Neuroimmunology - the past, present and future.

Neuroimmunology as a separate discipline has its roots in the fields of neurology, neuroscience and immunology. Early studies of the brain by Golgi and Cajal, the detailed clinical and neuropathology studies of Charcot and Thompson's seminal paper on graft acceptance in the central nervous system, kindled a now rapidly expanding research area, with the aim of understanding pathological mechanisms of inflammatory components of neurological disorders. While neuroimmunologists originally focused on classical neuroinflammatory disorders, such as multiple sclerosis and infections, there is strong evidence to suggest that the immune response contributes to genetic white matter disorders, epilepsy, neurodegenerative diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, peripheral nervous system and neuro-oncological conditions, as well as ageing. Technological advances have greatly aided our knowledge of how the immune system influences the nervous system during development and ageing, and how such responses contribute to disease as well as regeneration and repair. Here, we highlight historical aspects and milestones in the field of neuroimmunology and discuss the paradigm shifts that have helped provide novel insights into disease mechanisms. We propose future perspectives including molecular biological studies and experimental models that may have the potential to push many areas of neuroimmunology. Such an understanding of neuroimmunology will open up new avenues for therapeutic approaches to manipulate neuroinflammation.

Rapidly progressive amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is associated with microglial reactivity and small heat shock protein expression in reactive astrocytes.

AIMS: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease characterized by progressive loss of motor neurons, muscle weakness, spasticity, paralysis and death usually within 2-5 years of onset. Neuroinflammation is a hallmark of ALS pathology characterized by activation of glial cells, which respond by upregulating small heat shock proteins (HSPBs), but the exact underlying pathological mechanisms are still largely unknown. Here, we investigated the association between ALS disease duration, lower motor neuron loss, TARDNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) pathology, neuroinflammation and HSPB expression. METHODS: With immunohistochemistry, we examined HSPB1, HSPB5, HSPB6, HSPB8 and HSP16.2 expression in cervical, thoracic and sacral spinal cord regions in 12 ALS cases, seven with short disease duration (SDD), five with moderate disease duration (MDD), and ten age-matched controls. Expression was quantified using ImageJ to examine HSP expression, motor neuron numbers, microglial and astrocyte density and phosphorylated TDP-43 (pTDP-43+) inclusions. RESULTS: SDD was associated with elevated HSPB5 and 8 expression in lateral tract astrocytes, while HSP16.2 expression was increased in astrocytes in MDD cases. SDD cases had higher numbers of motor neurons and microglial activation than MDD cases, but similar levels of motor neurons with pTDP-43+ inclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Increased expression of several HSPBs in lateral column astrocytes suggests that astrocytes play a role in the pathogenesis of ALS. SDD is associated with increased microgliosis, HSPB5 and 8 expression in astrocytes, and only minor changes in motor neuron loss. This suggests that the interaction between motor neurons, microglia and astrocytes determines neuronal fate and functional decline in ALS.

Heat shock proteins are differentially expressed in brain and spinal cord: implications for multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease characterized by demyelination, inflammation and neurodegeneration throughout the central nervous system. Although spinal cord pathology is an important factor contributing to disease progression, few studies have examined MS lesions in the spinal cord and how they differ from brain lesions. In this study we have compared brain and spinal cord white (WM) and grey (GM) matter from MS and control tissues, focusing on small heat shock proteins (HSPB) and HSP16.2. Western blotting was used to examine protein levels of HSPB1, HSPB5, HSPB6, HSPB8 and HSP16.2 in brain and spinal cord from MS and age-matched non-neurological controls. Immunohistochemistry was used to examine expression of the HSPs in MS spinal cord lesions and controls. Expression levels were quantified using ImageJ. Western blotting revealed significantly higher levels of HSPB1, HSPB6 and HSPB8 in MS and control spinal cord compared to brain tissues. No differences in HSPB5 and HSP16.2 protein levels were observed, although HSPB5 protein levels were higher in brain WM versus GM. In MS spinal cord lesions, increased HSPB1 and HSPB5 expression was observed in astrocytes, and increased neuronal expression of HSP16.2 was observed in normal-appearing GM and type 1 GM lesions. The high constitutive expression of several HSPBs in spinal cord and increased expression of HSPBs and HSP16.2 in MS illustrate differences between brain and spinal cord in health and upon demyelination. Regional differences in HSP expression may reflect differences in astrocyte cytoskeleton composition and influence inflammation, possibly affecting the effectiveness of pharmacological agents.

Brain endothelial cell expression of SPARCL-1 is specific to chronic multiple sclerosis lesions and is regulated by inflammatory mediators in vitro.

AIMS: Cell matrix modulating protein SPARCL-1 is highly expressed by astrocytes during CNS development and following acute CNS damage. Applying NanoLC-MS/MS to CSF of RRMS and SPMS patients, we identified SPARCL-1 as differentially expressed between these two stages of MS, suggesting a potential as CSF biomarker to differentiate RRMS from SPMS and a role in MS pathogenesis. METHODS: This study examines the potential of SPARCL-1 as CSF biomarker discriminating RRMS from SPMS in three independent cohorts (n = 249), analyses its expression pattern in MS lesions (n = 26), and studies its regulation in cultured human brain microvasculature endothelial cells (BEC) after exposure to MS-relevant inflammatory mediators. RESULTS: SPARCL-1 expression in CSF was significantly higher in SPMS compared to RRMS in a Dutch cohort of 76 patients. This finding was not replicated in 2 additional cohorts of MS patients from Sweden (n = 81) and Switzerland (n = 92). In chronic MS lesions, but not active lesions or NAWM, a vessel expression pattern of SPARCL-1 was observed in addition to the expression by astrocytes. EC were found to express SPARCL-1 in chronic MS lesions, and SPARCL-1 expression was regulated by MS-relevant inflammatory mediators in cultured human BEC. CONCLUSIONS: Conflicting results of SPARCL-1's differential expression in CSF of three independent cohorts of RRMS and SPMS patients precludes its use as biomarker for disease progression. The expression of SPARCL-1 by BEC in chronic MS lesions together with its regulation by inflammatory mediators in vitro suggest a role for SPARCL-1 in MS neuropathology, possibly at the brain vascular level.