| Literature DB >> 35625736 |
Teodor Svedung Wettervik1, Dick Folkvaljon1, Torsten Gordh2, Eva Freyhult3, Kim Kultima4, Hans Ericson1, Sami Abu Hamdeh1.
Abstract
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a severe type of facial pain. A neurovascular conflict between cranial nerve V and a nearby vessel is the main pathophysiological mechanism, but additional factors are likely necessary to elicit TN. In this study, the primary aim was to explore differences in protein expression in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of TN patients in relation to controls.Entities:
Keywords: cerebrospinal fluid; demyelination; neuroinflammation; trigeminal neuralgia
Year: 2022 PMID: 35625736 PMCID: PMC9138315 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10050998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Demographic data in TN patients and controls.
| Variables | TN | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, n | 16 | 16 | |
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 66 (55–69) | 67 (52–72) | 1.00 |
| Sex (female/male), n (%) | 7/9 (44/56%) | 6/10 (38/63%) | 0.72 |
| BMI, median (IQR) | 28 (24–31) | 28 (24–31) | 0.93 |
| Tobacco use, n (%) | 4 (25%) | 8 (50%) | 0.14 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 8 (50%) | 9 (56%) | 0.72 |
| Cardiovascular morbidity, n (%) | 2 (13%) | 5 (31%) | 0.22 |
| Ischemic heart disease, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 3 (19%) | |
| Stroke, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) | |
| Peripheral, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (6%) | |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (19%) | 0.07 |
| Pain other than TN, n (%) | 4 (25%) | 5 (31%) | 0.69 |
| Fibromyalgia, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Osteoarthtritis, n (%) | 2 (13%) | 2 (13%) | |
| Lower back pain, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 2 (13%) | |
| Rheumatoid arthritis, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) | |
| ASA grade | 0.83 | ||
| 1, n (%) | 2 (13%) | 2 (13%) | |
| 2, n (%) | 13 (81%) | 12 (75%) | |
| 3, n (%) | 1 (6%) | 2 (13%) |
Lumbar CSF—in TN patients and controls.
Figure 1(A,B). CSF biomarkers in TN patients and controls—a PCA analysis.
Differences in spinal CSF biomarker concentrations between TN patients and controls.
| Biomarker | Coefficient | q (lm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.85 | 5.46 × 10−5 | 0.0037 |
|
| 0.59 | 0.00015 | 0.0037 |
|
| 0.79 | 0.00016 | 0.0037 |
|
| 0.60 | 0.00097 | 0.017 |
The table demonstrates the significant CSF biomarkers that differed between TN patients and controls. Each biomarker was analyzed using linear regression, adjusting for age and sex. The first column is the regression coefficient (positive value if higher biomarker concentration in the TN group), second column is the p- and third column contain q-values (FDR (Benjamini–Hochberg) adjusted p-values). Only proteins that were significant at the 5% FDR level are included in the table.
Figure 2(A,B). CSF biomarkers in TN patients and controls—a PLS-DA analysis. A PLS-DA model (2A) and the corresponding loadings (2B) of CSF biomarkers in TN patients and controls are demonstrated. The model was trained to separate between TN and controls. The model showed good performance (mean error rate = 0.058) in separating between the two groups as evaluated in the cross-validation procedure. In the loadings plot, all proteins with VIP > 1.3 are named, and the remaining proteins are only shown as dots.
Figure 3CSF biomarkers in TN patients and controls—a PLS-DA VIP analysis. The figure demonstrates the VIP values for clinical and biomarker variables in the PLS-DA model predicting patient or control CSF samples based on PEA data. The yellow dots represent the VIP for the full model (based on all data). The boxplots represent the VIP for the cross-validated models.
Figure 4Elevated CSF biomarkers in TN patients. The figure demonstrates boxplots of ANGPTL-4, Clec11a, LGMN, and MFG-E8 in TN patients and controls.