MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394869943 · doi:10.1093/brain/awae110

Genetics of immune response to Epstein-Barr virus: prospects for multiple sclerosis pathogenesis

2024· article· en· W4394869943 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jesse Huang, Katarina Tengvall, Izaura Bomfim Lima, Anna Karin Hedström, Julia Butt, Nicole Brenner, Alexandra Gyllenberg, Pernilla Stridh, Mohsen Khademi, Ingemar Ernberg, Faiez Al Nimer, Ali Manouchehrinia, Jan Hillert, Lars Alfredsson, Oluf Andersen, Peter Sundström, Tim Waterboer, Tomas Olsson, Ingrid Kockum

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNeuroförbundetVetenskapsrådetKarolinska InstitutetForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaEuropean Genomic Institute for Diabetes
KeywordsPathogenesisImmune systemEpstein–Barr virusMultiple sclerosisVirusImmunologyVirologyBiologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection has been advocated as a prerequisite for developing multiple sclerosis (MS) and possibly the propagation of the disease. However, the precise mechanisms for such influences are still unclear. A large-scale study investigating the host genetics of EBV serology and related clinical manifestations, such as infectious mononucleosis (IM), may help us better understand the role of EBV in MS pathogenesis. This study evaluates the host genetic factors that influence serological response against EBV and history of IM and cross-evaluates them with MS risk and genetic susceptibility in the Swedish population. Plasma IgG antibody levels against EBV nuclear antigen-1 [EBNA-1, truncated = amino acids (aa) (325-641), peptide = aa(385-420)] and viral capsid antigen p18 (VCAp18) were measured using bead-based multiplex serology for 8744 MS cases and 7229 population-matched control subjects. The MS risk association for high/low EBV antibody levels and history of IM was compared to relevant clinical measures along with sex, age at sampling, and associated HLA allele variants. Genome-wide and HLA allele association analyses were also performed to identify genetic risk factors for EBV antibody response and IM history. Higher antibody levels against VCAp18 [odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.60-1.88] and EBNA-1, particularly the peptide (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 2.93-3.35), were associated with an increased risk for MS. The risk increased with higher anti-EBNA-1 IgG levels up to 12× the reference risk. We also identified several independent HLA haplotypes associated with EBV serology overlapping with known MS risk alleles (e.g. DRB1*15:01). Although there were several candidates, no variants outside the HLA region reached genome-wide significance. Cumulative HLA risk for anti-EBNA-1 IgG levels, particularly the peptide fragment, was strongly associated with MS. In contrast, the genetic risk for high anti-VCAp18 IgG levels was not as strongly associated with MS risk. IM history was not associated with class II HLA genes but negatively associated with A*02:01, which is protective against MS. Our findings emphasize that the risk association between anti-EBNA-1 IgG levels and MS may be partly due to overlapping HLA associations. Additionally, the increasing MS risk with increasing anti-EBNA-1 levels would be consistent with a pathogenic role of the EBNA-1 immune response, perhaps through molecular mimicry. Given that high anti-EBNA-1 antibodies may reflect a poorly controlled T-cell defence against the virus, our findings would be consistent with DRB1*15:01 being a poor class II antigen in the immune defence against EBV. Last, the difference in genetic control of IM supports the independent roles of EBNA-1 and IM in MS susceptibility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207