Proteomic Signatures of Conversion Risk and Disease Severity in Multiple Sclerosis
Bisteau, X.; Bastide, L.; Imbault, V.; Perrotta, G.; Borrelli, S.; Elands, S.; van Pesch, V.; Borras, E.; Sabido, E.; Gaspard, N.; Communi, D.
Show abstract
Despite important advances in understanding the etiopathology of multiple sclerosis, factors determining disease progression remain partially understood and often difficult to predict. Specific diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are needed to optimize the risk-benefit ratio of treatment for each patient. The aim of our study was to identify a cerebrospinal fluid proteomic signature associated with diagnosis and short- to mid-term prognosis across the multiple sclerosis continuum. Our multicentric cohort study analyzed CSF samples from 120 patients using a proteomics data-independent acquisition strategy. Differentially expressed proteins were identified across diagnostic groups: 62 patients with multiple sclerosis, 15 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, and 43 healthy controls. We also compared the CSF of patients with no evidence of disease activity with those with disease activity at 2 and 5 years of follow-up. A diagnostic and prognostic classification model was built using iterative cross-validated logistic regression models on shared differentially expressed proteins across these two comparisons. A total of 1,257 proteins were quantified, and 162 differentially expressed proteins were identified across comparisons. We identified a set of ten proteins associated with the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple sclerosis, including previously identified potential biomarkers (CH3L2, IGHG1, IGKC, LAMP2, ADA2), proteins known to be involved in the pathophysiology of multiple sclerosis (A0A8J8YUT9, AT2A2, CO3A1) and two yet unreported proteins (DSC2 and MMRN2). Multivariate models based on these proteins achieved good accuracy for the diagnosis of MS compared with CIS (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC] up to 80% using 3 proteins) and prognosis (NEDA vs. EDA; AUROC up to 96% at 2 and 5 years; using 5 proteins). These results, which will require further investigation to validate the new biomarkers, open new perspectives on multiple sclerosis pathophysiology and therapeutic targets.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Persons with multiple sclerosis reveal distinct kynurenine pathway metabolite patterns: a multinational cross-sectional study 96%
- CSF of SARS-CoV-2 patients with neurological syndromes reveals hints to understand pathophysiology 94%
- Evolution of Chronic Lesion Tissue in RRMS patients: An association with disease progression 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cell-binding IgM in CSF is distinctive of multiple sclerosis and targets the iron transporter SCARA5 93%
- Brain Injury in COVID-19 is Associated with Autoinflammation and Autoimmunity 93%
- Peripheral inflammatory markers relate to central inflammation and survival in syndromes associated with frontotemporal lobar degeneration 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Paramagnetic rim lesions are associated with pathogenic CSF profiles and worse clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective cross-sectional study 94%
- Tissue damage detected by quantitative gradient echo MRI correlates with clinical progression in non-relapsing progressive MS 94%
- The relationship between ethnicity and Multiple Sclerosis characteristics in the United Kingdom: a UK MS Register study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Meningeal inflammation in multiple sclerosis induces phenotypic changes in cortical microglia that differentially associate with neurodegeneration 94%
- From methylation to myelination: epigenomic and transcriptomic profiling of chronic inactive demyelinated multiple sclerosis lesions 93%
- Defects in lysosomal function and lipid metabolism in human microglia harboring a TREM2 loss of function mutation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.