Next Article in Journal
Electronic-Cigarette Vehicles and Flavoring Affect Lung Function and Immune Responses in a Murine Model
Previous Article in Journal
Remodeling of Kv7.1 and Kv7.5 Expression in Vascular Tumors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Neurological Syndromes Associated with Anti-GAD Antibodies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Molecular Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis and Its Related Disorders: A Critical Review

1
Precision Rheumatology INC, 2050 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
2
Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud 3614773947, Iran
3
Deccan College of Medical Sciences, P.O. Kanchanbagh, DMRL ‘X’ Road, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad 500058, Telangana State, India
4
Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan Medical College, Shaikh Zayed Medical Complex, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
5
Department of Internal Medicine, San Antonio Regional Medical Center, 999 San Bernardino Rd, Upland, CA 91786, USA
6
Department of Radiology, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(17), 6020; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21176020
Submission received: 20 May 2020 / Revised: 10 August 2020 / Accepted: 14 August 2020 / Published: 21 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis and Its Related Disorders)

Abstract

:
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease affecting the central nervous system (CNS) which can lead to severe disability. Several diseases can mimic the clinical manifestations of MS. This can often lead to a prolonged period that involves numerous tests and investigations before a definitive diagnosis is reached. As well as the possibility of misdiagnosis. Molecular biomarkers can play a unique role in this regard. Molecular biomarkers offer a unique view into the CNS disorders. They help us understand the pathophysiology of disease as well as guiding our diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic approaches in CNS disorders. This review highlights the most prominent molecular biomarkers found in the literature with respect to MS and its related disorders. Based on numerous recent clinical and experimental studies, we demonstrate that several molecular biomarkers could very well aid us in differentiating MS from its related disorders. The implications of this work will hopefully serve clinicians and researchers alike, who regularly deal with MS and its related disorders.

1. Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease affecting the central nervous system (CNS), caused by genetic and environmental factors. It is characterized by intermittent and recurrent episodes of inflammation that result in the demyelination and subsequent damage of the underlying axons present in the brain, optic nerve and spinal cord [1,2,3]. There are four courses of MS: (a) relapsing–remitting, (b) primary progressive, (c) secondary progressive and (d) progressive relapsing [3]. There are a number of illnesses that can mimic the clinical manifestations of MS and this can include several pathologic processes because they all share a common pathway of demyelination and ensuing damage to the underlying axons present in the brain, optic nerve and spinal cord [1,2,3,4]. Over the years, the similarity of symptoms has led to numerous instances of neurologic conditions being misdiagnosed as MS and vice versa [1,3]. The McDonalds criteria established in 2001 aimed to rectify this by setting guidelines for MS diagnosis [5]. However, because MS is often a diagnosis of exclusion, there is still a considerable portion of time where patients may take unnecessary medications for other plausible diseases before a diagnosis is established [1,3,6,7]. With the advent of immunomodulating therapy, it has become more important to diagnose or even exclude MS more effectively earlier on in the course of the illness [1,3,6,7]. By being aware and cognizant of the various diseases which mimic MS, this can empower clinicians and researchers to help deliver accurate counseling and treatment to their patients for their specific diagnosis [8].

1.1. Biomarkers in Pathophysiology of MS

One of the most prominent biomarkers of MS are miRNAs, which target several protective or pathogenic signaling pathways, and they have been found to be upregulated or downregulated in MS patients [9,10]. It is reported that protective miR-199a, pathogenic miR-320, miR-155, miR-142-3p and miR-142 are increased in MS lesions or peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) [9,10,11]. On the other hand, miR-219, miR-34a, miR-103, miR-182-5p, miR-124 and miR-15a/b are decreased in the Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), Tregs or PBMCs of MS patients [9,10,12,13,14]. There is a strong correlation between miRNAs and various manifestations of MS such as cognitive dysfunction and oxidative status, which can result in depression or fatigue [9,10,11,12,13,14].
Another oxidative biomarker is nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase 2 (Nox2); an enzyme that catalyzes the reduction of oxygen to produce reactive oxygen species, which plays a role in the pathogenesis of MS [15].
Recent research has suggested that reactive T cells directed against neuronal protein β-synuclein can invade and destroy the gray matter, which is a hallmark of MS [16]. In addition, a high level of β-synuclein reactive T cells in the peripheral blood of MS patients indicates that this biomarker has a key role in provoking T cells in MS [16].

1.2. Biomarkers in Diagnosis of MS

It has been suggested that the levels of specific complement proteins such as C1q, C3d and C5b-9 in the serum and CSF could potentially serve as novel biomarkers to diagnose the various MS subtypes and determine the disease activity [17]. miRNAs levels such as low miR-219 and high miR-150 in CSF are novel biomarkers that can distinguish MS from other neurologic conditions [18,19].
Recent studies have also shown that brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and soluble isoform of the interferon-β (IFN-β) receptor (sIFNAR2) levels may serve as useful biomarkers for the diagnosis of MS [20,21].

1.3. Biomarkers in Treatment and Prognosis of MS

Several studies demonstrate that a vast number of immune modulators or oxidative stress biomarkers can be used as therapeutic targets and for further studies on MS. The most notable examples are miR-497-5p, semaphorin-3A, coenzyme Q10, interferon gamma-stimulated dendritic cell exosomes (IFNγ-DC-Exos), glutathione (GSH) and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) [22,23,24,25,26].
It has been suggested that GSH (the major antioxidant in the brain) can be used for therapeutic applications as well as to predict and monitor the disease progression [26]. Monitoring disease activity in MS can be done by the use of total antioxidant status (TAS), high levels of total hydroperoxides and ceruloplasmin transferrin ratio (Cp:Tf) ratio (strictly related to Fe management) [27,28].
The potential biomarkers which can be used to predict the prognosis of relapsed or progressive forms of MS, as well as the responsiveness to treatment in patients with MS are SIRT1 (a NAD-dependent deacetylase sirtuin-1) mRNA, Response gene to complement-32 (RGC-32), Fasl, IL-21, Tau proteins (proteins that stabilize microtubules), miR-191-5p, miR-128-3p and serum netrin-1 (an axon guidance protein) [17,21,29,30,31,32].
The primary CSF biomarkers which can be used to predict the prognosis of MS are β-amyloid (Aβ) levels, neurofilament light (NF-L), neurofilament heavy (NF-H), chitinase 3-like-1 (CHI3L1) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) [33,34]. Elevated levels of lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) in the serum and CSF of relapsed MS patients can also be used as biomarkers to monitor the disease activity [35].

1.4. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Neuropsychiatric SLE

The nervous system is one of the major organs affected in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) [36]. Neuropsychiatric SLE (NPSLE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with SLE and it can be hard to distinguish NPSLE from MS [36].
It is proposed that many autoimmune biomarkers like anti-NR2A antibodies, anti-dsDNA antibody, SLEDAI, complement levels, anti-ribosomal P antibodies (anti-P) and possibly anti-endothelial cell antibodies (ECA) have a potential role in the NPSLE pathogenesis [37,38].
A recent study showed that serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) level is a useful biomarker not only to diagnose NPSLE from other neurological diseases like MS, but also to monitor the prognosis and response to treatment [39]. In addition, it was found that anti-U1 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) antibodies (anti-U1RNP Abs) in the CSF could be a useful diagnostic tool for central NPSLE [40].
It is determined that serum anti-dsDNA antibodies can predict the development and prognosis of NPSLE [41]. Recently, the small colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) kinase inhibitor has been used in experiments on lupus-prone mice. Results showed that it could reduce the NPSLE manifestations such as depression-like behavioral deficits [42].

1.5. Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS, or Hughes syndrome) is a systemic autoantibody-mediated acquired thrombophilia that is characterized by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (APL) against phospholipid-binding plasma proteins, such as beta-2-glycoprotein I (b2GPI) [43,44,45,46]. Because of its neurological symptoms which include strokes, migraine, memory loss and the common clinical, laboratory and radiological features; it has the potential to be misdiagnosed with other neurological diseases especially MS [44,45,46,47].
In the pathophysiology aspect, the biomarker b2GPI has been identified as the major autoantigen of APS, but there are other antibodies that bind to phosphatidylserine, prothrombin and thrombomodulin [45,46,47,48]. The laboratory biomarker tests for the diagnosis and management of APS are anti-beta-2-glycoprotein I (anti-b2GPI), anti-cardiolipin (ACL) and lupus anticoagulant (LAC) [45,46,48,49].

1.6. Neuro-Behçet’s Disease

Neuro-Behçet’s disease (NBD) is not very common in the course of Behçet’s disease (BD, a systemic variable vessel vasculitis), however, it is associated with significant mortality and morbidity [50].
Several biomarkers like interferon-alpha, IL-6 receptor blocking agent (tocilizumab), and anti-TNF agents are the most preferred options for treatment [50,51]. In a retrospective study, most patients with NBD exhibited Mediterranean fever (MEFV) gene mutations which can act as a disease modifier in NBD and it can be targeted with CNS anti-inflammatory treatments especially colchicine [52]. Defensin alpha 1B (DEFA1B) and NOD-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) gene expressions increase during NBD attacks so they can be used as biomarkers to predict disease activity and also as possible targets for future therapeutic experiments [53].

1.7. Primary Angiitis of the CNS

Primary angiitis of the CNS (PACNS) is an extremely rare disorder resulting in inflammation and destruction of CNS vessels without any evidence of vasculitis outside the CNS and there is no valuable biomarker test to diagnose PACNS [54,55].
Recently, the efficacy and safety of a new biomarker mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for achieving and maintaining remission of childhood PACNS have been demonstrated [56]. Furthermore, high levels of a protein biomarker neurofilament light chain (NFL) in the sera (CSF) indicates neuroaxonal damage, and its predictive value has been shown recently [57].

1.8. Polyarteritis Nodosa

Polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), is a necrotizing vasculitis mainly manifested by peripheral neuropathy (most frequent and earliest), weight loss, fever, cutaneous lesions, hypertension and cardiac failure [58].
One of the suggested biomarkers in PAN is matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) which can be used in the diagnosis, management and following up on the PAN prognosis [59]. A recent study demonstrated that high serum lysosomal-associated membrane protein-2 (LAMP-2) could be a useful biomarker for evaluating the prognosis and the disease activity of PAN [60].

1.9. Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (ANCA)-Associated CNS Vasculitis (AAV)

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV), is a systemic small-vessel vasculitis by pathogenic ANCA production, consists of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) and Neurologic involvement [61,62].
The ANCA is the main pathogenic biomarker of AAV which targets proteinase 3 (PR3) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) in the cytoplasm of neutrophils and monocytes [63]. ANCA is also a strong biomarker for diagnosis and even the monitoring of AVV activity [64].
The treatment goal of AVV is to inhibit the ANCA so it mainly consists of high-dose corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide or rituximab [65].

1.10. Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM)

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) is a monophasic demyelinating disorder of the CNS with a high incidence in children [66,67,68].
The elevated cytokines and chemokines (involved in helper T cells, regulatory T cells and B cell pathways) in CSF suggest the possible role of these biomarkers on the pathogenesis of the ADEM [66,68].
Until recently there was no diagnostic biomarker test to confirm ADEM [68,69]. Moreover, there are no clinical features or biomarkers that can reliably differentiate ADEM from MS at the first attack [67,70]. In spite of this, MS can occur after ADEM in up to 17% of cases, which indicates the importance of differentiating ADEM from MS early on [66]. Several studies have shown that some new biomarkers like myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibody, serum IgG targeting myelin basic protein (MBP) and myelin-associated oligodendrocyte basic protein (MOBP) can be used to diagnose and differentiate ADEM from MS at the first attack [67,69,71,72].

1.11. Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO)

Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO, Devic’s disease) is an idiopathic autoimmune disorder of the CNS presenting with optic neuritis, transverse myelitis and possibly medullary involvement and narcolepsy [73,74].
The pathogenesis of NMO can be attributed to the anti-aquaporin 4 (anti-AQP4) antibodies that cross the blood–brain barrier and damage the astrocyte foot processes. IL-6 may also play a role [73]. IL-6 is produced by the macrophages and dendritic cells and promotes differentiation of T cells into Th-17 cells. The IL-6 levels in NMO have been found to be higher than those in optic neuritis and related disorders suggesting a greater role in disease pathogenesis [75].
Immunosuppressants are used for treatment. High dose steroids may be used acutely. In refractory cases, exchange plasmapheresis [76] and intravenous or subcutaneous tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 antagonist has shown promise [77,78].

1.12. Optic Neuritis

Optic neuritis is a disease most commonly seen in women presenting as pain with extraocular movements and potentially progressing to partial or complete loss of vision [79]. Optic neuritis usually resolves within 3–6-week on its own however it may also progress into MS [80].
The pathology is inflammatory damage to the optic nerve and is confirmed by the presence of anti-myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (anti-MOG) or anti-AQP4 antibodies. It may also be a manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus, sarcoidosis or immune-mediated vasculitis [81,82].
Typical optic neuritis is usually self-limited and resolves on its own without any clinical treatment. The use of steroids may reduce the duration of the disease [83]. However, it is debatable and the treatment plan should be based on the biomarker [84].

1.13. Vitamin B12 Deficiency

Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency presents with a range of signs from megaloblastic anemia and macrocytic anemia to subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord [85].
If diagnosed early the prognosis is good, however, delayed treatment may lead to permanent neurological dysfunction [86].
Elevated serum methylmalonic acid and homocysteine levels lead to neuronal damage and can be detected as biomarkers [87,88]. Holotranscobalamin is used as a biomarker since B12 levels alone may be misleading [89]. Anti-intrinsic factor antibodies (AIFA) and anti-parietal cell antibodies (APCA) may also be useful when pernicious anemia is the cause [85]. Intramuscular injections and oral replacement are used to treat deficiency [90].

1.14. Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL)

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) is a rare autosomal dominant (AD) disease caused by mutations in the NOTCH3 gene of chromosome (Chr.) 19p13.2-p13.1 [91]. It affects small vessels of the vascular system causing diffuse microangiopathy [92,93].
Biomarkers that have shown promising results are the Von Willebrand factor (vWF), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and circulating progenitor cells (CPCs). The levels of vWF levels were significantly higher, while EPCs and CPCs levels were reduced [92].
Management is solely pragmatic and no therapies have been able to limit the disease progression. The biomarkers are not suitable prognostic indicators. Increases in the number of ischemic attacks worsen the prognosis [94].

1.15. Leber’s Hereditary Optic Neuropathy (LHON)

Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) is a rare mitochondrial disease characterized by progressive, bilateral and typically painless central vision loss [95,96].
Some promising/experimental biomarkers are low arylsulfatase A levels and elevated CSF/urine sulfatide levels. These biomarkers are also present in other diseases, hence more research is warranted in the search for a specific biomarker. Nonetheless, these biomarkers are still useful when formulating a focused differential diagnosis when presented with the varying signs of a neurodegenerative disease. [95,97,98].
The current standard of care is therapies with idebenone/quinine analogs, 4-aminopyridine (4-AP), gene therapy and stem cell therapy [99,100].
The prognosis is generally poor, and most patients will end up legally blind with visual acuity of 20/200 or worse. Biomarker levels do not correlate well with the disease progression [101,102].

1.16. Mitochondrial Encephalomyopathy with Lactic Acidosis and Stroke-like Episodes (MELAS)

Mitochondrial encephalomyopathy with lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) is a multiorgan disease with stroke-like episodes, dementia, epilepsy, lactic acidemia, myopathy and recurrent headaches [103]. The MT-TL1 mutation accounts for most cases [104]
Broad yet unspecific biomarkers mentioned are [104,105,106,107,108]: Varying levels of serum lactate, CSF lactate/pyruvate ratio, Ventricular lactic acid (LA), creatine kinase (CK), nitric oxide (NO), N-acetyl-L-aspartate (NAA) and total choline (t-Cho). The most novel one is serum miR-27b-3p.
There is no known cure or consensus on the proper approach for treating MELAS. L-arginine is the most commonly used/effective agent. Some benefits are noted with CoQ, idebenone, vitamins B/C/E and levocarnitine. The prognosis is highly variable, and the biomarker levels do not correlate well with disease progression [103,104,109,110].

1.17. Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (MLD)

Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD)is an autosomal recessive (AR) lysosomal storage disease. It is caused by mutations in the ARSA region on Chr. 22q13.33. This causes a deficiency of the arylsulfatase-A (ASA) enzyme and the accumulation of sulfatides, leading to demyelination [111].
The most reliable/mentioned biomarkers are low arylsulfatase A levels and elevated CSF/urine sulfatide levels. These are mentioned numerous times in the literature and warrant a strong suspicion for MLD [112,113,114,115].
There is no treatment available for MLD. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) are the options currently in the trial phase [116,117,118]. Biomarker levels do not correlate well with the disease progression and cannot serve as prognostic indicators [119].

1.18. Krabbe’s Leukoencephalopathy (KL)

Krabbe’s leukoencephalopathy (KL) is a rare AR disorder with widespread demyelination. Mutations on Chr. 14q31 cause a deficiency of the β-galactosylcerebrosidase (GALC) enzyme [115,120,121].
There are elevated blood levels of galactosphingosine (psychosine) and reduced GALC enzyme activity. Elevated psychosine levels correlate well with disease severity (possible prognostic indicator). It is specific to confirm the diagnosis, along with clinical manifestations and imaging [120,122,123,124,125].
Currently, the only approved treatment for presymptomatic infantile and late-onset patients is HSCT. The prognosis varies based on how early the diagnosis is made, how quickly HSCT was started (10%–20% mortality rate associated with HSCT) and the severity of the disease progression [115,125].

1.19. Multiple Sulfatase Deficiency (MSD)

Multiple sulfatase deficiency (MSD) is a rare inherited metabolic disorder caused by a deficiency in the formylglycine-generating enzyme (FGE), due to mutations in the sulfatase modifying factor 1 (SUMF1) gene on Chr. 3p26.1. Leading to a deficiency in all molecules of the sulfatase enzyme family. This results in increased sulfated lipids and mucopolysaccharides buildup in various cells leading to dysfunction [126,127].
The major trends of biomarker levels mentioned are [126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136]: (a) elevation of sulfatides in the urine; (b) deficiency of sulfatase enzyme activity in the leukocytes; (c) elevation of glycosaminoglycan (GAG) in the urine and at times plasma (variable).
There is no specific therapy available for MSD, but ERT and gene therapy options are being explored [127,136]. Prognostic indicators are based on FGE stability and residual enzyme activity. Those with drastic impairments in both had a worse prognosis, whereas those with residual activity/levels had a better prognosis.

1.20. Alexander Disease (AxD)

AxD is a rare, progressive and generally fatal neurological disorder. Resulting from dominant mutations affecting the coding region of GFAP, which encodes for glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). GFAP is the major intermediate filament protein of astrocytes in the CNS [137].
The biomarker most mentioned was GFAP. The levels were consistently elevated in the CSF, but only occasionally elevated in the blood [137,138,139,140,141].
Management revolves around supportive care, dealing with various CNS dysfunctions and an emphasis on genetic counseling [138,141]. Experimental work is being done on using GFAP as a target for pharmacological agents [141]. GFAP levels do not serve as an accurate prognostic indicator, because elevated levels do not correlate well with disease severity.

1.21. Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD)

Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) is an X-linked disorder caused by mutations in the ABCD1 gene which encodes the adrenoleukodystrophy protein (ALDP). A defect in ALDP results in elevated levels of very-long-chain fatty acids (VLCFAs) and their accumulation in plasma and tissues [142,143].
The biomarkers mentioned are elevated levels of plasma and tissue VLCFAs and elevated levels of C26:0 lysophosphatidylcholine (C26:0-lyso-PC) [144,145,146,147]. Huffnagel et al. found that C26:0-lysoPC is a better and more accurate biomarker than plasma VLCFA levels [145].
There is no curative treatment available for ALD. HSCT remains the only therapeutic intervention. There is no treatment for any associated progressive myelopathy. Early diagnosis of males with ALD by screening at birth allows for the early detection of adrenal insufficiency [144,145].
The levels of the biomarkers mentioned cannot be used as prognostic indicators [144,145]. There is variability noted in the literature for disease progression [146,147,148].

1.22. Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease (PMD)

Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease (PMD) is an X-linked disorder caused by mutations in the proteolipid protein 1 (PLP1) gene on Chr. Xq22, which encodes for PLP1. PLP1 plays an integral role in compact myelin sheath stabilization [149].
Mierzejewska et al. state that the diagnosis can be confirmed only with molecular analysis of the genetic mutation/abnormality [150]. A thorough search of the literature did not yield any reliable evidence of a diagnostic biomarker for PMD. However, some experimental results are being reported. Takanashi et al. found that on magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), an LCModel revealed increased total N-acetyl-L-aspartate (tNAA), creatine (Cr), myo-inositol (min), choline (Cho) [151].
There are no effective therapies for PMD. Genetic counseling and supportive care for disabilities/special needs are the current protocols [149,152,153]. White-matter atrophy serves as a marker of clinical severity, and a prognostic indicator [152,153].

1.23. Chronic Lymphocytic Inflammation with Pontine Perivascular Enhancement Responsive to Steroids (CLIPPERS)

The immunopathogenesis of most inflammatory CNS disorders, like Chronic lymphocytic inflammation with pontine perivascular enhancement responsive to steroids (CLIPPERS) remains poorly understood [154]. Hence, there is not a useful diagnostic and prognostic biomarker test as of yet [154].
CLIPPERS is specified by determining punctate or curvilinear gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions that are most noted in the pons [155,156].
Analysis of cerebrospinal fluid can determine mildly elevated protein, pleocytosis and oligoclonal bands or could be unremarkable. A CLIPPERS display can be connected with antibodies to MOG, but most cases are seronegative. Intravenous and oral steroids can improve clinical and paraclinical effects rapidly. Long-term steroid-sparing agents such as azathioprine and mycophenolate have been used as well, except for immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies like tocilizumab and rituximab [155].

1.24. HIV-Related Disorders of the CNS

Chemokines and their receptors tend to play a key role for connection among neurons and inflammatory cells. Evidence is mounting for the connection between chemokines and their receptors in the progression of brain damage, including MS and HIV associated dementia. This system is therefore likely to become a serious goal for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. In the development of demyelinating lesions in MS patients, the RANTES polymorphism would contribute. In damaged tissues, RANTES is an inflammatory chemokine remarked to respond to pro-inflammatory cytokines or contact with pathogens. Its main role is the recruitment of effector cells to sites of inflammation. The data shows a strong association between the severity of dementia and CSF HIV viral load, suggesting the development of HIV-induced brain damage [157].

1.25. HTLV-1-Associated Myelopathy

The first human retrovirus that was associated with the development of cancer was the human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV)-1, namely adult T-cell leukemia (ATL), the pathogenesis is still unknown [158].
HTLV-1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (HAM/TSP) can be confirmed by HTLV-1 antibodies via western blot and/or a positive PCR. The finding of anti-HTLV-1 antibodies in CSF is necessary for the diagnosis of HAM/TSP. To rule out other diseases similar to HAM/TSP, like MS, neuroimaging is necessary but is not specific for HAM/TSP. Most treatments in HAM/TSP attempt to suppress or modulate the immune response or to reduce the HTLV-1 proviral load in this disorder. Some treatments have discovered that display improves in the progress of HAM/TSP, like corticosteroids, INF-α, mogamulizumab or monoclonal antibody against IL-2 Rα. Mogamulizumab is a synthesized anti-CCR4 monoclonal antibody, effectively decreased both the proviral load (PVL) and inflammatory activity in cells acquired from patients with HAM/TSP. Reduction in the PVL and spontaneous proliferation is caused by the Monoclonal antibody against IL-2 Rα. Given that HAM/TSP is characterized by activated T-cells in both the periphery and CNS, studies in HAM/TSP can give a chance for clarifying the pathogenesis of other neuroinflammatory disorders such as multiple sclerosis [159].

1.26. Lyme Borreliosis

Lyme borreliosis is a multisystem disease caused by spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato [159]. Although B. burgdorferi can be one of the reasons for MS, it does not have a key role in the MS etiology [160]. Both Lyme borreliosis and MS can mimic lymphoma [160]. Rituximab can be useful for both MS and lymphoma, whether it could have a good effect on Lyme borreliosis or not [160].
Some investigation has shown that MR imaging results may be valuable for diagnostic workup of a patient with neuroborreliosis and T2 brain lesion indiscernible from those of MS [159].

1.27. Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein IgG-associated Encephalomyelitis (MOG)

Myelin sheaths and oligodendrocytes express a protein that is named MOG. Anti-MOG antibodies (MOG-IgG) can cause demyelination in vitro and persuade experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. This disease is so rare and the incidence of that in children and adults is low [161].
The studies have shown that the brain lesion distribution criteria could be distinguishable in the MS patient from MOG-EM, even as early on as the disease onset [162].

1.28. Neurosyphilis

The CNS lesions in MS and syphilis disease are similar in histological appearance. Spirochetes can be the cause of both MS and syphilis, so the antibiotics could be useful for the treatment of these [162].
The most common characteristic of meningovascular syphilis is the atypical stroke-like presentation while the contrast-enhancing gammas in later stages may potentially look like MS. Both illnesses can result in CSF pleocytosis with elevated CSF gamma globulin and the presence of oligoclonal bands [163]. Even though the fact that neurosyphilis can still be the ‘‘great imitator’’, the presence or absence of a serum fluorescent treponemal antibody study (FTA-ABS) should provide essentially 100% sensitivity for infection with syphilis [163].

1.29. Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) caused by the JC virus (JCV) which is a fatal demyelinating disease of the CNS, this human polyomavirus can lytically infect and destroy the oligodendrocytes in immunosuppressed patients [164].
On the whole we can say that the RANTES polymorphism could be involved in the development of demyelinating lesions in NDLE pathology similarly to what was observed in MS patients, but not in PML [164].

2. Discussion

This review was written with the intended purpose of highlighting the current state of available evidence for the vast and growing sum of MS-related disorders. An emphasis was placed on featuring their associated biomarkers. As indicated in Table 1, we highlighted a wide array of molecular biomarkers that can aid us in the diagnosis, inform prognosis and act as guidelines for therapeutic management in MS and its related disorders. (Table 1)
Many of the mentioned biomarkers have strong evidence supporting their current use in the workup and management of their respective diseases. Despite the multitude of diseases that can potentially mimic MS, most patients express enough characteristic clinical evidence that in fact, there is only a limited need for an alternative diagnosis or supplementary testing/investigations.
The use of biomarkers in conjunction with the current standard of imaging modalities, namely MRI will hopefully allow for a quicker and more accurate diagnosis, as well as precise management strategies. The implications of this work will hopefully serve clinicians/researchers that are regularly dealing with MS and its related disorders. Further research is most definitely warranted for those diseases that have minimal to no biomarkers associated which can be relied upon confidently.
The overall data collated provides an accessory pathway that can be utilized in the management of MS and the diseases which mimic it. With continued research and work in this field, there is a possibility that biomarkers can become a routine and indispensable tool in the management of those diseases which historically did not rely upon such an avenue.

Author Contributions

A.A.J.: Responsible for searching the literature to collate all relevant papers pertaining to the following diseases: abstract, introduction, multiple sclerosis and its subtypes, neuropsychiatric SLE, antiphospholipid (Hughes) syndrome, neurosarcoidosis, neuro-Behcet’s disease, primary angiitis of the CNS, polyarteritis nodosa, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, (ANCA)-associated CNS vasculitis and, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. Then drafted the critical review for the above-mentioned diseases. Revised and edited the overall manuscript with the other co-authors critically and has given approval for the final version to be submitted. M.S.: Responsible for searching the literature to collate all relevant papers pertaining to the following diseases: migraine, cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy, Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy, mitochondrial encephalomyopathy with lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes, metachromatic leukodystrophy, Krabbe’s leukoencephalopathy, multiple sulfatase deficiency, Alexander disease, adrenoleukodystrophy and Pelizaeus–Merzbacher disease. A critical review was done, along with drafting the manuscript for the above-mentioned sections, as well as part of the discussion/conclusion. Revised and edited the overall manuscript with the other co-authors critically for important intellectual content and has given approval for the final version to be submitted. S.M. (Seyyedmohammadsadeq Mirmoeeni): Responsible for collecting literature relevant to the related disorders including chronic lymphocytic inflammation with pontine perivascular enhancement responsive to steroids (CLIPPERS), HIV-related disorders of the CNS, HTLV-1-associated myelopathy, Lyme borreliosis, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein IgG-associated encephalomyelitis, neurosyphilis and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Then drafted, revised and edited the critical review for the above-mentioned diseases, completed a part of the discussion, responsible for drafting all of Table 1. Has given approval for the final version to be submitted. S.U.H.: Responsible for collecting literature relevant to the related disorders including neuromyelitis optica, vitamin b12 deficiency and optic neuritis. Contributed to the original draft writing of the aforementioned papers. Reviewed and edited the final paper along with co-authors. Has given approval for the final version to be submitted. S.M. (Sadia Moinuddin): Responsible for the revision of manuscript and the scientific approval. A.C.: Responsible for the revision of manuscript and the scientific approval. M.G.: As the corresponding author, responsible for article conceptualization and methodology. Carried out the role of supervision and project administration. As well as conducting a final review and editing of the overall article. M.G. was responsible for conceptualization and methodology; A.A.J., M.S., S.U.H., S.M. (Sadia Moinuddin), S.M. (Seyyedmohammadsadeq Mirmoeeni) were responsible for data curation, writing the original draft in its entirety including formatting assigned diseases in Table 1, as well as a thorough review, then editing and revising; S.M. (Sadia Moinuddin), S.M. (Seyyedmohammadsadeq Mirmoeeni) was also responsible for drafting all of Table 1; A.A.J. was responsible for editing/formatting Table 1; M.G. carried out the role of supervision and project administration, as well as a final review and editing of the overall article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work has not been supported by any funding sources.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

MSMultiple sclerosis
CNScentral nervous system
PBMCsperipheral blood mononuclear cells
Nox2nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase 2
BDNFbrain-derived neurotrophic factor
IFN-βinterferon-β
sIFNAR2soluble isoform of the IFN-β receptor
IFNγ-DC-Exosinterferon gamma-stimulated dendritic cell exosomes
GSHglutathione
DMFdimethyl fumarate
Cp:Tfhydroperoxides ceruloplasmin transferrin ratio
H3K9me2histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylation
RGC-32response gene to complement-32
SIRT1a NAD-dependent deacetylase sirtuin-1
NF-Lneurofilament light
NF-Hneurofilament heavy
CHI3L1chitinase 3-like-1
IgMimmunoglobulin M
LPAlysophosphatidic acid
TAStotal antioxidant status
NPSLEneuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus
Abantibody
ECAanti-endothelial cell antibodies
anti-U1RNPanti-U1 ribonucleoprotein (RNP)
BDNFbrain-derived neurotrophic factor
CSF-1Rcolony-stimulating factor-1 receptor
APSantiphospholipid syndrome
APLantiphospholipid
b2GPIbeta-2-glycoprotein I
ACLanti-cardiolipin
LAClupus anticoagulant
NBDneuro-Behçet’s disease
IFN-αinterferon alpha
TNFtumor necrosis factor
MEFVMediterranean fever
DEFA1Bdefensin alpha 1B
NLRP3NOD-like receptor protein 3
PACNSprimary angiitis of the CNS
MMFmycophenolate mofetil
PANpolyarteritis nodosa
ESRerythrocyte sedimentation rate
MMP-3matrix metalloproteinase-3
LAMP-2lysosomal-associated membrane protein-2
AAVanti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody associated vasculitis
ANCAanti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody
ADEMacute disseminated encephalomyelitis
CSFcerebrospinal fluid
MOGmyelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein
MBPmyelin basic protein
MOBPmyelin-associated oligodendrocyte basic protein
NMOneuromyelitis optica
anti-AQP4anti-aquaporin 4
IL-6interleukin-6
CLIPPERSchronic lymphocytic inflammation with pontine perivascular enhancement responsive to steroids
MOG-EMmyelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein IgG-associated encephalomyelitis
HAMHTLV-1 associated myelopathy
TSPtropical spastic paraparesis
FTA-ABSfluorescent treponemal antibody study
CGRPcalcitonin gene-related peptide
CADASILcerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy
vWFVon Willebrand factor
EPCsendothelial progenitor cells
CPCscirculating progenitor cells
LHONLeber’s hereditary optic neuropathy
MELASmitochondrial encephalomyopathy with lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes
LAlactic acid
CKcreatine kinase
NOnitric oxide
NAAN-acetyl-L-aspartate
t-Chototal choline
anti-MOGanti-myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein
MLDmetachromatic leukodystrophy
KLKrabbe’s leukoencephalopathy
MSDmultiple sulfatase deficiency
SUMF1sulfatase modifying factor 1
FGEformylglycine-generating enzyme
GAGglycosaminoglycan
AxDAlexander disease
GFAPglial fibrillary acidic protein
ALDadrenoleukodystrophy
VLCFAsvery-long-chain fatty acids
C26:0-lyso-PCC26:0 lysophosphatidylcholine
PMDPelizaeus–Merzbacher disease
PLP1Proteolipid protein 1
tNAAtotal N-acetyl-L-aspartate
Crcreatine
Minmyo-inositol
Chocholine
AIFAanti-intrinsic factor antibodies
APCAanti-parietal cell antibodies

References

  1. Kamm, C.P.; Uitdehaag, B.M.; Polman, C.H. Multiple sclerosis: Current knowledge and future outlook. Eur. Neurol. 2014, 72, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ascherio, A.; Munger, K.L. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: From risk factors to prevention—An update. In Seminars in Neurology; Thieme Medical Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 103–114. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bishop, M.; Rumrill, P.D. Multiple sclerosis: Etiology, symptoms, incidence and prevalence, and implications for community living and employment. Work 2015, 52, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jewells, V.L.; Latchaw, R.E. What can mimic multiple sclerosis? Semin. Ultrasound CT MR 2020, 41, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McDonald, W.I.; Compston, A.; Edan, G.; Goodkin, D.; Hartung, H.P.; Lublin, F.D.; McFarland, H.F.; Paty, D.W.; Polman, C.H.; Reingold, S.C.; et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the International Panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 2001, 50, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Toledano, M.; Weinshenker, B.G.; Solomon, A.J. A clinical approach to the differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2015, 15, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Palace, J. Guidelines for differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis. Nat. Clin. Pract. Neurol. 2009, 5, 134–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kaisey, M.; Solomon, A.J.; Luu, M.; Giesser, B.S.; Sicotte, N.L. Incidence of multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in referrals to two academic centers. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2019, 30, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Piket, E.; Zheleznyakova, G.Y.; Kular, L.; Jagodic, M. Small non-coding RNAs as important players, biomarkers and therapeutic targets in multiple sclerosis: A comprehensive overview. J. Autoimmun. 2019, 101, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tripathi, A.; Volsko, C.; Datta, U.; Regev, K.; Dutta, R. Expression of disease-related mi RNA s in white-matter lesions of progressive multiple sclerosis brains. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2019, 6, 854–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Talebi, F.; Ghorbani, S.; Chan, W.F.; Boghozian, R.; Masoumi, F.; Ghasemi, S.; Vojgani, M.; Power, C.; Noorbakhsh, F. MicroRNA-142 regulates inflammation and T cell differentiation in an animal model of multiple sclerosis. J. Neuroinflamm. 2017, 14, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Rahban, D.; Mohammadi, F.; Alidadi, M.; Ghantabpour, T.; Kheyli, P.A.G.; Ahmadi, M. Genetic polymorphisms and epigenetic regulation of survivin encoding gene, BIRC5, in multiple sclerosis patients. BMC Immunol. 2019, 20, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Liguori, M.; Nuzziello, N.; Simone, M.; Amoroso, N.; Viterbo, R.G.; Tangaro, S.; Consiglio, A.; Giordano, P.; Bellotti, R.; Trojano, M. Association between miRNAs expression and cognitive performances of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis patients: A pilot study. Brain Behav. 2019, 9, e01199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Pusic, K.M.; Pusic, A.D.; Kraig, R.P. Environmental enrichment stimulates immune cell secretion of exosomes that promote CNS myelination and may regulate inflammation. Cell. Mol. Neurobiol. 2016, 36, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Ravelli, K.G.; Santos, G.D.; dos Santos, N.B.; Munhoz, C.D.; Azzi-Nogueira, D.; Campos, A.C.; Pagano, R.L.; Britto, L.R.; Hernandes, M.S. Nox2-dependent neuroinflammation in an EAE model of multiple sclerosis. Transl. Neurosci. 2019, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lodygin, D.; Hermann, M.; Schweingruber, N.; Flügel-Koch, C.; Watanabe, T.; Schlosser, C.; Merlini, A.; Körner, H.; Chang, H.F.; Fischer, H.J.; et al. β-Synuclein-reactive T cells induce autoimmune CNS grey matter degeneration. Nature 2019, 566, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tatomir, A.; Talpos-Caia, A.; Anselmo, F.; Kruszewski, A.M.; Boodhoo, D.; Rus, V.; Rus, H. The complement system as a biomarker of disease activity and response to treatment in multiple sclerosis. Immunol. Res. 2017, 65, 1103–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bergman, P.; Piket, E.; Khademi, M.; James, T.; Brundin, L.; Olsson, T.; Piehl, F.; Jagodic, M. Circulating miR-150 in CSF is a novel candidate biomarker for multiple sclerosis. Neurol. Neuroimmunol. Neuroinflamm. 2016, 3, e219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Bruinsma, I.B.; van Dijk, M.; Bridel, C.; van de Lisdonk, T.; Haverkort, S.Q.; Runia, T.F.; Steinman, L.; Hintzen, R.Q.; Killestein, J.; Verbeek, M.M. Regulator of oligodendrocyte maturation, miR-219, a potential biomarker for MS. J. Neuroinflamm. 2017, 14, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Órpez-Zafra, T.; Pavía, J.; Hurtado-Guerrero, I.; Pinto-Medel, M.J.; Rodriguez Bada, J.L.; Urbaneja, P.; Suardíaz, M.; Villar, L.M.; Comabella, M.; Montalban, X. Decreased soluble IFN-β receptor (sIFNAR2) in multiple sclerosis patients: A potential serum diagnostic biomarker. Mult. Scler. J. 2017, 23, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Islas-Hernandez, A.; Aguilar-Talamantes, H.S.; Bertado-Cortes, B.; Mejia-delCastillo, G.D.; Carrera-Pineda, R.; Cuevas-Garcia, C.F.; Garcia-delaTorre, P. BDNF and Tau as biomarkers of severity in Multiple Sclerosis. Biomark. Med. 2018, 12, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shapoori, S.; Ganjalikhani-Hakemi, M.; Rezaeepoor, M.; Alsahebfosoul, F.; Khosravi, S.; Etemadifar, M.; Mansourian, M. Negative regulation of semaphorin-3a expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells using microRNA-497-5p. Iran. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 44, 325. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Diaz, G.M.; Hupperts, R.; Fraussen, J.; Somers, V. Dimethyl fumarate treatment in multiple sclerosis: Recent advances in clinical and immunological studies. Autoimmun. Rev. 2018, 17, 1240–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Moccia, M.; Capacchione, A.; Lanzillo, R.; Carbone, F.; Micillo, T.; Perna, F.; De Rosa, A.; Carotenuto, A.; Albero, R.; Matarese, G. Coenzyme Q10 supplementation reduces peripheral oxidative stress and inflammation in interferon-β1a-treated multiple sclerosis. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 2019, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Pusic, A.D.; Pusic, K.M.; Clayton, B.L.; Kraig, R.P. IFNγ-stimulated dendritic cell exosomes as a potential therapeutic for remyelination. J. Neuroimmunol. 2014, 266, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Carvalho, A.N.; Lim, J.L.; Nijland, P.G.; Witte, M.E.; Van Horssen, J. Glutathione in multiple sclerosis: More than just an antioxidant? Mult. Scler. J. 2014, 20, 1425–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Yan, Z.; Yang, W.; Parkitny, L.; Gibson, S.A.; Lee, K.S.; Collins, F.; Deshane, J.S.; Cheng, W.; Weinmann, A.S.; Wei, H. Deficiency of Socs3 leads to brain-targeted EAE via enhanced neutrophil activation and ROS production. JCI Insight 2019, 5, 126520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Siotto, M.; Filippi, M.M.; Simonelli, I.; Landi, D.; Ghazaryan, A.; Vollaro, S.; Ventriglia, M.; Pasqualetti, P.; Rongioletti, M.C.A.; Squitti, R. Oxidative stress related to iron metabolism in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients with low disability. Front. Neurosci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kruszewski, A.M.; Rao, G.; Tatomir, A.; Hewes, D.; Tegla, C.A.; Cudrici, C.D.; Nguyen, V.; Royal, W., III; Bever, C.T., Jr.; Rus, V. RGC-32 as a potential biomarker of relapse and response to treatment with glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2015, 99, 498–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hewes, D.; Tatomir, A.; Kruszewski, A.M.; Rao, G.; Tegla, C.A.; Ciriello, J.; Nguyen, V.; Royal, W., III; Bever, C.; Rus, V. SIRT1 as a potential biomarker of response to treatment with glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2017, 102, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vistbakka, J.; Elovaara, I.; Lehtimäki, T.; Hagman, S. Circulating microRNAs as biomarkers in progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 2017, 23, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mulero, P.; Córdova, C.; Hernández, M.; Martín, R.; Gutiérrez, B.; Muñoz, J.C.; Redondo, N.; Gallardo, I.; Téllez, N.; Nieto, M.L. Netrin-1 and multiple sclerosis: A new biomarker for neuroinflammation? Eur. J. Neurol. 2017, 24, 1108–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Harris, V.K.; Tuddenham, J.F.; Sadiq, S.A. Biomarkers of multiple sclerosis: Current findings. Degener. Neurol. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2017, 7, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Pietroboni, A.M.; di Cola, F.S.; Scarioni, M.; Fenoglio, C.; Spanò, B.; Arighi, A.; Cioffi, S.M.; Oldoni, E.; De Riz, M.A.; Basilico, P. CSF β-amyloid as a putative biomarker of disease progression in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 2017, 23, 1085–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jiang, D.; Ju, W.; Wu, X.; Zhan, X. Elevated lysophosphatidic acid levels in the serum and cerebrospinal fluid in patients with multiple sclerosis: Therapeutic response and clinical implication. Neurol. Res. 2018, 40, 335–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Schwartz, N.; Stock, A.D.; Putterman, C. Neuropsychiatric lupus: New mechanistic insights and future treatment directions. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2019, 15, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ebert, T.; Chapman, J.; Shoenfeld, Y. Anti-ribosomal P-protein and its role in psychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: Myth or reality? Lupus 2005, 14, 571–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, Y.; Yuan, C.; Shen, S.-Q.; Wang, X.-E.; Mei, Q.-H.; Jiang, W.-Q.; Huang, Q. Autoantibodies to NR2A peptide of the glutamate/NMDA receptor in patients with seizure disorders in neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Mediat. Inflamm. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tian, B.; Yang, C.; Wang, J.; Hou, X.; Zhao, S.; Li, Y.; Yang, P. Peripheral blood brain-derived neurotrophic factor level and tyrosine kinase B expression on T lymphocytes in systemic lupus erythematosus: Implications for systemic involvement. Cytokine 2019, 123, 154764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sato, T.; Fujii, T.; Yokoyama, T.; Fujita, Y.; Imura, Y.; Yukawa, N.; Kawabata, D.; Nojima, T.; Ohmura, K.; Usui, T. Anti–U1 RNP antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid are associated with central neuropsychiatric manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus and mixed connective tissue disease. Arthritis Rheum. 2010, 62, 3730–3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Shimojima, Y.; Matsuda, M.; Gono, T.; Ishii, W.; Ikeda, S.-i. Relationship between clinical factors and neuropsychiatric manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin. Rheumatol. 2005, 24, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chalmers, S.A.; Wen, J.; Shum, J.; Doerner, J.; Herlitz, L.; Putterman, C. CSF-1R inhibition attenuates renal and neuropsychiatric disease in murine lupus. Clin. Immunol. 2017, 185, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Miyakis, S.; Lockshin, M.D.; Atsumi, T.; Branch, D.W.; Brey, R.L.; Cervera, R.; Derksen, R.H.; de Groot, P.G.; Koike, T.; Meroni, P.L. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J. Thromb. Haemost. 2006, 4, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Noureldine, M.; Uthman, I. Antiphospholipid (Hughes) Syndrome: Insights for Orthopedics; SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Noureldine, M.H.A.; Nour-Eldine, W.; Khamashta, M.A.; Uthman, I. Insights into the diagnosis and pathogenesis of the antiphospholipid syndrome. In Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 860–866. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cervera, R. Antiphospholipid syndrome. Thromb. Res. 2017, 151 (Suppl. 1), S43–S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Uthman, I.; Noureldine, M.; Berjawi, A.; Skaf, M.; Haydar, A.; Merashli, M.; Hughes, G. Hughes syndrome and multiple sclerosis. Lupus 2015, 24, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Linnemann, B. Antiphospholipid syndrome—An update. Vasa 2018, 47, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Uthman, I.; Noureldine, M.H.A.; Ruiz-Irastorza, G.; Khamashta, M. Management of antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2019, 78, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bolek, E.C.; Sari, A.; Kilic, L.; Kalyoncu, U.; Kurne, A.; Oguz, K.K.; Topcuoglu, M.A.; Ertenli, I.; Karadag, O. Clinical features and disease course of neurological involvement in Behcet’s disease: HUVAC experience. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2020, 38, 101512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bolek, E.C.; Sari, A.; Kilic, L.; Karadag, O. Interferon alpha might be an alternative therapeutic choice for refractory Neuro-Behçet’s disease. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2019, 29, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ishikawa, H.; Shindo, A.; Ii, Y.; Kishida, D.; Niwa, A.; Nishiguchi, Y.; Matsuura, K.; Kato, N.; Mizutani, A.; Tachibana, K. MEFV gene mutations in neuro-Behçet’s disease and neuro-Sweet disease. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2019, 6, 2595–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Ugurel, E.; Erdag, E.; Kucukali, C.I.; Olcay, A.; Sanli, E.; Akbayir, E.; Kurtuncu, M.; Gunduz, T.; Yilmaz, V.; Tuzun, E. Enhanced NLRP3 and DEFA1B Expression during the active stage of parenchymal neuro-behçet’s disease. In Vivo 2019, 33, 1493–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Hajj-Ali, R.A.; Singhal, A.B.; Benseler, S.; Molloy, E.; Calabrese, L.H. Primary angiitis of the CNS. Lancet Neurol. 2011, 10, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mandal, J.; Chung, S.A. Primary angiitis of the central nervous system. Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 43, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rosati, A.; Cosi, A.; Basile, M.; Brambilla, A.; Guerrini, R.; Cimaz, R.; Simonini, G. Mycophenolate mofetil as induction and long-term maintaining treatment in childhood: Primary angiitis of the central nervous system. Joint Bone Spine 2017, 84, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Pawlitzki, M.; Butryn, M.; Kirchner, F.; Färber, J.; Beuing, O.; Minnerup, J.; Meuth, S.G.; Neumann, J. CSF Neurofilament light chain level predicts axonal damage in cerebral vasculitis. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2019, 6, 1134–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. de Boysson, H.; Guillevin, L. Polyarteritis nodosa neurologic manifestations. Neurol. Clin. 2019, 37, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rodriguez-Pla, A.; Warner, R.L.; Cuthbertson, D.; Carette, S.; Khalidi, N.A.; Koening, C.L.; Langford, C.A.; McAlear, C.A.; Moreland, L.W.; Pagnoux, C. Evaluation of potential serum biomarkers of disease activity in diverse forms of vasculitis. J. Rheumatol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, N.; Zhu, B.; Zhu, Q.; Heizati, M.; Wu, T.; Wang, G.; Yao, X.; Luo, Q.; Liu, S.; Liu, S. Serum lysosomal-associated membrane protein-2 levels are increased in small and medium vessel vasculitis, especially in polyarteritis nodosa. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2019, 37, S79–S85. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, M.; Lai, N.; Chen, Z.; Ding, M. Central nervous system involvement in ANCA-associated vasculitis: What neurologists need to know. Front. Neurol. 2019, 9, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Weiner, M.; Segelmark, M. The clinical presentation and therapy of diseases related to anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Autoimmun. Rev. 2016, 15, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Radice, A.; Sinico, R.A. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). Autoimmunity 2005, 38, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sinico, R.; Radice, A. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) testing: Detection methods and clinical application. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2014, 32, S112–S117. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Graf, J. Central nervous system disease in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies—Associated vasculitis. Rheum. Dis. Clin. 2017, 43, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Cole, J.; Evans, E.; Mwangi, M.; Mar, S. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in children: An updated review based on current diagnostic criteria. Pediatr. Neurol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aung, W.Y.; Massoumzadeh, P.; Najmi, S.; Salter, A.; Heaps, J.; Benzinger, T.L.; Mar, S. Diffusion tensor imaging as a biomarker to differentiate acute disseminated encephalomyelitis from multiple sclerosis at first demyelination. Pediatr. Neurol. 2018, 78, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pohl, D.; Alper, G.; Van Haren, K.; Kornberg, A.J.; Lucchinetti, C.F.; Tenembaum, S.; Belman, A.L. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: Updates on an inflammatory CNS syndrome. Neurology 2016, 87, S38–S45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Santoro, J.D.; Chitnis, T. Diagnostic considerations in acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and the interface with MOG antibody. Neuropediatrics 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Brenton, J.N.; Banwell, B.L. Therapeutic approach to the management of pediatric demyelinating disease: Multiple sclerosis and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. Neurotherapeutics 2016, 13, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Ramanathan, S.; Dale, R.C.; Brilot, F. Anti-MOG antibody: The history, clinical phenotype, and pathogenicity of a serum biomarker for demyelination. Autoimmun. Rev. 2016, 15, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Van Haren, K.; Tomooka, B.H.; Kidd, B.A.; Banwell, B.; Bar-Or, A.; Chitnis, T.; Tenembaum, S.N.; Pohl, D.; Rostasy, K.; Dale, R.C. Serum autoantibodies to myelin peptides distinguish acute disseminated encephalomyelitis from relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 2013, 19, 1726–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Uzawa, A.; Mori, M.; Kuwabara, S. Neuromyelitis optica: Concept, immunology and treatment. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2014, 21, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Beigneux, Y.; Arnulf, I.; Guillaume-Jugnot, P.; Leu-Semenescu, S.; Maillart, E.; Lubetzki, C.; Benveniste, O.; Papeix, C. Secondary hypersomnia as an initial manifestation of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2020, 38, 101869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Içöz, S.; Tüzün, E.; Kürtüncü, M.; Durmuş, H.; Mutlu, M.; Eraksoy, M.; Akman-Demir, G. Enhanced IL-6 production in aquaporin-4 antibody positive neuromyelitis optica patients. Int. J. Neurosci. 2010, 120, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Bruscolini, A.; Sacchetti, M.; La Cava, M.; Gharbiya, M.; Ralli, M.; Lambiase, A.; De Virgilio, A.; Greco, A. Diagnosis and management of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders-An update. Autoimmun. Rev. 2018, 17, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Carreón, E.G.; Hernández, R.C.; Castillo, T.T.; Meca, V.L.; Arocas, V.C.; Iniesta, F.M.; Olascoaga, J.U.; Meca, J.L. Experience with tocilizumab in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurol. (Barc. Spain) 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lotan, I.; Charlson, R.W.; Ryerson, L.Z.; Levy, M.; Kister, I. Effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2020, 39, 101920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Balcer, L.J. Clinical practice. Optic neuritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 354, 1273–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Beck, R.W.; Cleary, P.A.; Trobe, J.D.; Kaufman, D.I.; Kupersmith, M.J.; Paty, D.W.; Brown, C.H.; Group, O.N.S. The effect of corticosteroids for acute optic neuritis on the subsequent development of multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993, 329, 1764–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jenkins, T.M.; Toosy, A.T. Optic neuritis: The eye as a window to the brain. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2017, 30, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Chen, J.J.; Pittock, S.J.; Flanagan, E.P.; Lennon, V.A.; Bhatti, M.T. Optic neuritis in the era of biomarkers. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2020, 65, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Beck, R.W.; Cleary, P.A.; Anderson, M.M., Jr.; Keltner, J.L.; Shults, W.T.; Kaufman, D.I.; Buckley, E.G.; Corbett, J.J.; Kupersmith, M.J.; Miller, N.R. A randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute optic neuritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992, 326, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Meltzer, E.; Prasad, S. Updates and controversies in the management of acute optic neuritis. Asia-Pac. J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 7, 251–256. [Google Scholar]
  85. Salinas, M.; Flores, E.; López-Garrigós, M.; Leiva-Salinas, C. Vitamin B12 deficiency and clinical laboratory: Lessons revisited and clarified in seven questions. Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2018, 40, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Wong, C. Vitamin B12 deficiency in the elderly: Is it worth screening. Hong Kong Med. J. 2015, 21, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Metz, J. Cobalamin deficiency and the pathogenesis of nervous system disease. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1992, 12, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Banerjee, R. B12 trafficking in mammals: A for coenzyme escort service. ACS Chem. Biol. 2006, 1, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Hannibal, L.; Lysne, V.; Bjørke-Monsen, A.-L.; Behringer, S.; Grünert, S.C.; Spiekerkoetter, U.; Jacobsen, D.W.; Blom, H.J. Biomarkers and algorithms for the diagnosis of vitamin B12 deficiency. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2016, 3, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Shipton, M.J.; Thachil, J. Vitamin B12 deficiency–A 21st century perspective. Clin. Med. 2015, 15, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Ferrante, E.A.; Cudrici, C.D.; Boehm, M. CADASIL: New advances in basic science and clinical perspectives. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 2019, 26, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pescini, F.; Donnini, I.; Cesari, F.; Nannucci, S.; Valenti, R.; Rinnoci, V.; Poggesi, A.; Gori, A.M.; Giusti, B.; Rogolino, A. Circulating biomarkers in cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy patients. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2017, 26, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Poggesi, A.; Pasi, M.; Pescini, F.; Pantoni, L.; Inzitari, D. Circulating biologic markers of endothelial dysfunction in cerebral small vessel disease: A review. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 2016, 36, 72–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Bersano, A.; Bedini, G.; Oskam, J.; Mariotti, C.; Taroni, F.; Baratta, S.; Parati, E.A. CADASIL: Treatment and management options. Curr. Treat. Options Neurol. 2017, 19, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Guy, J.; Shaw, G.; Ross-Cisneros, F.N.; Quiros, P.; Salomao, S.R.; Berezovsky, A.; Carelli, V.; Feuer, W.J.; Sadun, A.A. Phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain is a marker of neurodegeneration in Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). Mol. Vis. 2008, 14, 2443. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  96. Theodorou-Kanakari, A.; Karampitianis, S.; Karageorgou, V.; Kampourelli, E.; Kapasakis, E.; Theodossiadis, P.; Chatziralli, I. Current and emerging treatment modalities for leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy: A review of the literature. Adv. Ther. 2018, 35, 1510–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Balducci, N.; Cascavilla, M.L.; Ciardella, A.; La Morgia, C.; Triolo, G.; Parisi, V.; Bandello, F.; Sadun, A.A.; Carelli, V.; Barboni, P. Peripapillary vessel density changes in Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy: A new biomarker. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2018, 46, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Yen, M.-Y.; Kao, S.-H.; Wang, A.-G.; Wei, Y.-H. Increased 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine in leukocyte DNA in Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004, 45, 1688–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Asanad, S.; Frousiakis, S.; Wang, M.Y.; Fantini, M.; Sultan, W.; Wood, T.; Nwako, F.U.; Karanjia, R.; Sadun, A.A. Improving the visual outcome in Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy: Framework for the future. J. Curr. Ophthalmol. 2019, 31, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Manners, D.; Rizzo, G.; La Morgia, C.; Tonon, C.; Testa, C.; Barboni, P.; Malucelli, E.; Valentino, M.; Caporali, L.; Strobbe, D. Diffusion tensor imaging mapping of brain white matter pathology in mitochondrial optic neuropathies. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2015, 36, 1259–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Kirkman, M.A.; Korsten, A.; Leonhardt, M.; Dimitriadis, K.; Ireneaus, F.; Klopstock, T.; Griffiths, P.G.; Hudson, G.; Chinnery, P.F.; Yu-Wai-Man, P. Quality of life in patients with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009, 50, 3112–3115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Yu-Wai-Man, P. Therapeutic approaches to inherited optic neuropathies. In Seminars in Neurology; Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 578–586. [Google Scholar]
  103. Berbel-Garcia, A.; Barbera-Farre, J.R.; Etessam, J.P.; Salio, A.M.; Cabello, A.; Gutierrez-Rivas, E.; Campos, Y. Coenzyme Q 10 improves lactic acidosis, strokelike episodes, and epilepsy in a patient with MELAS (mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis, and strokelike episodes). Clin. Neuropharmacol. 2004, 27, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lorenzoni, P.J.; Werneck, L.C.; Kay, C.S.K.; Silvado, C.E.S.; Scola, R.H. Quando o diagnóstico deveria ser MELAS (Miopatia mitocondrial, encefalopatia, acidose lática, e episódios semelhantes a acidente vascular cerebral)? Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2015, 73, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Weiduschat, N.; Kaufmann, P.; Mao, X.; Engelstad, K.M.; Hinton, V.; DiMauro, S.; De Vivo, D.; Shungu, D. Cerebral metabolic abnormalities in A3243G mitochondrial DNA mutation carriers. Neurology 2014, 82, 798–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Lee, H.N.; Yoon, C.-S.; Lee, Y.-M. Correlation of serum biomarkers and magnetic resonance spectroscopy in monitoring disease progression in patients with mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke-like episodes due to mtDNA A3243G mutation. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Wang, W.; Zhuang, Q.; Ji, K.; Wen, B.; Lin, P.; Zhao, Y.; Li, W.; Yan, C. Identification of miRNA, lncRNA and mRNA-associated ceRNA networks and potential biomarker for MELAS with mitochondrial DNA A3243G mutation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Wang, Y.-X.; Le, W.-D. Progress in diagnosing mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke-like episodes. Chin. Med. J. 2015, 128, 1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Steriade, C.; Andrade, D.M.; Faghfoury, H.; Tarnopolsky, M.A.; Tai, P. Mitochondrial encephalopathy with lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) may respond to adjunctive ketogenic diet. Pediatr. Neurol. 2014, 50, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Koenig, M.K.; Emrick, L.; Karaa, A.; Korson, M.; Scaglia, F.; Parikh, S.; Goldstein, A. Recommendations for the management of strokelike episodes in patients with mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and strokelike episodes. JAMA Neurol. 2016, 73, 591–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kruse, B.; Hanefeld, F.; Christen, H.-J.; Bruhn, H.; Michaelis, T.; Hänicke, W.; Frahm, J. Alterations of brain metabolites in metachromatic leukodystrophy as detected by localized proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in vivo. J. Neurol. 1993, 241, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dali, C.I.; Barton, N.W.; Farah, M.H.; Moldovan, M.; Månsson, J.E.; Nair, N.; Dunø, M.; Risom, L.; Cao, H.; Pan, L. Sulfatide levels correlate with severity of neuropathy in metachromatic leukodystrophy. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2015, 2, 518–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Thibert, K.A.; Raymond, G.V.; Tolar, J.; Miller, W.P.; Orchard, P.J.; Lund, T.C. Cerebral spinal fluid levels of cytokines are elevated in patients with metachromatic leukodystrophy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. í Dali, C.; Hanson, L.G.; Barton, N.; Fogh, J.; Nair, N.; Lund, A. Brain N-acetylaspartate levels correlate with motor function in metachromatic leukodystrophy. Neurology 2010, 75, 1896–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kohlschütter, A. Lysosomal leukodystrophies: Krabbe disease and metachromatic leukodystrophy. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 113, pp. 1611–1618. [Google Scholar]
  116. Batzios, S.P.; Zafeiriou, D.I. Developing treatment options for metachromatic leukodystrophy. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2012, 105, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Matzner, U.; Gieselmann, V. Gene therapy of metachromatic leukodystrophy. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2005, 5, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Rosenberg, J.B.; Kaminsky, S.M.; Aubourg, P.; Crystal, R.G.; Sondhi, D. Gene therapy for metachromatic leukodystrophy. J. Neurosci. Res. 2016, 94, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Van Rappard, D.F.; Boelens, J.J.; Wolf, N.I. Metachromatic leukodystrophy: Disease spectrum and approaches for treatment. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2015, 29, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Chuang, W.-L.; Pacheco, J.; Zhang, X.K.; Martin, M.M.; Biski, C.K.; Keutzer, J.M.; Wenger, D.A.; Caggana, M.; Orsini, J.J., Jr. Determination of psychosine concentration in dried blood spots from newborns that were identified via newborn screening to be at risk for Krabbe disease. Clin. Chim. Acta 2013, 419, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Spratley, S.J.; Hill, C.H.; Viuff, A.H.; Edgar, J.R.; Skjødt, K.; Deane, J.E. Molecular mechanisms of disease pathogenesis differ in Krabbe disease variants. Traffic 2016, 17, 908–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Turgeon, C.T.; Orsini, J.J.; Sanders, K.A.; Magera, M.J.; Langan, T.J.; Escolar, M.L.; Duffner, P.; Oglesbee, D.; Gavrilov, D.; Tortorelli, S. Measurement of psychosine in dried blood spots—A possible improvement to newborn screening programs for Krabbe disease. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis. Off. J. Soc. Study Inborn Errors Metab. 2015, 38, 923–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Poretti, A.; Meoded, A.; Fatemi, A. Diffusion tensor imaging: A biomarker of outcome in K rabbe’s disease. J. Neurosci. Res. 2016, 94, 1108–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Escolar, M.L.; Kiely, B.; Shawgo, E.; Hong, X.; Gelb, M.; Orsini, J.; Matern, D.; Poe, M. Psychosine, a marker of Krabbe phenotype and treatment effect. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2017, 121, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Spassieva, S.; Bieberich, E. Lysosphingolipids and sphingolipidoses: Psychosine in Krabbe’s disease. J. Neurosci. Res. 2016, 94, 974–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Hijazi, L.; Kashgari, A.; Alfadhel, M. Multiple sulfatase deficiency: A case series with a novel mutation. J. Child Neurol. 2018, 33, 820–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Sabourdy, F.; Mourey, L.; Le Trionnaire, E.; Bednarek, N.; Caillaud, C.; Chaix, Y.; Delrue, M.-A.; Dusser, A.; Froissart, R.; Garnotel, R. Natural disease history and characterisation of SUMF1 molecular defects in ten unrelated patients with multiple sulfatase deficiency. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2015, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  128. Dierks, T.; Dickmanns, A.; Preusser-Kunze, A.; Schmidt, B.; Mariappan, M.; von Figura, K.; Ficner, R.; Rudolph, M.G. Molecular basis for multiple sulfatase deficiency and mechanism for formylglycine generation of the human formylglycine-generating enzyme. Cell 2005, 121, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Burk, R.D.; Valle, D.; Thomas, G.H.; Miller, C.; Moser, A.; Moser, H.; Rosenbaum, K.N. Early manifestations of multiple sulfatase deficiency. J. Pediatr. 1984, 104, 574–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Jari, S.D.; Fraer, L.M.; Hogge, W.A. Association of undetectable unconjugated estriol on multiple marker screening with steroid sulfatase deficiency. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2004, 19, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Mancini, G.M.; Van Diggelen, O.; Huijmans, J.; Stroink, H.; de Coo, R. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of multiple sulfatase deficiency. Neuropediatrics 2001, 32, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Meshach Paul, D.; Chadah, T.; Senthilkumar, B.; Sethumadhavan, R.; Rajasekaran, R. Structural distortions due to missense mutations in human formylglycine-generating enzyme leading to multiple sulfatase deficiency. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2018, 36, 3575–3585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Waheed, A.; HASILIK, A.; Von Figura, K. Enhanced breakdown of arylsulfatase A in multiple sulfatase deficiency. Eur. J. Biochem. 1982, 123, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Steinmann, B.; Mieth, D.; Gitzelmann, R. A A newly recognized cause of low urinary estriol in pregnancy: Multiple sulfatase deficiency of the fetus. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest 1981, 12, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Volpi, N.; Coppa, G.V.; Zampini, L.; Maccari, F.; Galeotti, F.; Garavelli, L.; Galeazzi, T.; Padella, L.; Santoro, L.; Gabrielli, O. Plasmatic and urinary glycosaminoglycan profile in a patient affected by multiple sulfatase deficiency. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2015, 53, e157–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Schlotawa, L.; Ennemann, E.C.; Radhakrishnan, K.; Schmidt, B.; Chakrapani, A.; Christen, H.-J.; Moser, H.; Steinmann, B.; Dierks, T.; Gärtner, J. SUMF1 mutations affecting stability and activity of formylglycine generating enzyme predict clinical outcome in multiple sulfatase deficiency. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2011, 19, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Jany, P.L.; Agosta, G.E.; Benko, W.S.; Eickhoff, J.C.; Keller, S.R.; Köehler, W.; Koeller, D.; Mar, S.; Naidu, S.; Ness, J.M. CSF and blood levels of GFAP in Alexander disease. Eneuro 2015, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  138. Messing, A. Alexander disease. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 148, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sosunov, A.; Olabarria, M.; Goldman, J.E. Alexander disease: An astrocytopathy that produces a leukodystrophy. Brain Pathol. 2018, 28, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kyllerman, M.; Rosengren, L.; Wiklund, L.-M.; Holmberg, E. Increased levels of GFAP in the cerebrospinal fluid in three subtypes of genetically confirmed Alexander disease. Neuropediatrics 2005, 36, 319–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Yang, Z.; Wang, K.K. Glial fibrillary acidic protein: From intermediate filament assembly and gliosis to neurobiomarker. Trends Neurosci. 2015, 38, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Kemp, S.; Huffnagel, I.C.; Linthorst, G.E.; Wanders, R.J.; Engelen, M. Adrenoleukodystrophy–neuroendocrine pathogenesis and redefinition of natural history. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2016, 12, 606–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Turk, B.R.; Moser, A.B.; Fatemi, A. Therapeutic strategies in adrenoleukodystrophy. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 2017, 167, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Watkins, P.A.; Naidu, S.; Moser, H. Adrenoleukodystrophy: Biochemical procedures in diagnosis, prevention and treatment. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis. 1987, 10, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Huffnagel, I.C.; van de Beek, M.-C.; Showers, A.L.; Orsini, J.J.; Klouwer, F.C.; Dijkstra, I.M.; Schielen, P.C.; van Lenthe, H.; Wanders, R.J.; Vaz, F.M. Comparison of C26: 0-carnitine and C26: 0-lysophosphatidylcholine as diagnostic markers in dried blood spots from newborns and patients with adrenoleukodystrophy. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2017, 122, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Engelen, M.; Kemp, S.; De Visser, M.; van Geel, B.M.; Wanders, R.J.; Aubourg, P. X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (X-ALD): Clinical presentation and guidelines for diagnosis, follow-up and management. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2012, 7, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Engelen, M.; Kemp, S. X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy: Pathogenesis and treatment. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2014, 14, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Miller, W.P.; Rothman, S.M.; Nascene, D.; Kivisto, T.; DeFor, T.E.; Ziegler, R.S.; Eisengart, J.; Leiser, K.; Raymond, G.; Lund, T.C. Outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for childhood cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy: The largest single-institution cohort report. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 2011, 118, 1971–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Inoue, K. Pelizaeus-merzbacher disease: Molecular and cellular pathologies and associated phenotypes. In Myelin; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 201–216. [Google Scholar]
  150. Mierzewska, H.; Jamroz, E.; Mazurczak, T.; Hoffman-Zacharska, D.; Szczepanik, E. Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease in patients with molecularly confirmed diagnosis. Folia Neuropathol. 2016, 54, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Takanashi, J.-I. Neurochemistry of hypomyelination investigated with MR spectroscopy. Magn. Reson. Med. Sci. 2015, 14, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Torii, T.; Miyamoto, Y.; Yamauchi, J.; Tanoue, A. P elizaeus–M erzbacher disease: Cellular pathogenesis and pharmacologic therapy. Pediatr. Int. 2014, 56, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Osório, M.J.; Goldman, S.A. Neurogenetics of Pelizaeus–Merzbacher disease. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 148, pp. 701–722. [Google Scholar]
  154. Pittock, S.J.; Debruyne, J.; Krecke, K.N.; Giannini, C.; Van Den Ameele, J.; De Herdt, V.; McKeon, A.; Fealey, R.D.; Weinshenker, B.G.; Aksamit, A.J. Chronic lymphocytic inflammation with pontine perivascular enhancement responsive to steroids (CLIPPERS). Brain 2010, 133, 2626–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Troxell, R.M.; Christy, A. Atypical pediatric demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2019, 19, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Mathey, G.; Michaud, M.; Pittion-Vouyovitch, S.; Debouverie, M. Classification and diagnostic criteria for demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system: Where do we stand today? Rev. Neurol. 2018, 174, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Guerini, F.R.; Delbue, S.; Zanzottera, M.; Agliardi, C.; Saresella, M.; Mancuso, R.; Maserati, R.; Marchioni, E.; Gori, A.; Ferrante, P. Analysis of CCR5, CCR2, SDF1 and RANTES gene polymorphisms in subjects with HIV-related PML and not determined leukoencephalopathy. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2008, 62, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Nozuma, S.; Jacobson, S. Neuroimmunology of human T-lymphotropic virus type 1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Agosta, F.; Rocca, M.; Benedetti, B.; Capra, R.; Cordioli, C.; Filippi, M. MR imaging assessment of brain and cervical cord damage in patients with neuroborreliosis. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2006, 27, 892–894. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  160. Batinac, T.; Petranovic, D.; Zamolo, G.; Petranovic, D.; Ruzic, A. Lyme borreliosis and multiple sclerosis are associated with primary effusion lymphoma. Med. Hypotheses 2007, 69, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. de Mol, C.; Wong, Y.; van Pelt, E.; Wokke, B.; Siepman, T.; Neuteboom, R.; Hamann, D.; Hintzen, R. The clinical spectrum and incidence of anti-MOG-associated acquired demyelinating syndromes in children and adults. Mult. Scler. J. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Hyun, J.-W.; Huh, S.-Y.; Shin, H.-J.; Woodhall, M.; Kim, S.-H.; Irani, S.R.; Lee, S.H.; Waters, P.; Kim, H.J. Evaluation of brain lesion distribution criteria at disease onset in differentiating MS from NMOSD and MOG-IgG-associated encephalomyelitis. Mult. Scler. J. 2019, 25, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Marshall, V. Multiple sclerosis is a chronic central nervous system infection by a spirochetal agent. Med. Hypotheses 1988, 25, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Fadil, H.; Kellesy, R.E.; Gonzalez-Toledo, E. Differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 2007, 79, 393–422. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Summary of molecular biomarkers in multiple sclerosis and its related disorders (abbreviations are below table).
Table 1. Summary of molecular biomarkers in multiple sclerosis and its related disorders (abbreviations are below table).
Type of DiseaseDiseaseBiomarkersReferences
PathophysiologicDiagnosticTherapeuticPrognostic
Autoimmune or inflammatoryMSmiR-199a
miR-320
miR-155
miR-142-3p
miR-142
miR-219
miR-34a
miR-103
miR-182-5p
miR-124
miR-15a/b
Nox2
β-synuclein
complement proteins:C1q, C3d and C5b-9
miR-219
miR-150
BDNF
anti-U1RNP Abs
sIFNAR2
miR-497-5p
semaphorin-3A
coenzyme Q10
IFNγ-DC-Exos
GSH
DMF
SIRT1
RGC-32
Fasl
IL-21
Tau proteins
miR-191-5p
miR-128-3p
serum netrin-1
β-amyloid
NF-L
NF-H
CHI3L1
IgM
LPA
GSH
TAS
Cp:Tf
[9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,35]
NPSLEanti-NR2A Ab
anti-dsDNA Ab
SLEDAI
Complement levels
anti-P Ab
ECA
BDNF
anti-U1RNP Abs
CSF-1RBDNF
anti-dsDNA Ab
[37,38,39,40,41]
APSAPL Abs against b2GPIanti-b2GPI
ACL
LAC
[43,44,45,46,48,49]
NBDMEFV gene mutationsIFN-α
IL-6 receptor blocker
anti-TNF agents
MEFV gene mutations
DEFA1B gene
NLRP3 gene
[50,51,52,53]
PACNSNF-LMMF[56,57]
PANESR
MMP-3
ESR
MMP-3
ESR
MMP-3
LAMP-2
[59,60]
AAVANCAANCAinhibit the ANCAANCA[61,62,63,64,65]
ADEMCSF elevated cytokines and chemokinesMOG Ab
IgG targeting MBP
MOBP
[66,67,68,69,71,72]
NMOanti-AQP4
IL-6
anti-AQP4[73]
CLIPPERSProtein
pleocytosis
oligoclonal bands
-[155]
MOG-EManti-MOG Abs---[160]
InfectiousHIV-related disorders of the CNSCSF HIV viral load[157]
HAM/TSPHTLV-1 Abs[158]
NeurosyphilisFTA-ABS[163]
Genetic disordersCADASILNOTCH3 gene mutationvWF
EPCs
CPCs
[92]
LHONArylsulfatase A
CSF/urine sulfatide
Arylsulfatase A
CSF/urine sulfatide
[95,97,98]
MELASMT-TL1 mutationLactate
CSF lactate/pyruvate ratio
Ventricular LA
CK
NO
NAA
t-Cho
[104,105,106,107,108]
demyelinating disordersOptic neuritisanti-MOG[81,82]
MLDArylsulfatase A CSF/urine sulfatideArylsulfatase A
CSF/urine sulfatide
[112,113,114,115]
KLGalactosphingosine (Psychosine)Galactosphingosine (Psychosine)Galactosphingosine (Psychosine)[120,122,123,124,125]
MSDSUMF1 gene mutations
FGE deficiency
Sulfated lipids
Mucopolysaccharides
Urine sulfatides
Sulfatase enzyme deficiency
Urine/Plasma GAG
FGE levels[126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136]
AxDGFAPGFAP[137]
ALDVLCFAsVLCFAs
C26:0-lyso-PC
[142,143,144,145,146,147]
PMDPLP1 genetNAA
Cr
min
Cho
[149,151]
Other disordersVitamin B12 deficiencyMethylmalonic acid
Homocysteine
Holotranscobalamin
AIFA
APCA
[85,87,88,89]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gul, M.; Azari Jafari, A.; Shah, M.; Mirmoeeni, S.; Haider, S.U.; Moinuddin, S.; Chaudhry, A. Molecular Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis and Its Related Disorders: A Critical Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21176020

AMA Style

Gul M, Azari Jafari A, Shah M, Mirmoeeni S, Haider SU, Moinuddin S, Chaudhry A. Molecular Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis and Its Related Disorders: A Critical Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21(17):6020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21176020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gul, Maryam, Amirhossein Azari Jafari, Muffaqam Shah, Seyyedmohammadsadeq Mirmoeeni, Safee Ullah Haider, Sadia Moinuddin, and Ammar Chaudhry. 2020. "Molecular Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis and Its Related Disorders: A Critical Review" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, no. 17: 6020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21176020

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop