Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Aquaporin 4 (AQP4)-specific autoantibodies in neuromyelitis optica (NMO) are immunoglobulin (Ig)G1, a T cell-dependent Ig subclass, indicating that AQP4-specific T cells participate in NMO pathogenesis. Our goal was to identify and characterize AQP4-specific T cells in NMO patients and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: Peripheral blood T cells from NMO patients and HC were examined for recognition of AQP4 and production of proinflammatory cytokines. Monocytes were evaluated for production of T cell-polarizing cytokines and expression of costimulatory molecules. RESULTS: T cells from NMO patients and HC proliferated to intact AQP4 or AQP4 peptides (p11-30, p21-40, p61-80, p131-150, p156-170, p211-230, and p261-280). T cells from NMO patients demonstrated greater proliferation to AQP4 than those from HC, and responded most vigorously to p61-80, a naturally processed immunodominant determinant of intact AQP4. T cells were CD4(+), and corresponding to association of NMO with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1*0301 and DRB3, AQP4 p61-80-specific T cells were HLA-DR restricted. The T-cell epitope within AQP4 p61-80 was mapped to 63-76, which contains 10 residues with 90% homology to a sequence within Clostridium perfringens adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette (ABC) transporter permease. T cells from NMO patients proliferated to this homologous bacterial sequence, and cross-reactivity between it and self-AQP4 was observed, supporting molecular mimicry. In NMO, AQP4 p61-80-specific T cells exhibited Th17 polarization, and furthermore, monocytes produced more interleukin 6, a Th17-polarizing cytokine, and expressed elevated CD40 and CD80 costimulatory molecules, suggesting innate immunologic dysfunction. INTERPRETATION: AQP4-specific T-cell responses are amplified in NMO, exhibit a Th17 bias, and display cross-reactivity to a protein of an indigenous intestinal bacterium, providing new perspectives for investigating NMO pathogenesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varrin‐Doyer et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: