Potential Biomarkers Associated with Multiple Sclerosis Pathology

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that involves an intricate and aberrant interaction of immune cells leading to inflammation, demyelination, and neurodegeneration. Due to the heterogeneity of clinical subtypes, their diagnosis becomes challenging and the best treatment cannot be easily provided to patients. Biomarkers have been used to simplify the diagnosis and prognosis of MS, as well as to evaluate the results of clinical treatments. In recent years, research on biomarkers has advanced rapidly due to their ability to be easily and promptly measured, their specificity, and their reproducibility. Biomarkers are classified into several categories depending on whether they address personal or predictive susceptibility, diagnosis, prognosis, disease activity, or response to treatment in different clinical courses of MS. The identified members indicate a variety of pathological processes of MS, such as neuroaxonal damage, gliosis, demyelination, progression of disability, and remyelination, among others. The present review analyzes biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood serum, the most promising imaging biomarkers used in clinical practice. Furthermore, it aims to shed light on the criteria and challenges that a biomarker must face to be considered as a standard in daily clinical practice.

Related collections

Most cited references 174

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria

Alan Thompson, Brenda Banwell, Frederik Barkhof … (2018)

The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis are widely used in research and clinical practice. Scientific advances in the past 7 years suggest that they might no longer provide the most up-to-date guidance for clinicians and researchers. The International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis reviewed the 2010 McDonald criteria and recommended revisions. The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation. The following changes were made: in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome and clinical or MRI demonstration of dissemination in space, the presence of CSF-specific oligoclonal bands allows a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; symptomatic lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space or time in patients with supratentorial, infratentorial, or spinal cord syndrome; and cortical lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space. Research to further refine the criteria should focus on optic nerve involvement, validation in diverse populations, and incorporation of advanced imaging, neurophysiological, and body fluid markers.

0 comments Cited 1966 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Neurofilaments as biomarkers in neurological disorders

Michael Khalil, Charlotte E. Teunissen, Markus Otto … (2018)

Neuroaxonal damage is the pathological substrate of permanent disability in various neurological disorders. Reliable quantification and longitudinal follow-up of such damage are important for assessing disease activity, monitoring treatment responses, facilitating treatment development and determining prognosis. The neurofilament proteins have promise in this context because their levels rise upon neuroaxonal damage not only in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) but also in blood, and they indicate neuroaxonal injury independent of causal pathways. First-generation (immunoblot) and second-generation (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) neurofilament assays had limited sensitivity. Third-generation (electrochemiluminescence) and particularly fourth-generation (single-molecule array) assays enable the reliable measurement of neurofilaments throughout the range of concentrations found in blood samples. This technological advancement has paved the way to investigate neurofilaments in a range of neurological disorders. Here, we review what is known about the structure and function of neurofilaments, discuss analytical aspects and knowledge of age-dependent normal ranges of neurofilaments and provide a comprehensive overview of studies on neurofilament light chain as a marker of axonal injury in different neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis, neurodegenerative dementia, stroke, traumatic brain injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Parkinson disease. We also consider work needed to explore the value of this axonal damage marker in managing neurological diseases in daily practice.

0 comments Cited 688 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis

Fred Lublin, Stephen C Reingold, Jeffrey A Cohen … (2014)

Accurate clinical course descriptions (phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are important for communication, prognostication, design and recruitment of clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. Standardized descriptions published in 1996 based on a survey of international MS experts provided purely clinical phenotypes based on data and consensus at that time, but imaging and biological correlates were lacking. Increased understanding of MS and its pathology, coupled with general concern that the original descriptors may not adequately reflect more recently identified clinical aspects of the disease, prompted a re-examination of MS disease phenotypes by the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of MS. While imaging and biological markers that might provide objective criteria for separating clinical phenotypes are lacking, we propose refined descriptors that include consideration of disease activity (based on clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression. Strategies for future research to better define phenotypes are also outlined.