Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (9)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (9)
Document Type
- Journal article (9)
Language
- English (9) (remove)
Keywords
- autoantibodies (2)
- glycine receptor (2)
- neurofascin (2)
- neurology (2)
- passive transfer (2)
- CIDP (1)
- Guillain-Barre-Syndrome (1)
- IgG4 (1)
- adsorption (1)
- anti-contactin-1 (1)
Institute
- Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik (9) (remove)
Startle disease is a rare disorder associated with mutations in GLRA1 and GLRB, encoding glycine receptor (GlyR) α1 and β subunits, which enable fast synaptic inhibitory transmission in the spinal cord and brainstem. The GlyR β subunit is important for synaptic localization via interactions with gephyrin and contributes to agonist binding and ion channel conductance. Here, we have studied three GLRB missense mutations, Y252S, S321F, and A455P, identified in startle disease patients. For Y252S in M1 a disrupted stacking interaction with surrounding aromatic residues in M3 and M4 is suggested which is accompanied by an increased EC\(_{50}\) value. By contrast, S321F in M3 might stabilize stacking interactions with aromatic residues in M1 and M4. No significant differences in glycine potency or efficacy were observed for S321F. The A455P variant was not predicted to impact on subunit folding but surprisingly displayed increased maximal currents which were not accompanied by enhanced surface expression, suggesting that A455P is a gain-of-function mutation. All three GlyR β variants are trafficked effectively with the α1 subunit through intracellular compartments and inserted into the cellular membrane. In vivo, the GlyR β subunit is transported together with α1 and the scaffolding protein gephyrin to synaptic sites. The interaction of these proteins was studied using eGFP-gephyrin, forming cytosolic aggregates in non-neuronal cells. eGFP-gephyrin and β subunit co-expression resulted in the recruitment of both wild-type and mutant GlyR β subunits to gephyrin aggregates. However, a significantly lower number of GlyR β aggregates was observed for Y252S, while for mutants S321F and A455P, the area and the perimeter of GlyR β subunit aggregates was increased in comparison to wild-type β. Transfection of hippocampal neurons confirmed differences in GlyR-gephyrin clustering with Y252S and A455P, leading to a significant reduction in GlyR β-positive synapses. Although none of the mutations studied is directly located within the gephyrin-binding motif in the GlyR β M3-M4 loop, we suggest that structural changes within the GlyR β subunit result in differences in GlyR β-gephyrin interactions. Hence, we conclude that loss- or gain-of-function, or alterations in synaptic GlyR clustering may underlie disease pathology in startle disease patients carrying GLRB mutations.
Glycine receptor β–targeting autoantibodies contribute to the pathology of autoimmune diseases
(2024)
Background and Objectives
Stiff-person syndrome (SPS) and progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus (PERM) are rare neurologic disorders of the CNS. Until now, exclusive GlyRα subunit–binding autoantibodies with subsequent changes in function and surface numbers were reported. GlyR autoantibodies have also been described in patients with focal epilepsy. Autoimmune reactivity against the GlyRβ subunits has not yet been shown. Autoantibodies against GlyRα1 target the large extracellular N-terminal domain. This domain shares a high degree of sequence homology with GlyRβ making it not unlikely that GlyRβ-specific autoantibody (aAb) exist and contribute to the disease pathology.
Methods
In this study, we investigated serum samples from 58 patients for aAb specifically detecting GlyRβ. Studies in microarray format, cell-based assays, and primary spinal cord neurons and spinal cord tissue immunohistochemistry were performed to determine specific GlyRβ binding and define aAb binding to distinct protein regions. Preadsorption approaches of aAbs using living cells and the purified extracellular receptor domain were further used. Finally, functional consequences for inhibitory neurotransmission upon GlyRβ aAb binding were resolved by whole-cell patch-clamp recordings.
Results
Among 58 samples investigated, cell-based assays, tissue analysis, and preadsorption approaches revealed 2 patients with high specificity for GlyRβ aAb. Quantitative protein cluster analysis demonstrated aAb binding to synaptic GlyRβ colocalized with the scaffold protein gephyrin independent of the presence of GlyRα1. At the functional level, binding of GlyRβ aAb from both patients to its target impair glycine efficacy.
Discussion
Our study establishes GlyRβ as novel target of aAb in patients with SPS/PERM. In contrast to exclusively GlyRα1-positive sera, which alter glycine potency, aAbs against GlyRβ impair receptor efficacy for the neurotransmitter glycine. Imaging and functional analyses showed that GlyRβ aAbs antagonize inhibitory neurotransmission by affecting receptor function rather than localization.
Glycine receptor (GlyR) autoantibodies are associated with stiff-person syndrome and the life-threatening progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus in children and adults. Patient histories show variability in symptoms and responses to therapeutic treatments. A better understanding of the autoantibody pathology is required to develop improved therapeutic strategies. So far, the underlying molecular pathomechanisms include enhanced receptor internalization and direct receptor blocking altering GlyR function. A common epitope of autoantibodies against the GlyRα1 has been previously defined to residues 1A-33G at the N-terminus of the mature GlyR extracellular domain. However, if other autoantibody binding sites exist or additional GlyR residues are involved in autoantibody binding is yet unknown. The present study investigates the importance of receptor glycosylation for binding of anti-GlyR autoantibodies. The glycine receptor α1 harbors only one glycosylation site at the amino acid residue asparagine 38 localized in close vicinity to the identified common autoantibody epitope. First, non-glycosylated GlyRs were characterized using protein biochemical approaches as well as electrophysiological recordings and molecular modeling. Molecular modeling of non-glycosylated GlyRα1 did not show major structural alterations. Moreover, non-glycosylation of the GlyRα1N38Q did not prevent the receptor from surface expression. At the functional level, the non-glycosylated GlyR demonstrated reduced glycine potency, but patient GlyR autoantibodies still bound to the surface-expressed non-glycosylated receptor protein in living cells. Efficient adsorption of GlyR autoantibodies from patient samples was possible by binding to native glycosylated and non-glycosylated GlyRα1 expressed in living not fixed transfected HEK293 cells. Binding of patient-derived GlyR autoantibodies to the non-glycosylated GlyRα1 offered the possibility to use purified non-glycosylated GlyR extracellular domain constructs coated on ELISA plates and use them as a fast screening readout for the presence of GlyR autoantibodies in patient serum samples. Following successful adsorption of patient autoantibodies by GlyR ECDs, binding to primary motoneurons and transfected cells was absent. Our results indicate that the glycine receptor autoantibody binding is independent of the receptor’s glycosylation state. Purified non-glycosylated receptor domains harbouring the autoantibody epitope thus provide, an additional reliable experimental tool besides binding to native receptors in cell-based assays for detection of autoantibody presence in patient sera.
Objective
Impairment of glycinergic neurotransmission leads to complex movement and behavioral disorders. Patients harboring glycine receptor autoantibodies suffer from stiff‐person syndrome or its severe variant progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus. Enhanced receptor internalization was proposed as the common molecular mechanism upon autoantibody binding. Although functional impairment of glycine receptors following autoantibody binding has recently been investigated, it is still incompletely understood.
Methods
A cell‐based assay was used for positive sample evaluation. Glycine receptor function was assessed by electrophysiological recordings and radioligand binding assays. The in vivo passive transfer of patient autoantibodies was done using the zebrafish animal model.
Results
Glycine receptor function as assessed by glycine dose–response curves showed significantly decreased glycine potency in the presence of patient sera. Upon binding of autoantibodies from 2 patients, a decreased fraction of desensitized receptors was observed, whereas closing of the ion channel remained fast. The glycine receptor N‐terminal residues \(^{29}\)A to \(^{62}\)G were mapped as a common epitope of glycine receptor autoantibodies. An in vivo transfer into the zebrafish animal model generated a phenotype with disturbed escape behavior accompanied by a reduced number of glycine receptor clusters in the spinal cord of affected animals.
Interpretation
Autoantibodies against the extracellular domain mediate alterations of glycine receptor physiology. Moreover, our in vivo data demonstrate that the autoantibodies are a direct cause of the disease, because the transfer of human glycine receptor autoantibodies to zebrafish larvae generated impaired escape behavior in the animal model compatible with abnormal startle response in stiff‐person syndrome or progressive encephalitis with rigidity and myoclonus patients.
Introduction
IgG4 autoantibodies against paranodal proteins are known to induce acute-onset and often severe sensorimotor autoimmune neuropathies. How autoantibodies reach their antigens at the paranode in spite of the myelin barrier is still unclear.
Methods
We performed in vitro incubation experiments with patient sera on unfixed and unpermeabilized nerve fibers and in vivo intraneural and intrathecal passive transfer of patient IgG to rats, to explore the access of IgG autoantibodies directed against neurofascin-155 and contactin-1 to the paranodes and their pathogenic effect.
Results
We found that in vitro incubation resulted in weak paranodal binding of anti-contactin-1 autoantibodies whereas anti-neurofascin-155 autoantibodies bound to the nodes more than to the paranodes. After short-term intraneural injection, no nodal or paranodal binding was detectable when using anti-neurofascin-155 antibodies. After repeated intrathecal injections, nodal more than paranodal binding could be detected in animals treated with anti-neurofascin-155, accompanied by sensorimotor neuropathy. In contrast, no paranodal binding was visible in rats intrathecally injected with anti-contactin-1 antibodies, and animals remained unaffected.
Conclusion
These data support the notion of different pathogenic mechanisms of anti-neurofascin-155 and anti-contactin-1 autoantibodies and different accessibility of paranodal and nodal structures.
Multifocal motor neuropathy is an immune mediated disease presenting with multifocal muscle weakness and conduction block. IgM auto-antibodies against the ganglioside GM1 are detectable in about 50% of the patients. Auto-antibodies against the paranodal proteins contactin-1 and neurofascin-155 and the nodal protein neurofascin-186 have been detected in subgroups of patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Recently, auto-antibodies against neurofascin-186 and gliomedin were described in more than 60% of patients with multifocal motor neuropathy. In the current study, we aimed to validate this finding, using a combination of different assays for auto-antibody detection. In addition we intended to detect further auto-antibodies against paranodal proteins, specifically contactin-1 and neurofascin-155 in multifocal motor neuropathy patients’ sera. We analyzed sera of 33 patients with well-characterized multifocal motor neuropathy for IgM or IgG anti-contactin-1, anti-neurofascin-155 or -186 antibodies using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, binding assays with transfected human embryonic kidney 293 cells and murine teased fibers. We did not detect any IgM or IgG auto-antibodies against contactin-1, neurofascin-155 or -186 in any of our multifocal motor neuropathy patients. We conclude that auto-antibodies against contactin-1, neurofascin-155 and -186 do not play a relevant role in the pathogenesis in this cohort with multifocal motor neuropathy.
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.
Objective
To determine whether IgG subclasses of antiparanodal autoantibodies are related to disease course and treatment response in acute- to subacute-onset neuropathies, we retrospectively screened 161 baseline serum/CSF samples and 66 follow-up serum/CSF samples.
Methods
We used ELISA and immunofluorescence assays to detect antiparanodal IgG and their subclasses and titers in serum/CSF of patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), recurrent GBS (R-GBS), Miller-Fisher syndrome, and acute- to subacute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP). We evaluated clinical data retrospectively.
Results
We detected antiparanodal autoantibodies with a prevalence of 4.3% (7/161), more often in A-CIDP (4/23, 17.4%) compared with GBS (3/114, 2.6%). Longitudinal subclass analysis in the patients with GBS revealed IgG2/3 autoantibodies against Caspr-1 and against anti-contactin-1/Caspr-1, which disappeared at remission. At disease onset, patients with A-CIDP had IgG2/3 anti-Caspr-1 and anti-contactin-1/Caspr-1 or IgG4 anti-contactin-1 antibodies, IgG3 being associated with good response to IV immunoglobulins (IVIg). In the chronic phase of disease, IgG subclass of one patient with A-CIDP switched from IgG3 to IgG4.
Conclusion
Our data (1) confirm and extend previous observations that antiparanodal IgG2/3 but not IgG4 antibodies can occur in acute-onset neuropathies manifesting as monophasic GBS, (2) suggest association of IgG3 to a favorable response to IVIg, and (3) lend support to the hypothesis that in some patients, an IgG subclass switch from IgG3 to IgG4 may be the correlate of a secondary progressive or relapsing course following a GBS-like onset.
Anti-CNTN1 IgG3 induces acute conduction block and motor deficits in a passive transfer rat model
(2019)
Background:
Autoantibodies against the paranodal protein contactin-1 have recently been described in patients with severe acute-onset autoimmune neuropathies and mainly belong to the IgG4 subclass that does not activate complement. IgG3 anti-contactin-1 autoantibodies are rare, but have been detected during the acute onset of disease in some cases. There is evidence that anti-contactin-1 prevents adhesive interaction, and chronic exposure to anti-contactin-1 IgG4 leads to structural changes at the nodes accompanied by neuropathic symptoms. However, the pathomechanism of acute onset of disease and the pathogenic role of IgG3 anti-contactin-1 is largely unknown.
Methods:
In the present study, we aimed to model acute autoantibody exposure by intraneural injection of IgG of patients with anti-contacin-1 autoantibodies to Lewis rats. Patient IgG obtained during acute onset of disease (IgG3 predominant) and IgG from the chronic phase of disease (IgG4 predominant) were studied in comparison.
Results:
Conduction blocks were measured in rats injected with the “acute” IgG more often than after injection of “chronic” IgG (83.3% versus 35%) and proved to be reversible within a week after injection. Impaired nerve conduction was accompanied by motor deficits in rats after injection of the “acute” IgG but only minor structural changes of the nodes. Paranodal complement deposition was detected after injection of the “acute IgG”. We did not detect any inflammatory infiltrates, arguing against an inflammatory cascade as cause of damage to the nerve. We also did not observe dispersion of paranodal proteins or sodium channels to the juxtaparanodes as seen in patients after chronic exposure to anti-contactin-1.
Conclusions:
Our data suggest that anti-contactin-1 IgG3 induces an acute conduction block that is most probably mediated by autoantibody binding and subsequent complement deposition and may account for acute onset of disease in these patients. This supports the notion of anti-contactin-1-associated neuropathy as a paranodopathy with the nodes of Ranvier as the site of pathogenesis.