Detection of oligoclonal IgG kappa and IgG lambda bands in cerebrospinal fluid and serum with Hevylite™ antibodies. comparison with the free light chain oligoclonal pattern

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oligoclonal IgG bands in cerebrospinal fluid that are absent in serum indicate intrathecal IgG synthesis and are a sensitive marker of CNS inflammatory diseases, in particular multiple sclerosis. It may be of interest to determine whether these bands are predominantly IgGκ or IgGλ.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We have used Hevylite™ antibodies and developed a technique for detection of oligoclonal IgGκ and IgGλ bands by means of isoelectric focusing followed by immunoblotting. The same technique was used for oligoclonal free κ and free λ detection. Among several techniques tested, affinity immunoblotting appears to be the most sensitive; it can detect less than 1 ng of IgGκ or IgGλ paraprotein. We compared oligoclonal IgG profiles with those of oligoclonal IgGκ and IgGλ. There was good agreement concerning the presence or absence of intrathecal synthesis. We observed the ratios between oligoclonal IgGκ and IgGλ bands, and they did not always match the ratios between free κ and free λ bands. We were also able to detect antigen-specific CSF-restricted oligoclonal IgGκ and IgGλ bands in neuroborreliosis. It remains to be determined subsequently by a clinically-oriented prospective study, whether predominant IgGκ/IgGλ or free κ/free λ can be observed more frequently in particular diseases with oligoclonal IgG synthesis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Very sensitive detection of oligoclonal IgGκ and IgGλ bands in cerebrospinal fluid with Hevylite antibodies is feasible; detection of antigen-specific IgGκ or IgGλ is possible as well. In particular situations, e.g. when difficulties arise in distinguishing between oligoclonal and monoclonal pattern, the test may be of considerable clinical value.</p

Proteomics Comparison of Cerebrospinal Fluid of Relapsing Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Background: Based on clinical representation of disease symptoms multiple sclerosis (MScl) patients can be divided into two major subtypes; relapsing remitting (RR) MScl (85-90%) and primary progressive (PP) MScl (10-15%). Proteomics analysis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has detected a number of proteins that were elevated in MScl patients. Here we specifically aimed to differentiate between the PP and RR subtypes of MScl by comparing CSF proteins. Methodology/Principal Findings: CSF samples (n = 31) were handled according to the same protocol for quantitative mass spectrometry measurements we reported previously. In the comparison of PP MScl versus RR MScl we observed a number of differentially abundant proteins, such as protein jagged-1 and vitamin D-binding protein. Protein jagged-1 was over three times less abundant in PP MScl compared to RR MScl. Vitamin D-binding protein was only detected in the RR MScl samples. These two proteins were validated by independent techniques (western blot and ELISA) as differentially abundant in the comparison between both MScl types. Conclusions/Significance: The main finding of this comparative study is the observation that the proteome profiles of CSF in PP and RR MScl patients overlap to a large extent. Still, a number of differences could be observed. Protein jagged-1 is a ligand for multiple Notch receptors and involved in the mediation of Notch signaling. It is suggested in literature that the Notch pathway is involved in the remyelination of MScl lesions. Aberration of normal homeostasis of Vitamin D, of which approximately 90% is bound to vitamin D-binding protein, has been widely implicated in MScl for some years now. Vitamin D directly and indirectly regulates the differentiation, activation of CD4+ T-lymphocytes and can prevent the development of autoimmune processes, and so it may be involved in neuroprotective elements in MScl

Biomarkers of Multiple Sclerosis

The search for an ideal multiple sclerosis biomarker with good diagnostic value, prognostic reference and an impact on clinical outcome has yet to be realized and is still ongoing. The aim of this review is to establish an overview of the frequent biomarkers for multiple sclerosis that exist to date. The review summarizes the results obtained from electronic databases, as well as thorough manual searches. In this review the sources and methods of biomarkers extraction are described; in addition to the description of each biomarker, determination of the prognostic, diagnostic, disease monitoring and treatment response values besides clinical impact they might possess. We divided the biomarkers into three categories according to the achievement method: laboratory markers, genetic-immunogenetic markers and imaging markers. We have found two biomarkers at the time being considered the gold standard for MS diagnostics. Unfortunately, there does not exist a single solitary marker being able to present reliable diagnostic value, prognostic value, high sensitivity and specificity as well as clinical impact. We need more studies to find the best biomarker for MS.publishersversionPeer reviewe