| Literature DB >> 24707504 |
Amy J Gleichman1, Jessica A Panzer1, Bailey H Baumann1, Josep Dalmau2, David R Lynch1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anti-AMPAR encephalitis is a recently discovered disorder characterized by the presence of antibodies in serum or cerebrospinal fluid against the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor. Here, we examine the antigenic specificity of anti-AMPAR antibodies, screen for new patients, and evaluate functional effects of antibody treatment of neurons.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24707504 PMCID: PMC3972064 DOI: 10.1002/acn3.43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol ISSN: 2328-9503 Impact factor: 4.511
Figure 1Patient CSF recognition of external domain fusion proteins is similar to staining of cells transfected with full subunits. (A) Patient CSF (blots B and C) recognizes a band of the correct size in transfected samples, indicating that native conformation may not be necessary for patient antibody recognition of AMPARs. GluA1, GluA2, and GluN1 all expressed well, with minimal proteolytic cleavage of the desired fusion protein when grown in pLyS BL21 Escherichia coli, as evidenced by blotting for the thioredoxin tag (Trx); even in this cell line, which minimizes protease activity, the GluA3 external domain fusion protein was almost entirely degraded during growth (data not shown). Two representative examples of patient reactivity are shown, as well as a darker exposure of the second patient to demonstrate minor GluA1 reactivity; all previously diagnosed anti-AMPAR encephalitis patients showed reactivity with fusion proteins. (B and C) CSF from two previously diagnosed anti-AMPAR encephalitis patients recognize GluA1 and/or GluA2-transfected HEK293 cells by immunocytochemistry in patterns that correspond to their observed GluA1/GluA2 external domain fusion protein reactivity (CSF from the same patient was used for (B) or (C)-labeled lanes in western blot in (A) and immunocytochemistry). (C) Example of one patient with primary GluA2 reactivity but minor GluA1 reactivity in transfected cells who showed the same differential reactivity with fusion proteins (A, bands C and C′; C, CSF panels). Comm, commercial antibody staining.
Figure 2Antibodies from patients with anti-AMPAR encephalitis primarily recognize the bottom lobe of the ATD of GluA1 or GluA2. (A) Staining pattern of CSF from a typical anti-AMPAR encephalitis patient on HEK293 cells transfected with GluA2 deletion mutants shows a loss of reactivity with deletion of the bottom lobe of the ATD. (B) Quantification of deletion mutant CSF staining over four patients, three with primary GluA2 reactivity and one with primary GluA1 reactivity, using GluA2 or GluA1 mutants, respectively. (C) Reactivity with receptor domains on western blot. Left, fusion protein expression measured by anti-Thioredoxin antibody (Trx). Right, patient CSF reacts primarily with the ATD and the bottom lobe of the ATD. S1 deletion also decreases antibody binding, but does not appear to bind on western blot, possibly due to the proximity of the S1 domain to the bottom lobe of the ATD. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001, one-way ANOVA plus Dunnett's post hoc testing.
Antigenic reactivity of CSF and serum from the original cohort of anti-AMPAR encephalitis patients as well as newly identified patients with anti-AMPAR antibodies.
| Original cohort CSF | Original cohort serum | New cohort CSF | New cohort serum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main antigenic reactivity | ||||
| ATD | A1: 2/3 | A1: 0/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 1/7 |
| A2: 6/9 | A2: 7/10 | A2: 1/1 | A2: 5/7 | |
| Top lobe | A1: 0/3 | A1: 2/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 2/7 |
| A2: 1/9 | A2: 4/10 | A2: 1/1 | A2: 4/7 | |
| Bottom lobe | A1: 3/3 | A1: 2/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 0/7 |
| A2: 7/9 | A2: 5/10 | A2: 1/1 | A2: 1/7 | |
| S1 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 0/7 |
| A2: 1/9 | A2: 3/10 | A2: 1/1 | A2: 1/7 | |
| S2 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 3/3 | A1: 1/1 | A1: 6/7 |
| A2: 0/9 | A2: 3/10 | A2: 1/1 | A2: 1/7 | |
| GluN1-ATD | A1: 0/3 | A1: 0/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 0/7 |
| A2: 0/9 | A2: 1/10 | A2: 0/1 | A2: 0/7 | |
| Secondary antigenic reactivity | ||||
| ATD | A1: 0/3 | A1: 2/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 0/7 |
| A2: 1/9 | A2: 2/10 | A2: 0/1 | A2: 0/7 | |
| Top lobe | A1: 0/3 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 0/7 |
| A2: 4/9 | A2: 3/10 | A2: 0/1 | A2: 0/7 | |
| Bottom lobe | A1: 0/3 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 1/7 |
| A2: 2/9 | A2: 3/10 | A2: 0/1 | A2: 2/7 | |
| S1 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 1/7 |
| A2: 3/9 | A2: 5/10 | A2: 0/1 | A2: 2/7 | |
| S2 | A1: 2/3 | A1: 0/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 1/7 |
| A2: 6/9 | A2: 5/10 | A2: 0/1 | A2: 2/7 | |
| GluN1-ATD | A1: 1/3 | A1: 1/3 | A1: 0/1 | A1: 0/7 |
| A2: 1/9 | A2: 4/10 | A2: 1/1 | A2: 0/7 | |
ATD, amino terminal domain; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; A1, GluA1; A2, GluA2.
Figure 3Fusion protein reactivity reveals differences in CSF and serum antibody responses and additional patients with anti-AMPAR antibodies in serum. (A and D) Fusion proteins of GluA1 (A) and GluA2 (D) subdomains (anti-Thioredoxin antibody). (B and C) While patient CSF binds the bottom lobe of the GluA1-ATD as well as the ATD and S1 domains, serum from the same patient shows broader reactivity. (E and F) Fusion protein reactivity of two individuals not previously diagnosed with anti-AMPAR encephalitis reveals reactivity with the GluA2-S1 domain (E) and the GluA2-ATD and top lobe (F).
Clinical features of newly discovered patients with anti-AMPAR antibodies, screened with AMPAR subdomain fusion proteins on western blot.
| Case no. | Sex/age (year) | Symptom presentation | Evidence of immune involvement? | Main GluA subdomain reactivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F/42 | Six month history of altered mental status (memory, behavior, verbal fluency) | Anti-thyroid antibodies | GluA2-all domains (CSF) |
| 2 | M/77 | Convulsions, memory loss, amnesia, limbic encephalitis | None | GluA1-S2 (CSF); GluA1- ATD, top lobe (serum) |
| 3 | M/62 | Convulsions, memory loss, amnesia, auditory hallucinations, limbic encephalitis | None | GluA1-S2 (serum) |
| 4 | M/30 | Convulsions, memory loss, amnesia, abnormal behavior | None | GluA1-S2 (serum) |
| 5 | M/43 | Mental status change | Improved with immunotherapy | GluA2-S1 (serum) |
| 6 | Limbic encephalitis | None | GluA1-S2 (serum) | |
| 7 | F/60 | Seizures, short-term memory loss, limbic encephalitis | None | GluA2-ATD, top lobe (serum) |
| 8 | F/23 | Schizophrenia, seizures | None | GluA1-S2, top lobe (serum) |
| 9 | F/55 | Schizophrenia, seizures | None | GluA1-S2 (serum) |
| 10 | F/7 | Memory loss, limbic encephalitis | CSF: 57 WBCs | GluA2-top lobe (serum) |
| 11 | F/78 | Encephalitis with increasing memory loss | None | GluA2-ATD, top lobe (serum) |
| 12 | F/37 | Altered mental status, encephalitis | Herpes encephalitis | GluA2-ATD, top, bottom, S2 (serum) |
| 13 | M/8 | Seizures, status epilepticus | None | GluA2-ATD (serum) |
| 14 | M/28 | Dizziness, ataxia, hyperthermia | CSF: 8 WBCs | GluA1-S2 (serum) |
| 15 | M/27 | Chorea, facial dyskinesia | CSF: 12 WBCs, onset with flu-like symptoms | GluA2-ATD (serum) |
IgG isolated from serum of patient 5 was used in electrophysiological experiments.
Figure 4mEPSCs differ in cultured neurons treated with IgG from an individual with no anti-AMPAR reactivity (control IgG), an individual from the original cohort of anti-AMPAR encephalitis with GluA2 bottom lobe ATD reactivity (original patient IgG), and an individual with newly discovered anti-AMPAR antibodies in serum directed against the S1 domain (new patient IgG). (A) Example traces of mEPSCs from neurons treated with IgG from different patients. (B and C) Decreased average peak amplitude of mEPSCs in patient-treated neurons (B) is reflected in a decreased frequency of larger amplitude responses in the cumulative frequency histogram (C). (D) Increased interevent interval in neurons treated with patient material indicates a decrease in event frequency, which is more pronounced with original patient IgG treatment. (E) Incubation of patient IgG with GluA2 fusion proteins specifically depletes anti-AMPAR antibodies (Patient IgG, depleted), while incubation with uninduced bacteria does not (Patient IgG, uninduced; bands in GluA2-ext dom and GluA2-S1 lanes; compare to Fig.3E). Anti-Trx, Thioredoxin loading control. Standard, MagicMark internal exposure standard. (F and G) Patient IgG effect on mEPSC amplitude is dependent on the presence of anti-AMPAR antibodies: preincubation with uninduced bacteria (unind) maintains the patient-specific decrease in mEPSC amplitude (F) and decreased percentage of large events (G), while these effects are lost after AMPAR-specific IgG depletion (depl). n = 6–9 cells, P < 0.0001, one-way ANOVA plus Tukey's post hoc testing.