4.5 Article

Assessment of Epstein-Barr virus in blood from patients with multiple sclerosis

Journal

METABOLIC BRAIN DISEASE
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 311-318

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11011-012-9292-z

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; Epstein-Barr virus; Anti-EBV-VCA IgG; Anti-EBV-VCA IgM; Kurtzke extended disability status scale

Funding

  1. University Research Fund of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) which can establish latent infections in the central nervous system or the immune system have been associated with chronic neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis. Results vary, therefore the aim of this study was to investigate the presence of EBV using both viral DNA and antibody screening techniques, using PCR and ELISA assays respectively, to evaluate viral presence in blood from control subjects and patients with multiple sclerosis. Viral gene sequences for latent proteins EBNA-1 and LMP-1 and lytic gene BamH1-W were present equally in both patients and controls (< 7%). Anti-EBV-VCA IgG positive cases were present in > 99% of all study subjects, and anti-EBV-VCA IgG immune status ratio showed a near-significant positive correlation with the EDSS in patients with multiple sclerosis. In contrast, Anti-EBV-VCA IgM positive cases were significantly increased in patients (controls: 23.3%; patients; 41.9%; P = 0.046). The IgM to IgG immune status ratio was near-significantly higher in patients with relapse episodes in the year preceding blood sampling (P = 0.058). Results from this and previous studies have shown higher prevalence rates for EBV evaluating anti-EBV IgM positive cases against viral DNA positive cases. Also, IgM, an innate immune response, showed an association with relapse episodes, suggesting viral re-activation as a contributing factor to these relapses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available