Oligoclonal IgG antibodies in multiple sclerosis target patient-specific peptides.

IgG oligoclonal bands (OCBs) are present in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of more than 95% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), and are considered to be the immunological hallmark of disease. However, the target specificities of the IgG in MS OCBs have remained undiscovered. Nevertheless, evidence that OCBs are associated with increased levels of disease activity and disability support their probable pathological role in MS. We investigated the antigen specificity of individual MS CSF IgG from 20 OCB-positive patients and identified 40 unique peptides by panning phage-displayed random peptide libraries. Utilizing our unique techniques of phage-mediated real-time Immuno-PCR and phage-probed isoelectric focusing immunoblots, we demonstrated that these peptides were targeted by intrathecal oligoclonal IgG antibodies of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. In addition, we showed that these peptides represent epitopes sharing sequence homologies with proteins of viral origin, and proteins involved in cell stress, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes. Although homologous peptides were found within individual patients, no shared peptide sequences were found among any of the 42 MS and 13 inflammatory CSF control specimens. The distinct sets of oligoclonal IgG-reactive peptides identified by individual MS CSF suggest that the elevated intrathecal antibodies may target patient-specific antigens.

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (CNS) and is characterized by inflammatory demyelination and neuronal damage. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) oligoclonal bands (OCBs), a characteristic feature of MS, are associated with increased levels of disease activity and disability [1-3], the conversion from a clinically isolated syndrome to early relapsing-remitting MS [4], greater brain atrophy [5], and increased cortical lesion load/intrathecal inflammation [6]. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that antibodies produced by clonally expanded plasma cells in MS CSF cause demyelination [7], and myelin-specific MS antibodies cause complement-dependent oligodendrocyte loss and demyelination [8]. This evidence supports the notion that intrathecal IgG in MS plays a critical role in disease pathogenesis, consistent with the view that CSF IgG alone remains the best marker of disease activity in individual MS patients [1].

OCBs have been assumed to target antigens relevant to MS pathogenesis, with leading antigen candidates being myelin proteins and/or viruses. However, despite intensive research over the last several decades, the target specificities of the IgG within OCB in MS have remained a mystery. A recent report by Brändle et al. [9] showed that OCBs in MS target ubiquitous intracellular antigens released in cellular debris. We hypothesized that phage-displayed random peptide libraries can be used to identify antigenic peptides specific to intrathecal IgG of MS.

We have previously shown that phage peptides reactive to OCBs are persistent in MS patients [10], suggesting that these peptides can be used as unique tools for investigating the specificity of OCBs and to investigate disease pathogenesis. To further elucidate OCBs specificity in MS, we used 20 OCB-positive MS CSF IgG to screen phage-displayed random peptide libraries and identified 40 high-affinity peptides which were reactive to intrathecal oligoclonal IgG in most MS patients. We also show that these peptide antigens are unique in each patient. Our data suggest that the oligoclonal bands in MS may target patient-specific antigens.

Materials and methods

Patients

With approval of the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board (COMIRB # 00–688), CSF and sera from MS patients and controls were collected at University of Colorado Hospital after obtaining written consent CSFs were immediately centrifuged at 500 x g for 10 minutes, and the supernatant was collected. Both CSF and sera were stored at −80°C until use. The CSF of all MS patients contained oligoclonal bands (OCBs, determined by ARUP Laboratories, SLC, UT). CSF IgG concentration, percent of IgG in CSF, and number of OCBs from each patient are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of MS patients.

Patient #	Patient ID	Sex	CSF IgG (μg/mL)	% IgG	OCBs	Diagnosis
MS #1	MS 02–19	F	68	15.00	6	PPMS
MS #2	MS 02–21	F	65	16.00	3	RRMS
MS #3	MS 02–24	F	161	16.90	1	SPMS
MS #4	MS 03–01	F	70	23.00	6	RRMS
MS #5	MS 03–07	F	86	32.00	3	RRMS
MS #6	MS 04–02	F	219	21.00	5	PPMS
MS #7	MS 04–03	M	92	17.60	2	RRMS
MS #8	MS 04–05	F	46	16.40	+	RRMS
MS #9	MS 04–07	F	31	14.10	+	PPMS
MS #10	MS 05–01	M	92	23.00	+	RRMS
MS #11	MS 05–02	F	72	24.80	19	RRMS
MS #12	MS 05–03	F	57	23.70	21	RRMS
MS #13	MS 05–04	F	68	17.40	22	SPMS
MS #14	MS 05–06	M	28	8.00	14	PPMS
MS #15	MS 05–07	M	98	18.40	8	RRMS
MS #16	MS 05–08	F	112	22.40	19	RRMS
MS #17	MS 05–10	F	88	20.90	28	RRMS
MS #18	MS 06–02	F	12	5.50	12	RRMS
MS #19	MS 06–03	F	32	9.40	13	RRMS
MS #20	MS 06–06	F	127	33.40	19	RRMS

All MS patients whose CSF were used for panning phage-displayed random peptide libraries are included. Major immunological features such as CSF IgG concentration, percent of IgG in the CSF, number of oligoclonal bands and diagnosis are listed. The %IgG is the percent of total protein in CSF that corresponds to IgG. RRMS: relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; SPMS: secondary progressive multiple sclerosis; PPMS: primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

Identification of high affinity phage peptides with MS CSF IgG

Ph.D.-7™ and Ph.D.-12™ Phage Display Peptide Library (New England BioLabs, Beverly, MA) kits were used for affinity selection of specific peptides by all MS CSF. The Ph.D.-12 library is a combinatorial library of random 12-mer peptides fused to a minor coat protein (pIII) of M13 phage. The displayed peptide is expressed at the N-terminus of pIII. The library consists of approximately 109 electroporated (i.e., unique) sequences. Similarly, the Ph.D.-7 library is a combinatorial library consisted of 109 unique random heptapeptides. The panning procedure as well as characterization of positive phage peptides were as described [10]. A streamlined protocol was used to determine phage peptide specificity after affinity selection [10]. Briefly, individual phage plaques were amplified in U96 DeepWell plates and used to determine reactivity to panning MS CSF IgG by 96-well ELISA [11]. Positive clones were confirmed by duplicate phage ELISA with a pre-immune human IgG control. DNA from positive phage clones were purified and sequenced.

Dose–response phage-mediated real-time Immuno-PCR

Phage-mediated real-time Immuno-PCR (IPCR) was performed as described [12]. Reacti-Bind™ wells of protein A-coated clear strip plates (Thermo Scientific, Rockford, IL) were coated with 50 μl of CSF or serum (1 μg/ml IgG) and with pre-immune human IgG (Alpha Diagnostic) in TBS (50 mM Tris–HCl, 150 mM NaCl) at room temperature for two hours, washed with TBS containing 0.05% Tween 20 (TBST), and blocked with 3% nonfat dry milk/0.05% TBST at room temperature for one hour. Serial 10-fold phage dilutions in duplicate were added to MS CSF/serum IgG-coated wells and incubated at room temperature for two hours. After washing, bound phage were lysed in 50 μl of double-deionized water by heating the plates at 95 °C for 15 minutes. Single-stranded phage DNA was released and used as template for real-time PCR in an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). For standard SYBR® Green PCR, each reaction (20 μl) consisted of 1× power SYBR® Green master mix (Applied Biosystems), 750 nM of each M13 phage primer and 4 μl of phage template. Thermal cycle conditions were 95 °C for 10 minutes, followed by 40 cycles at 95 °C for 15 seconds and 60 °C for 45 seconds. Fast real-time PCR was conducted using 1× Fast SYBR® Green master mix, with thermal cycling at 95 °C for 20 seconds, followed by 40 cycles at 95 °C for three seconds and 60 °C for 30 seconds. A control reaction without template was included in each run.

Isoelectric focusing (IEF) immunoblotting

CSF (200–500 μl) was concentrated on an Amicon Ultra 0.5-ml 30 K cellulose centrifugal filter unit at 14,000×g for 30 minutes at room temperature before IEF (SPIFE® IgG IEF kit, Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX) using SPIFE 3000 electrophoresis analyzer. Wicks were soaked in an anode (0.3 M acetic acid) or cathode (1 M NaOH) solution and applied to the edge of a SPIFE® IgG IEF gel. Five microliters of concentrated MS CSF/sera (3–5 μg IgG for phage probe and 100 ng IgG for alkaline phosphatase-conjugated anti-human IgG probe) were loaded into wells of an SPIFE IEF gel. After electrophoresis at 700 V for one hour at 15 °C, samples were transferred to PVDF membranes for 45 minutes, followed by blocking in Helena blocking agent (1 g bovine milk protein/50 ml 1× TBS) for one hour at room temperature. Membranes were incubated with the respective phage peptide at concentrations ranging from 5.0×1010 to 1.5×1011 pfu/ml in 1:10 Helena blocking agent/TBST (blocking buffer) at room temperature for two hours. After washing with 0.05% Tween-TBS, membranes were incubated with mouse anti-M13 mAb at a 1:500 dilution in blocking buffer, followed by incubation with 1:500 dilution of AP conjugated anti-mouse IgG at room temperature for one hour. Membranes were developed with NBT/BCIP substrate. For control blots, membranes were incubated for one hour with 1:1000 dilutions of AP-anti-human IgG (H+L) in blocking buffer, followed by NBT/BCIP detection.

Western blots determining phage peptide reactivity to CSF/serum IgG antibodies of IgG1/IgG3 subclasses

Phage peptides (1011 pfu/per well) in TBS were denatured and reduced by incubation with 1x protein sample buffer containing β-mercaptoethanol (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL) at 95 °C for 10 minutes, and separated in BioRad 4–15% Tris/Glycine gel for 50 minutes at a constant 200 V. The gels were electro-blotted onto PVDF membranes (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) for 60 minutes at a constant 15 V using Trans-Blot® Semi-Dry Cell (Bio-Rad). After blocking for one hour with 1× casein/TBS (Vector Labs, Burlingame, CA) containing 0.1% Tween 20, the blots were incubated with corresponding MS CSF and serum (primary antibodies, at 1 μg/ml) at 4°C overnight. The bound CSF and serum IgG antibodies were then detected with HRP-mouse anti-human IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies (1:5000) respectively. Isotype-specific mouse monoclonal anti-human IgG1 (I2513, clone 8c/6-39) and anti-human IgG3 (I7260, clone HP-6050) antibodies were used (Sigma). This was followed by secondary antibody anti-mouse IgG (H+L) incubation and detection with SuperSignal® West Femto Maximum Sensitivity chemiluminescent substrate (Pierce Biotechnology).

For detection of phage pIII protein, duplicate membranes were incubated with a 1: 25,000 dilution of mouse anti-M13 pIII mAb (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA), followed by a 1: 25,000 dilution of HRP-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (Vector Labs) as secondary Ab and with SuperSignal® West Pico substrate for chemiluminescent detection (Pierce Biotechnology).

Quantifying band intensity of western blots

The FluorChem Q™ system was used to detect the signal produced by addition of chemiluminescent substrate to probed blots. Digital images of the blots were collected by the FluorChem Q at several different lengths of time of exposure to optimize for image clarity and quality. The images were then analyzed quantitatively by AlphaView software for FluorChem™ systems.

DNA sequencing and database searches

Single-stranded phage DNA was purified and sequenced to deduce the amino acid sequence of the peptides. Consensus peptides were identified by sequence alignment using ClustalW (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/clustalw/). To identify candidate proteins, the most abundant peptides panned by CSF from each patient were searched in BLAST (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) using the Swiss Prot protein sequence database.

Results

Specific phage peptides were identified by CSF from 14/20 OCB-positive MS patients, but no common peptide sequences were found

We studied a total of 20 MS patients to investigate peptide antigen specificity of the intrathecal IgG. These patients were all positive for oligoclonal bands. Table 1 lists key clinical immunological features of the patients, including CSF IgG concentration, percent of IgG in the CSF, and the number of oligoclonal bands. We applied Phage-Displayed Random Peptide Libraries technologies (Ph.D.-7™ and Ph.D.-12™, New England Biolab) for a minimum of three rounds of panning with MS CSF for this study. After three to five rounds of affinity selection with each of the 20 MS CSF, phage peptides were analyzed for specificity using our streamlined high throughput protocol as previously described [10]. 14 MS CSF selected positive phage peptides, while the CSF from six MS patients failed to identify any positive phage clones with a repeated panning approach, as well as using additional ultra-fast selection of peptide method [13]. All positive phage clones were amplified, and the phage DNA was purified and sequenced to deduce peptide sequences [11]. A total of 40 unique peptides were identified by each of the 14 MS CSF IgG, ranging from one to six peptides per patient. Although homologous peptides were identified within each MS CSF, no shared peptide sequences were found among MS patients (Table 2).

Table 2

Unique peptides were identified from each MS CSF IgG.

Patient #	Peptide Sequence	Pt ID	Patient #	Peptide Sequence	Pt ID
MS #1	N N L T Q S K F L R L Q	MS02-19*	MS #8		MS04-5
	S T L S E S K V N R L L		MS #9	K P A N L P P W G G Y S	MS04-7
	N A L T E S K Y V K L L		MS #10	S L D P Y Q V R W A R H1	MS05-1
	T N T L T P H K L Q M L			D N L Y P M H R T G I R
MS #2	NONE	MS02-21
MS #3	E F G T F L W1,2	MS02-24*	MS #11	A T L T A A T S G S T V	MS05-2
	K F G T A L W		MS #12	I P Y H R F P	MS05-3
	Q F G T F L W		MS #13	W G L D N P P	MS05-4*
	S F G T A L W			A P A H Q I P
MS #4	NONE	MS03-1		A P A H H P P1,2
MS #5	H I D V S R P W R V T G	MS03-7*		A P P H V M P
	T A Q D I S R P W W F P			G P V N M N L
	S L G S K M D I S R P W1		MS #14	F H L P W M Q	MS05-6*
	Q H N V S R P W V L F T		MS #15	L I S I S E Q R A A L I	MS05-7
	S V S V G M K P S P R P		MS #16	L S P D Y L R W I R L N	MS05-8
	T I M D I S R T W T K V			G W T H F D K P I G T L
MS #6	F S K T E P L S P S W F	MS04-2*		A R T H F D A P P L W N
	N P V E H W L A V L P T		MS #17	NONE	MS05-10
	N N L T Q S K F L R L Q		MS #18	NONE	MS06-2
	H W R H W L A D T A F P		MS #19	F Y S H S F P P	MS06-3
MS #7	V L N W H P F1,2	MS04-3*	MS #20	NONE	MS06-6
	M F N W H P F

*peptides were published previously [10]. No shared peptide sequences were found between MS patients.

1Phage peptides used for western blots in.

1,2 Phage peptides used for both western blots and for screening MS and IC CSF (Fig A and B in S1 Fig).

Phage peptides target intrathecally synthesized oligoclonal IgG and were recognized by IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses

To determine whether CSF-selected phage peptides were specific for intrathecally synthesized IgG in MS patients, we tested equal amounts of CSF and paired serum IgG (50 ng IgG per well) for peptide binding specificity. We utilized our highly sensitive dose-dependent phage mediated immuno-PCR (phage-IPCR) method [12]. MS serum and CSF were coated onto wells of protein A plates, followed by addition of serial 10-fold dilutions of corresponding phage peptides to each well, and phage binding specificity was assessed by real-time PCR [10]. Phage peptides selected by CSF IgG of all 14 MS patients bound more to CSF IgG than to serum IgG of the same patient in a dose-dependent manner, and there is a significant difference of phage binding between CSF and serum (p = 0.0002). Fig 1A and 1B show a representative data of greater binding of phage peptides to CSF IgG than to paired serum IgG in two MS patients (1A: MS 02–19; 1B MS 03–7). Fig 1C is the summary data demonstrating intrathecal IgG binding of the peptides to all 14 MS CSF tested. These results demonstrate that the phage peptides were preferentially targeted by intrathecally-synthesized IgG in MS CSF.

Fig 1

MS phage peptides target intrathecally synthesized IgG in dose-dependent manner by phage-IPCR.

Representative paired MS serum and CSF, as well as pre-immune human IgG control (50 μl at IgG concentration of 1 μl/ml), were coated in duplicate wells of protein A-plates before addition of the corresponding phage peptides (at serial 10-fold dilutions starting with 108pfu) each well. Bound phage was determined by real-time PCR. Phage peptides bound 5-10-fold higher to MS CSF IgG than to paired serum IgG in a dose-dependent manner. Pre-immune human IgG served as negative control. Error bars represent standard deviation. A, patient 1 (02–19); B, patient 5 (03–7); Data represent at least three independent experiments. C. There is a significant higher binding of phage peptides to CSF than paired serum (p = 0,0002, paired Student’s T-Test). Phage peptides (105−108) were assessed for binding by IPCR as described above.

To further demonstrate that the intrathecal IgG-specific phage peptides were recognized by oligoclonal IgG bands, we examined phage binding specificity to MS CSF and paired serum by isoelectric focusing (IEF) immunoblotting using phage peptides as probes. Paired CSF and serum were separated on agarose IEF gels, transferred to PVDF membranes, and probed with corresponding phage peptides [10]. In all seven MS patients, phage peptides were recognized by multiple high-intensity IgG bands in the CSF, while fewer, less intense, or no bands were detected in the paired serum (Fig 2). To confirm that the IgG bands recognized by phage peptides represent oligoclonal bands in CSF, duplicate serum and CSF IEF blots were probed with anti-human IgG and are shown in Fig 2 next to the phage blots for comparison. All peptide-reactive bands in the CSF corresponded to bands of oligoclonal IgG detected by anti-human IgG antibody.

Fig 2

Phage probed isoelectric focused blots demonstrate that phage peptides were recognized by MS oligoclonal IgG bands.

Paired MS CSF and serum (3–5 μg total IgG) from seven MS patients were resolved on agarose IEF gels and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes. The blots were probed with corresponding phage peptides (1010 pfu/ml) and incubated with mouse anti-pIII antibody followed by AP-anti-mouse antibody. Duplicate blots were probed with anti-human IgG as positive controls to reveal total oligoclonal bands. Peptides selected by MS IgG recognized multiple high-density oligoclonal IgG bands in the CSF, but weaker and reduced number of bands in the paired serum. Arrows indicate extra bands detected in the CSF. Patient ID was listed under each blot.

Additionally, we carried out Western blots of purified phage to determine the IgG subclass specificity of these peptides. Phage (1010 pfu/well) were separated on a 4–15% SDS-PAGE gel, blotted, and probed with corresponding CSF and paired serum as primary antibodies, followed by incubation with mouse anti-human IgG1 and IgG3 secondary antibodies. Shown here in Fig 3 are representative blots from two patients MS #7 (MS 04–3), and MS#13 (05–4). Phage peptides were recognized by both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses with equal band intensity in both CSF and serum (Fig 3A). Band intensity analysis showed that the ratios of IgG1 band between CSF and serum were comparable as ratios of IgG3 band between CSF and serum (Fig 3B), suggesting that phage peptides are recognized by IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies in both CSF and paired serum of MS patients.

Fig 3

Western blots show that the intrathecal IgG-reactive phage peptides were recognized by both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses MS CSF and serum.

A. SDS-PAGE Western blots of phage peptides show that they were reactive to both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses in paired CSF and serum of MS patients. Phage peptides (1010/well) were separated on a 4–15% SDS-PAGE gel, blotted, and probed with corresponding total CSF and serum (primary antibody) of MS patients from which the original phage peptides were identified. The bound CSF and serum antibodies were then probed with mouse anti-human IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies, followed by anti-mouse-HRP antibodies and detected with SuperSignal® West Femto chemiluminescent substrate. Representative phage shown here are phage peptide from MS #7 (MS 04–3 B1) and phage peptide from MS #13 (MS07-12 B11). B. Band intensity analysis of phage Western blots with IgG1/IgG3 probes showed that the ratio of IgG1 band between CSF and serum was similar as ratio of IgG3 band between CSF and serum. C. Peptides used for the western blots. *same as peptide selected by #13 (MS05-4) [10].

Screening large number of MS CSF using phage-IPCR did not reveal any shared binding specificity of the intrathecal phage peptides

To determine whether these selected phage peptides shared common antigen bindings to MS intrathecal IgG, we screened 42 MS CSF and 13 inflammatory controls (acute viral meningitis, Behcet’s disease, paraneoplastic syndrome, viral meningitis, Cryptococcal meningitis, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, neurosyphilis, sarcoid, VZV myelopathy and radiculomyelitis) with representative phage peptides. Patient CSF characteristic including IgG concentration, diagnosis, and OCBs are included in Supplemental data (S1 and S2 Tables). With highly sensitive and specific phage mediated real-time IPCR, we failed to identify any binding reactivity of the peptides as common antigens to MS CSF nor IC CSF (S1 Fig), suggesting that these peptides are patient-specific.

Protein database searches with selected MS peptides

Representative peptides were used to search for homologous sequences in the protein database (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast) to identify corresponding protein candidates. Because of the short length of the peptide sequences, numerous candidate proteins were revealed including proteins of viral, bacterial and other origins. Once again, no common shared protein/peptides were identified. Table 3 shows a list of candidate proteins from human and bacteria. The most abundant candidates are proteins involved in cellular stress, transcription factors, membrane proteins, neuronal proteins, enzymes, and immunoglobulin fragments with peptide sequence identities ranged 62%–100%).

Table 3

Protein database search results with selected MS peptides.

Peptide/Patient ID	Homology to known proteins (Species)	Identities	Sequence ID
S T L S E S K V N R L L	>molecular chaperone DnaK (Euhalothece sp.)	9/12(75%)	PNW58714.1
(MS02-19)	>zinc finger, DHHC-type containing 20, isoform CRA_d (human)	9/10(90%)	EAX08310.1
K F G T A L W	>ABC transporter permease (Butyrivibrio sp.)	6/7(86%)	WP_026507654.1
(MS02-24)	>neurofascin isoform X1 (human)	6/6(100%)	XP_024310051.1
S L G S K M D I S R P W	>GTP-binding protein (unclassified Staphylococcus)	9/12(75%)	WP_070485309.1
(MS03-7)	> HSPC019 (human)	7/8(88%)	DAA00039.1
N P V E H W L A V L P T	>ATPase, partial (Micromonospora sp.)	8/9(89%)	WP_109816073.1
(MS04-2)	>immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region, partial (human)	6/6(100%)	AIZ70805.1
V L N W H P F	>molecular chaperone DnaJ (Escherichia fergusonii)	6/6(100%)	WP_046083568.1
(MS04-3)	>NADPH oxidase 3 (human)	5/6(83%)	NP_056533.1
S L D P Y Q V R W A R H	>alpha-amylase (Pseudopropionibacterium propionicum)	8/9(89%)	WP_061787838.1
(MS05-1)	>N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase (human)	8/13(62%)	SJM34704.1
A T L T A A T S G S T V	>carbohydrate ABC transporter permease (Bacillus horikoshii)	9/11(82%)	WP_088019463.1
(MS05-2)	>immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region, partial (human)	9/11(82%)	BAI51901.1
I P Y H R F P	>acetylornithine deacetylase (unclassified Bosea)	6/7(86%)	WP_114828852.1
(MS05-3)	>mucin 2, oligomeric mucus/gel-forming, isoform CRA_a (human)	5/5(100%)	EAX02421.1
A P A H H P P	>glycosyltransferase (Streptomyces rimosus)	7/7(100%)	WP_003986546.1
(MS05-4)	>zinc-finger homeodomain protein 4 (human)	6/6(100%)	BAE96598.1
L I S I S E Q R A A L I	>nuclear pore complex protein nup155 (Hymenolepis microstoma)	9/11(82%)	CDS29450.1
(MS05-7)	>regulating synaptic membrane exocytosis protein 2 isoform X1 (human)	7/9(78%)	XP_011515697.1
G W T H F D K P I G T L	>ABC transporter substrate-binding protein (Ochrobactrum sp.)	8/11(73%)	WP_095444449.1
(MS05-8)	>immunoglobulin E heavy chain variable region, partial (human)	9/13(69%)	ACZ04682.1
F Y S H S F P P	>autotransporter domain-containing protein (Nonlabens arenilitoris)	7/8(88%)	WP_105070814.1
(MS06-3)	>Atrophin 1 (human)	6/7(86%)	AAH51795.1
Y Y P F T S M G P A Q S	>T-cell leukemia homeobox protein 3-like (Limulus Polyphemus)	10/14(71%)	XP_013794488.1
(MS07-11)	>interferon, gamma-inducible protein 16 (human)	8/11(73%)	EAW52802.1

Exemplary peptides were used to search for homologous sequences in the protein database (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE=Proteins). Listed are 2 examples from aligned proteins (one from bacteria, and one from human).

Discussion

We previously showed that there is a temporal stability of peptide antigens for the intrathecal IgG antibodies in the CSF of patients with MS, suggesting the importance of applying a phage peptide approach to identify targets of the intrathecal IgG [10]. In this study, we have expanded the sample size for screening which includes CSF from 20 OCB-positive MS patients for panning phage-displayed random peptide libraries. A total of 40 unique, specific peptides were identified by 14 MS CSF, and no peptide sequences were shared among the peptides identified. We demonstrated that these phage peptides were targeted by intrathecal oligoclonal IgG antibodies/oligoclonal bands. Furthermore, these peptides reacted to both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. Phage mediated immuno-PCR screening of 42 MS and 13 inflammatory control CSF revealed that no MS specific peptide antigens were found. We postulate that the oligoclonal IgG antibodies in MS may target patient specific antigens, and that the significance of OCB may not due to the antigens specific to antibodies in MS.

Oligoclonal bands can be detected in the CSF of most (>95%) patients with MS, persist throughout the course of the disease, and are a diagnostic hallmark of the disease [14]. The critical role of intrathecal IgG/oligoclonal bands in MS disease pathogenesis is supported by mounting evidence. For example, actively demyelinating lesions are commonly associated with prominent deposition of immunoglobulins and complement activation products [15-18], OCBs are shown to be associated with increased levels of disease activity and disability [1,3,6], a greater risk of second attack [19], the conversion from a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) to early RRMS [4,20], and greater brain atrophy [5,6]. Moreover, the presence of OCB in CSF in the specific clinical context is still the most reliable parameter to confirm the likely diagnosis of MS [21,22], supporting the critical pathological role of intrathecal IgG antibodies in MS.

Intrathecal production of antibodies against viruses (measles, rubella, and varicella zoster virus), bacteria and CNS components in MS have up until now shown inconsistent or negative results [23-25]. Further, recombinant antibodies generated from clonally expanded B cells/plasma cells in the CSF and from laser capture microdissection of B cells in MS lesions failed to identify MS specific antigens [26,27]. A recent report showed that OCB in MS target ubiquitous intracellular antigens released in cellular debris [9].

We used a combination of two phage peptide libraries (Ph.D. 12 and Ph.D. 7) and extensive panning strategies [11-13] with increased rounds of panning (up to six rounds) and stringency, and identified 40 specific phage peptides from 70 percent of the MS CSF (14 out of 20) used. Significantly, these phage peptides were recognized by intrathecal IgG/oligoclonal bands as demonstrated by our techniques of phage-probed IEF and phage-mediated immune-PCR, suggesting that phage peptides can be a unique tool for investigating antigen specificity of MS oligoclonal bands which may give critical clues as to the disease causation. Despite the high specificity of the intrathecal IgG specific phage peptides, the highly sensitive and specific phage-mediated immuno-PCR technique used here failed to identify common peptide reactivity shared by all MS CSF screened, implying that MS intrathecal IgG antibodies may target patient specific antigens. Our data are consistent with previous studies and support the notion that the disease targets for OCBs in MS have yet to be reproducibly demonstrated [28,29]. Failing to identify MS specific targets for OCBs does not diminish its crucial roles in disease pathogenesis, as the presence of large amount of IgG antibodies are key features of MS lesions [30,31], and have been shown to be associated with increased disease activity and brain atrophy [3,6]. Over 20 times more IgG were extracted from MS plaques than those from control brain [32]. Furthermore, significant higher amounts of bound IgG (oligoclonal in nature) were eluted from MS brains with both high and low pH buffer [30,32,33], and the consistent presence of complement, IgG antibodies, and Fcγ receptors (FcR) in phagocytic macrophages suggests that antibody- and complement-mediated myelin phagocytosis is the dominant mechanism of demyelination in established MS [34]. We have previously analyzed clinical laboratory parameters from 91 patients with MS and showed that in MS there was not a linear relationship between the numbers of OCBs and CSF IgG concentration [35]. The complex relationship between OCBs and other CSF parameters suggests that at certain concentrations, the IgG antibody in the CNS is being sequestered or aggregated to form IgG complexes (as bound IgG) and therefore unable to contribute to the number of OCBs, with the relationships become negatively associated [35].

IgG1 and IgG3 are the first 2 Ig classes after IgM. They have superior ability to activate effector functions. Both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses were found to be present in the same OCB in MS CSF [36,37], and the elevation of IgG1 and IgG3 indices in MS were found more frequently than the elevation of the general IgG index [1]. Furthermore, patients with a relapse were significantly more frequently seropositive for anti-MOG and anti-MBP IgG3 than those in remission [38]. It would be interesting to investigate IgA, IgG2 and IgG4 in MS but we did not carry out these experiments due to the limitation of study scope. Using western blots analysis, we showed that the intrathecal phage peptides were recognized by IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies in both CSF and paired serum of MS patients, with equal band intensities, indicating that both subclasses could be important for disease. Both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses have been found in the intrathecal IgG [39] and in the same oligoclonal bands [36], indicating that the OCBs may be consisted of at least IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. Further, molecular sequencing data revealed that in MS clonally related and even the same IgG-VH sequences are found in multiple OCBs band [40], further supporting the notion that OCBs may be represented by multiple IgG subclasses.

The distinct sets of oligoclonal IgG-reactive peptides identified by individual MS CSF suggest that the elevated intrathecal antibodies may target patient-specific antigens, it also indicates the limitation of this approach. Other limitations include the relatively short nature of the linear phage display peptides that limits recognition of more extensive secondary or tertiary structures/epitopes. The discovered “mimotopes” might not be the real antigens, which prevents us from discovering concordant antibody binding between patients. Other advance technologies might be more successful. Nonetheless, further investigations are needed to determine characteristics and the role of the increased intrathecal antibodies in MS.

A. There is no shared and differential phage peptide binding between MS and IC CSF. IPCR was performed to screen 42 MS and 13 IC CSF with pooled phage peptides MS05-4A6, MS05-4A2, and MS04-3B1. p = 0.47. B. Summary of S1 Fig. A. There is no shared and differential phage peptide binding between MS and IC CSF.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

MS CSF used for IPCR screening.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Inflammatory control (IC) patients used for IPCR CSF screening.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Original images for IEF and western blots.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-24317

Oligoclonal IgG Antibodies in Multiple Sclerosis Target Patient-Specific Peptides

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Xiaoli Yu

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the all points raised during the review process.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 3 months. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Brahim Nait-Oumesmar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

2.

PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper. The following should be addressed:

Lines 21, 144, 266, 294, and 299: The authors can’t claim “high affinity” –affinity was not tested.

The authors can’t emphasize that “no shared peptide sequences were found among MS patients” (lines 160, 267), as MS#10 and #11 share peptide ATLTAATSGSTV (Table 2).

Line 171: *peptides were published previously (Yu 2011): Were the same CSF samples screened again for antigenic peptides? Or re-analyzed? Clarification is needed. Peptides do not overlap 1:1 with the 2011 publication, as additional peptides are added. Some patients, e.g. MS04-3, MS05-6 have asterisks in table 2, but were not listed in 2011.

Fig. 1 needs statistics. Is the difference between CSF and serum significant? Which test was used?

Lane 181: “Phage peptides selected by CSF IgG of all 14 MS patients bound more to CSF IgG than to serum IgG of the same patient” -> but Fig. 1 shows only results from 2 patients -> if tested, additional data must be listed.

Fig. 1: Both patients, MS02-19 and MS03-7 were already investigated in Yu 2011. The same experiment for the same patients has been shown in Yu, 2011, Fig. 7. Clarify what is new!

Fig. 2: the Anti-HIgG-stained CSF samples don’t look oligoclonal but rather polyclonal, however it could be due to low resolution of the pre-prints. Their claim that “peptide-specific OCBs correspond to some of the major bands in the OCB pattern of the MS patients detected by anti-human IgG” (Figure legend 2, lane 213), cannot be corroborated by the low-resolution images.

Fig. 3: Why was IgG1 and IgG3 chosen? Were other classes tried as well? If so, please mention. IgG3 and IgG1 are the first 2 Ig classes after IgM. Even more interesting would be IgA, IgG2 and IgG4, to check if class-switch occurs towards IgA and beyond and to check if mucosal-associated B cells (IgA) traffick to the CSF space. -> Discussion, line 325 onwards, discuss class switching and relevance/properties of Ig-classes.

Fig. 3: Line 220: the authors claim “representative blots” from patients MS #7 and #13, but Fig. 3A shows only representative plots from MS #07.

Did they test all phage peptides with CSF and Serum of all patients? Or only the 5 peptides that are listed in Fig. 3B? Which peptides are those? Abbreviations (A3, B1, G1…) do not correspond to any reference within the manuscript.

Are the anti-IgG1 and anti-IgG3 antibodies isotype-specific and cross-absorbed? The company and catalogue-number should be listed in the methods section.

Table 3: species should be listed for each protein.

Discussion: Multiple grammatical errors and incomplete sentences. Revise.

Line 32-34 and 272-274: the paper does not deliver any evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of immune complexes. The speculation should be taken out of the abstract and a reference must be provided in the discussion. Lines 336 onwards: The authors mention IgG1-IgG3 immune complexes, but are the complexes specific to these classes? Do they want to emphasize lack of low-immunogenic IgG4? No evidence is presented for it. Less emphasis should be spent on the immune complex hypothesis, but rather on the specific peptides they present and on the relevance of their corresponding proteins.

Lines 305-309: Instead of this bold claim, the authors should discuss the limitations of their phage display approach: the discovered “mimotopes” might not be the real antigens, which prevents them from discovering concordant antibody binding between patients. Phage display is a relevant method, but only one of many and others might be more successful.

Minor corrections:

Line 26: “viral” origin – no viral proteins are discussed in detail in the manuscript.

Methods paragraph line 70-77 should contain basic information on Ph.D phage displays: How many sequences included? Random sequences? Peptide length? Were both displays used for each sample?

Line 167: RPMS: should rather be called SPMS. Patient 3 is already called SPMS in the table.

Lane 201: “oligoclonal clonal”

Lane 241: If possible list MS and control patients in table with additional characteristics (µg/ml IgG in CSF, OCB present in those MS patients, too?)

Line 244: Were all described phage peptides tested? If possible, show data in suppl. figure together with positive controls.

Line 257: replace “representative” with “exemplary”.

Line 264: incomplete sentence.

Line 287: incomplete sentence.

Line 310: singular – plural

Line 314: significantly

Line 325: western blot analysis.

Line 327, 332, revise.

Reviewer #2: Strengths: The investigators aim was to examine the antigen specificity of 20 MS patients whose CSF showed the presence of oligoclonal IgG bands (OCB), and identify 40 high affinity unique peptides by panning phage-displayed random peptide libraries. Here the authors have extended their preliminary studies to investigate the specificity of OCBs. The data showed that within individual MS patients, there was no shared peptide sequences were found in 42 MS or 13 controls. The aim is clearly focused, and experimental work is well carried out. The results are well presented. Although the rationale of the work has been clearly described, the authors did not write a clear hypothesis.

Weaknesses: The reviewer is wondering whether the authors have examined the peptide antigens in individual MS patients during disease activity. Longitudinal studies in individual MS patients might provide us better understanding of the specificity of OCBs contributing to disease pathogenesis. Page 16: The authors postulated that the significance of OCBs may be due to the elevated amount of antibodies which form immune complexes. Here the authors have presented no preliminary data. The discussion is too long, and not relevant to the present study. My recommendation is to publish the article in a form of short communication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mehta Pankaj D

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Dec 2019

Response to Reviewers

We thank the reviewers for the critical comments. Our responses are listed after each questions/comments.

Reviewer #1:

Lines 21, 144, 266, 294, and 299: The authors can’t claim “high affinity” –affinity was not tested.

In the revised manuscript, we replaced “high affinity” with words of “specificity” or “specific” (lines 21, 151, 284, 313, and 318).

The authors can’t emphasize that “no shared peptide sequences were found among MS patients” (lines 160, 267), as MS#10 and #11 share peptide ATLTAATSGSTV (Table 2).

It was a mistake to include the peptide ATLTAATSGSTV selected by MS#11 into the peptide list of MS#10. We removed this peptide from the list of MS#10 in the revised manuscript.

Line 171: *peptides were published previously (Yu 2011): Were the same CSF samples screened again for antigenic peptides? Or re-analyzed? Clarification is needed. Peptides do not overlap 1:1 with the 2011 publication, as additional peptides are added. Some patients, e.g. MS04-3, MS05-6 have asterisks in table 2, but were not listed in 2011.

The same CSF samples published previously (Yu 2011) were not screened again but were re-analyzed. Peptides selected by MS04-3 and MS05-6 were published previously in our publication “Intrathecally synthesized IgG in multiple sclerosis cerebrospinal fluid recognizes identical epitopes over time” (Yu et al., 2011), but an incorrect paper was cited as there were several papers by Dr. Yu in 2011. The correct reference (Yu 2011) was included in the revised manuscript (line 413).

Fig. 1 needs statistics. Is the difference between CSF and serum significant? Which test was used?

Yes, there is a significant difference between CSF and serum (p=0.0002) (line 185-189). Paired Student’s T-Test was used (line 198-201).

Lane 181: “Phage peptides selected by CSF IgG of all 14 MS patients bound more to CSF IgG than to serum IgG of the same patient” -> but Fig. 1 shows only results from 2 patients -> if tested, additional data must be listed.

We included a new phage IPCR figure (Fig. 1C) containing all phage peptides tested and demonstrated that there is significantly higher phage peptide binding to MS CSF IgG compared to paired serum IgG.

Fig. 1: Both patients, MS02-19 and MS03-7 were already investigated in Yu 2011. The same experiment for the same patients has been shown in Yu, 2011, Fig. 7. Clarify what is new!

In the current manuscript, we showed that phage peptides selected by MS02-19 and MS03-7 were recognized by intrathecal IgG by phage-mediated immune PCR (Fig.1) and by IEF immunoblotting which were not shown in our previous publication.

Fig. 2: …the Anti-HIgG-stained CSF samples don’t look oligoclonal but rather polyclonal, however it could be due to low resolution of the pre-prints. Their claim that “peptide-specific OCBs correspond to some of the major bands in the OCB pattern of the MS patients detected by anti-human IgG” (Figure legend 2, lane 213), cannot be corroborated by the low-resolution images.

We tried and failed to improve the resolution of the IEF blots. In the revised manuscript, the sentence “peptide-specific OCBs correspond to some of the major bands in the OCB pattern of the MS patients detected by anti-human IgG” was deleted (line 216-217).

Fig. 3: Why was IgG1 and IgG3 chosen? Were other classes tried as well? If so, please mention. IgG3 and IgG1 are the first 2 Ig classes after IgM. Even more interesting would be IgA, IgG2 and IgG4, to check if class-switch occurs towards IgA and beyond and to check if mucosal-associated B cells (IgA) traffick to the CSF space. -> Discussion, line 325 onwards, discuss class switching and relevance/properties of Ig-classes.

We did not test other IgG subclasses. We chose IgG 1 and IgG 3 due to the following evidence. IgG3 and IgG1 are the first 2 next Ig subclasses after IgM, with different Fc receptor binding and affinities. They have superior ability to activate effector functions such as C1q binding for complement activation. Both IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses were found to be present in the same OCB in MS CSF (Grimaldi et al., 1986, Losy J, Mehta, et al., 1990), and the elevation of IgG1 and IgG3 indices in MS were found more frequently than the elevation of the general IgG index (Caroscio et al., 1986). Furthermore, patients with a relapse were significantly more frequently seropositive for anti-MOG and anti-MBP IgG3 than those in remission (Garcia-Merino et al., 1986). It would be interesting to investigate IgA, IgG2 and IgG4 in MS but we did not carry out these experiments due to the limitation of the study scope (line 344-350).

Fig. 3: Line 220: the authors claim “representative blots” from patients MS #7 and #13, but Fig. 3A shows only representative plots from MS #07.

Did they test all phage peptides with CSF and Serum of all patients? Or only the 5 peptides that are listed in Fig. 3B? Which peptides are those?

Abbreviations (A3, B1, G1…) do not correspond to any reference within the manuscript.

A representative blot from patient MS #13 is included in the revised manuscript. Only the phage peptides listed in Fig. 3B were tested. Peptide sequences used for the western blots were included (Fig. 3C) in the revised manuscript.

Are the anti-IgG1 and anti-IgG3 antibodies isotype-specific and cross-absorbed? The company and catalogue-number should be listed in the methods section.

Isotype-specific mouse monoclonal anti-human IgG1 (I2513, clone 8c/6-39) and anti-human IgG3 (I7260, clone HP-6050) antibodies were used (Sigma) (line 128-130).

Table 3: species should be listed for each protein.

Species are included in Table 3 in the revised manuscript.

Discussion: Multiple grammatical errors and incomplete sentences. Revise.

We revised and shortened the discussion (per Reviewer 2’s request as well).

Line 32-34 and 272-274: the paper does not deliver any evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of immune complexes. The speculation should be taken out of the abstract and a reference must be provided in the discussion. Lines 336 onwards: The authors mention IgG1-IgG3 immune complexes, but are the complexes specific to these classes? Do they want to emphasize lack of low-immunogenic IgG4? No evidence is presented for it. Less emphasis should be spent on the immune complex hypothesis, but rather on the specific peptides they present and on the relevance of their corresponding proteins.

The speculation of “Immune complexes” and related sentences were removed from the revised manuscript (line 31-34; 353-354; 356; 359-360; 369-379). In the revised manuscript, we eliminated or lessoned downplayed the immune complex hypothesis, and emphasized on the specific peptides and the relevance of their corresponding proteins.

Lines 305-309: Instead of this bold claim, the authors should discuss the limitations of their phage display approach: the discovered “mimotopes” might not be the real antigens, which prevents them from discovering concordant antibody binding between patients. Phage display is a relevant method, but only one of many and others might be more successful.

The points are well taken. The revised manuscript includes a discussion on the limitation of our approach (line 347-352).

Minor corrections:

Line 26: “viral” origin – no viral proteins are discussed in detail in the manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we added “including proteins of viral, bacterial and other species (line 262).

Methods paragraph line 70-77 should contain basic information on Ph.D phage displays: How many sequences included? Random sequences? Peptide length? Were both displays used for each sample?

The revised manuscript includes basic information of Phage-display libraries used (line 72-76).

Line 167: RPMS: should rather be called SPMS. Patient 3 is already called SPMS in the table.

In the revised manuscript, SPMS replaced RPMS.

Lane 201: “oligoclonal clonal”

In the revised manuscript, the mistake was corrected (line 209).

Lane 241: If possible list MS and control patients in table with additional characteristics (µg/ml IgG in CSF, OCB present in those MS patients, too?)

MS and control patients were included in Supplemental data. Table 1 lists MS patients used for phage peptide screening and table 2 contains inflammatory control patients used for phage peptide screening.

Only representative phage peptides MS02-24-A6, MS04-3-B1, and MS05-4-A2 were tested. Data are shown in Supplemental data Fig. 1A and 1B.

Line 257: replace “representative” with “exemplary”.

Line 264: incomplete sentence.

Line 287: incomplete sentence.

Line 310: singular – plural

Line 314: significantly

Line 325: western blot analysis.

Line 327, 332, revise.

All these pointes were addressed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Although the rationale of the work has been clearly described, the authors did not write a clear hypothesis.

In the revised manuscript, we added “We hypothesize that phage-displayed random peptide libraries can be used to identify antigenic peptides specific to intrathecal IgG of MS” in the introduction (line 51-52).

The reviewer is wondering whether the authors have examined the peptide antigens in individual MS patients during disease activity. Longitudinal studies in individual MS patients might provide us better understanding of the specificity of OCBs contributing to disease pathogenesis.

We agree. Longitudinal studies in individual MS patients of antigenic peptides to OCBs were examined and published (Intrathecally synthesized IgG in multiple sclerosis cerebrospinal fluid recognizes identical epitopes over time) (Yu et al., 2011). We showed that peptides recognized multiple IgG bands in the longitudinal MS CSFs and importantly, more OCBs were revealed in the second CSF, suggesting that these peptides are valuable tools for us to understand OCB contribution to disease pathogenesis (Fig. 2, Yu et al., 2011).

Page 16: The authors postulated that the significance of OCBs may be due to the elevated amount of antibodies which form immune complexes. Here the authors have presented no preliminary data. The discussion is too long, and not relevant to the present study. My recommendation is to publish the article in a form of short communication.

In the revised manuscript, we eliminated “immune complexes” and all related sentences. We shortened the discussion and remove sentences regarding our postulations. As PLOS ONE does not have word count or page length restrictions, it is not clear that defined short communications are in the repertoire of types of articles the journal publishes. Thus, we feel that a full-length manuscript would present our data more clearly instead of a short communication.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jan 2020

Oligoclonal IgG Antibodies in Multiple Sclerosis Target Patient-Specific Peptides

PONE-D-19-24317R1

Dear Dr.Xiaoli,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been now judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Brahim Nait-Oumesmar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. The comments all were reviewed and answered with care. The manuscript is a valuable addition to our understanding of the specficity and diversity of the immune response in MS.

Reviewer #2: All my review comments have been adequately addressed by the authors, therefore the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Lawrence Steinman

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mehta Pankaj D

13 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-24317R1

Oligoclonal IgG Antibodies in Multiple Sclerosis Target Patient-Specific Peptides

Dear Dr. Yu:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Brahim Nait-Oumesmar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE