4.6 Article

Chaperone Activity of α B-Crystallin Is Responsible for Its Incorrect Assignment as an Autoantigen in Multiple Sclerosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 186, Issue 7, Pages 4263-4268

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1003934

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01NS55997, R21DK079163, 5-T32AI07290]
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  3. Endriz Fund
  4. Lucille Packard Foundation for Children's Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For 15 y, alpha B-crystallin (heat shock protein [Hsp] B5) has been labeled an autoantigen in multiple sclerosis (MS) based on humoral and cellular responses found in humans and animal models. However, there have been several scientific inconsistencies with this assignment, ranging from studies demonstrating small differences in anticrystallin responses between patients and healthy individuals to the inability of crystallin-specific T cells to induce symptoms of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis in animal models. Experiments in this article demonstrate that the putative anti-HspB5 Abs from 23 MS patients cross-react with 7 other members of the human small Hsp family and were equally present in normal plasma. Biolayer interferometry demonstrates that the binding was temperature dependent, and that the calculated K(a) increased as the concentration of the sHsp decreased. These two patterns are characteristic of multiple binding sites with varying affinities, the composition of which changes with temperature, supporting the hypothesis that HspB5 bound the Ab and not the reverse. HspB5 also precipitated Ig heavy and L chains from sera from patients with MS. These results establish that small Hsps bind Igs with high affinity and refute much of the serological data used to assign alpha B-crystallin as an autoantigen. The Journal of Immunology, 2011, 186: 4263-4268.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available