Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15)
Document Type
- Journal article (15)
Language
- English (15)
Keywords
- Parkinson's disease (3)
- autoantibodies (2)
- inflammatory neuropathy (2)
- neurofascin (2)
- neurology (2)
- neuropathy (2)
- passive transfer (2)
- skin biopsy (2)
- skin punch biopsy (2)
- Antiparanodal Autoantibodies (1)
A diagnosis of neuropathy can typically be determined through clinical assessment and focused investigation. With technological advances, including significant progress in genomics, the role of nerve biopsy has receded over recent years. However, making a specific and, in some cases, tissue-based diagnosis is essential across a wide array of potentially treatable acquired peripheral neuropathies. When laboratory investigations do not suggest a definitive diagnosis, nerve biopsy remains the final step to ascertain the etiology of the disease. The present review highlights the utility of nerve biopsy in confirming a diagnosis, while further illustrating the importance of a tissue-based diagnosis in relation to treatment strategies, particularly when linked to long-term immunosuppressive therapies,
Objective
To identify and characterize patients with autoantibodies against different neurofascin (NF) isoforms.
Methods
Screening of a large cohort of patient sera for anti-NF autoantibodies by ELISA and further characterization by cell-based assays, epitope mapping, and complement binding assays.
Results
Two different clinical phenotypes became apparent in this study: The well-known clinical picture of subacute-onset severe sensorimotor neuropathy with tremor that is known to be associated with IgG4 autoantibodies against the paranodal isoform NF-155 was found in 2 patients. The second phenotype with a dramatic course of disease with tetraplegia and almost locked-in syndrome was associated with IgG3 autoantibodies against nodal and paranodal isoforms of NF in 3 patients. The epitope against which these autoantibodies were directed in this second phenotype was the common Ig domain found in all 3 NF isoforms. In contrast, anti–NF-155 IgG4 were directed against the NF-155–specific Fn3Fn4 domain. The description of a second phenotype of anti–NF-associated neuropathy is in line with some case reports of similar patients that were published in the last year.
Conclusions
Our results indicate that anti–pan-NF-associated neuropathy differs from anti–NF-155-associated neuropathy, and epitope and subclass play a major role in the pathogenesis and severity of anti–NF-associated neuropathy and should be determined to correctly classify patients, also in respect to possible differences in therapeutic response.