Nos C, Téllez N, Perkal H, Comabella M, Sastre-Garriga J, Montalban X. Do oligoclonal bands add info to MRI in first attacks of multiple sclerosis? 2008.25;70(13 Pt 2):1079-83.
  4. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, Clanet M, Cohen JA, Filippi M, et al. Diagnostic criteria for a number of sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol. 2011;69(2):292-302.
  5. Ferreira D, Voevodskaya O, Imrell Okay, Stawiarz L, Spulber G, Wahlund LO, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients lacking oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid have much less international and regional brain atrophy. Journal of Neuroimmunology. 2014;274(1-2):149-54.
  1. Fenu G, Lorefice L, Sechi V, Loi L, Contu F, Cabras F, Coghe G, Frau J, Secci MA, Melis C, Schirru L, Costa G, Melas V, Arru M, Barracciu MA, Marrosu MG, Cocco E. Brain volume in early MS sufferers with and with out IgG oligoclonal bands in CSF. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 19:55-58.
  2. Chen G, Zhang X, Li R, Fang L, Niu X, Zheng Y, et al. Position of osteopontin in synovial Th17 differentiation in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(10):2900-Eight.
  3. Junaid A,Moon MC, Harding GE, Zahradka P. Osteopontin localizes to the nucleus of 293 cells and asso-ciates with p1-like kinase-1. Am J physiol Cell Physiol 2007;292(2):c919–c926.
  4. Ashkar S, Weber GF, Panoutsakopoulou V, Sanchirico ME, Jansson M, Zawaideh S, et al. Eta-1 (osteopontin): an early element of type-1 (cell-mediated) immunity. Science. 2000;287(5454):860-Four.
  5. Chabas D, Baranzini SE, Mitchell D, Bernard CC, Rittling SR, Denhardt DT, et al. The influence of the proinflamma-tory cytokine, osteopontin, on autoimmune demyelinating illness. 2001;294(5547):1731-5.
  6. Hur EM, Youssef S, Haws ME, Zhang SY, Sobel RA, Steinman L. Osteopontin-induced relapse and development of autoimmune brain disease via enhanced survival of activated T cells. Nat Immunol. 2007;Eight(1):74-83.
  7. Vogt MH, Lopatinskaya L, Smits M, Polman CH, Nagelkerken L. Elevated osteopontin levels in lively relapsing-remitting a number of sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2003;53(6):819-22.
  8. Carecchio M, Comi C. The position of osteopontin in neurode-generative illnesses. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;25(2):179-85.
  9. Sun Y, Yin XS, Guo H, Han RK, He RD, Chi LJ. Elevated osteopontin ranges in delicate cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Mediators Inflamm. 2013;2013:615745.
  10. Jeker LT, Bluestone JA. MicroRNA regulation of T-cell differentiation and function. Immunol Rev. 2013;253(1):65-81.
  11. Liu NK, Xu XM. MicroRNA in central nervous system trauma and degenerative issues. Physiol Genomics. 2011;43(10):571-80.
  12. Ma X, Zhou J, Zhong Y, Jiang L, Mu P, Li Y, et al. Expression, regulation and performance of microRNAs in a number of sclerosis. Int J Med Sci. 2014;11(Eight):810-Eight.
  13. Huang Q, Xiao B, Ma X, Qu M, Li Y, Nagarkatti P, et al. MicroRNAs associated with the pathogenesis of a number of sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol. 2016;295-296:148-61.
  14. Vistbakka J, Elovaara I, Lehtimaki T, Hagman S. Circulating microRNAs as biomarkers in progressive a number of sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2017;23(3):403-12.
  15. Kimura Okay, Hohjoh H, Fukuoka M, Sato W, Oki S, Tomi C, et al. Circulating exosomes suppress the induction of regulatory T cells by way of let-7i in a number of sclerosis. Nat Commun. 2018;9.
  16. Dejaco C, Duftner C, Grubeck-Loebenstein B, Schirmer M. Imbalance of regulatory T cells in human autoimmune Immunology. 2006;117(3):289-300.
  17. Gaetani L, Hoglund Okay, Parnetti L, Pujol-Calderon F, Becker B, Eusebi P, et al. A new enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay for neurofilament mild in cerebrospinal fluid: analytical validation and medical evaluation. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2018;10(1):Eight.
  18. Norgren N, Sundstrom P, Svenningsson A, Rosengren L, Stigbrand T, Gunnarsson M. Neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein in a number of sclerosis. 2004;63(9):1586-90.
  19. Petzold A, Mondria T, Kuhle J, Rocca MA, Cornelissen J, te Boekhorst P, et al. Evidence for acute neurotoxicity after chemotherapy. Ann Neurol. 2010;68(6):806-15.
  20. Gunnarsson M, Malmestrom C, Axelsson M, Sundstrom P, Dahle C, Vrethem M, et al. Axonal Injury in Relapsing A number of Sclerosis is Markedly Decreased by Natalizumab. Annals of Neurology. 2011;69(1):83-9.
  21. Piehl F, et al. Plasma neurofilament mild chain levels in patients with MS switching from injectable therapies to fingolimod. Mult Scler 2018;24(Eight):1046-54.
  22. Kuhle J, Nourbakhsh B, Grant D, Morant S, Barro C, Yaldizli Ö, Pelletier D, Giovannoni G, Waubant E, Gnanapavan S. (2017). Serum neurofilament is related to progression of brain atrophy and disability in early MS.
  23. Kuhle J, et al. Fingolimod and CSF neurofilament mild chain ranges in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2015;84(16):1639-43. Neurology. 2017 Feb 28.
  24. Lim ET, Grant D, Pashenkov M, Keir G, Thompson EJ, Soderstrom M, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid ranges of mind particular proteins in optic neuritis. Mult Scler. 2004;10(3):261-5.
  25. Teunissen CE, Iacobaeus E, Khademi M, Brundin L, Norgren N, Koel-Simmelink MJ, et al. Mixture of CSF N-acetylaspartate and neurofilaments in a number of sclerosis. 2009;72(15):1322-9.
  26. Kuhle J, Leppert D, Petzold A, Regeniter A, Schindler C, Mehling M, et al. Neurofilament heavy chain in CSF correlates with relapses and disability in a number of sclerosis. Neurology. 2011;76(14):1206-13.
  27. Gnanapavan S, Grant D, Morant S, Furby J, Hayton T, Teunissen CE, et al. Biomarker Report from the Part II Lamotrigine Trial in Secondary Progressive MS – Neurofilament as a Surrogate of Illness Progression. Plos One. 2013;8(8).
  28. Gnanapavan S, Grant D, Raftopoulos R, Hickman S, Altmann D, Barro C, et al. Neurofilament outcomes for the part II neuroprotection research of phenytoin in optic neuritis. Mult Scler J. 2016;22:855-6.
  29. Hendrickx DAE, van Scheppingen J, van der Poel M, Bossers Okay, Schuurman KG, van Eden CG, et al. Gene Expression Profiling of A number of Sclerosis Pathology Identifies Early Patterns of Demyelination Surrounding Continual Lively Lesions. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1810.
  30. Novakova L, Axelsson M, Khademi M, Zetterberg H, Blennow Okay, Malmestrom C, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers as a measure of disease exercise and treat-ment efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J 2017;141(2):296-304.
  31. Hinsinger G, Galeotti N, Nabholz N, Urbach S, Rigau V, Demattei C, et al. Chitinase 3-like proteins as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of a number of sclerosis. Mult Scler 2015;21(10):1251-61.
  32. Comabella M, Fernandez M, Martin R, Rivera-Vallve S, Borras E, Chiva C, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid chitinase Three-like 1 ranges are related to conversion to a number of sclerosis. 2010;133(Pt Four):1082-93.
  33. Matute-Blanch C, et al. Neurofilament mild chain and oligoclonal bands are prognostic biomarkers in radiologically isolated syndrome. Brain 2018;141(Four):1085-93.
  34. Freedman MS, et al. (2005). Beneficial commonplace of cerebrospinal fluid evaluation in the analysis of multiple sclerosis: a consensus statement. Arch Neurol 2005;62(6): 865-70.
  35. Stoop MP, Singh V, Stingl C, Martin R, Khademi M, Olsson T, et al. Effects of Natalizumab Remedy on the Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteome of Multiple Sclerosis Sufferers. J Proteome Res. 2013;12(Three):1101-7
  36. Tsuruha JI, Masuko-Hongo Okay, Kato T, Sakata M, Nakamura H, Sekine T, et al. Autoimmunity towards YKL-39, a human cartilage derived protein, in sufferers with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(7):1459-66.
  37. Mollgaard M, Degn M, Sellebjerg F, Frederiksen JL, Modvig S. Cerebrospinal fluid chitinase-3-like 2 and chitotriosidase are potential prognostic biomarkers in early a number of sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23(5):898-905.

Obtain this
Article