Search

Abstract: Recent evidence highlights the importance of the neuroimmune interface, including periphery-to-central nervous system (CNS) neuroimmune crosstalk, in chronic pain. Although neuroinflammatory processes have been implicated in central sensitization for a long time, their potential neuroprotective and analgesic effects remain relatively elusive. We have explored the relationships between cytokine expression and symptom severity, and candidates for periphery-to-CNS crosstalk. Patients with degenerative disk disease (DDD) (nociceptive pain) or patients with lumbar disk herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy (predominantly neuropathic pain) completed questionnaires regarding pain and functional disability, underwent quantitative sensory testing, and provided blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. Proximity extension assay (PEA) was used to measure the levels of 92 inflammatory proteins in the CSF and serum from a total of 160 patients and controls, and CSF/serum albumin quotients was calculated for patients with DDD and patients with LDH. We found signs of neuroimmune activation, in the absence of systemic inflammation. Regarding periphery-to-CNS neuroimmune crosstalk, there were significant associations between several cytokines and albumin quotient, despite the latter being primarily at subclinical levels. The cytokines CCL11, CD5, IL8, and MMP-10 were elevated in the CSF, had positive correlations between CSF and serum levels, and associated in a nonlinear manner with back, but not leg, pain intensity in the LDH, but not the DDD, group. In conclusion, we found evidence for neuroimmune activation in the CNS of both patient groups in the absence of systemic inflammation and signs of a communication between CSF and serum. Complex and disease-specific associations were found between cytokines in CSF and back pain intensity., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Two or more autoantibodies against either insulin (IAA), glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA), islet antigen-2 (IA-2A) or zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8A) denote stage 1 (normoglycemia) or stage 2 (dysglycemia) type 1 diabetes prior to stage 3 type 1 diabetes. Automated multiplex Antibody Detection by Agglutination-PCR (ADAP) assays in two laboratories were compared to single plex radiobinding assays (RBA) to define threshold levels for diagnostic specificity and sensitivity., Methods: IAA, GADA, IA-2A and ZnT8A were analysed in 1504 (54% females) population based controls (PBC), 456 (55% females) doctor's office controls (DOC) and 535 (41% females) blood donor controls (BDC) as well as in 2300 (48% females) patients newly diagnosed (1-10 years of age) with stage 3 type 1 diabetes. The thresholds for autoantibody positivity were computed in 100 10-fold cross-validations to separate patients from controls either by maximizing the χ 2 -statistics (chisq) or using the 98th percentile of specificity (Spec98). Mean and 95% CI for threshold, sensitivity and specificity are presented., Findings: The ADAP ROC curves of the four autoantibodies showed comparable AUC in the two ADAP laboratories and were higher than RBA. Detection of two or more autoantibodies using chisq showed 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) sensitivity and 0.94 (0.91, 0.97) specificity in ADAP compared to 0.90 (0.88, 0.95) sensitivity and 0.97 (0.94, 0.98) specificity in RBA. Using Spec98, ADAP showed 0.92 (0.89, 0.95) sensitivity and 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) specificity compared to 0.89 (0.77, 0.86) sensitivity and 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) specificity in the RBA. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were higher in PBC compared to DOC and BDC., Interpretation: ADAP was comparable in two laboratories, both comparable to or better than RBA, to define threshold levels for two or more autoantibodies to stage type 1 diabetes., Funding: Supported by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (grant number 2009-04078), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (Dnr IRC15-0067) and the Swedish Research Council, Strategic Research Area (Dnr 2009-1039). AL was supported by the DiaUnion collaborative study, co-financed by EU Interreg ÖKS, Capital Region of Denmark, Region Skåne and the Novo Nordisk Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FJC, DG, DT, PVR, DS and CTT are employed by Enable Biosciences. FJC, DG, DT, PVR, DS and CTT are shareholders of Enable Biosciences. PVR and CTT are inventors of the ADAP patent licensed from University of California, Berkeley to Enable Biosciences. This does not alter our adherence to journal policies on sharing data and materials. All authors critically reviewed and approved the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Despite low or undetectable plasma viral load, people living with HIV-2 (PLWH2) typically progress toward AIDS. The driving forces behind HIV-2 disease progression and the role of viremia are still not known, but low-level replication in tissues is believed to play a role. To investigate the impact of viremic and aviremic HIV-2 infection on target and bystander cell pathology, we used data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry to determine plasma signatures of tissue and cell type engagement. Proteins derived from target and bystander cells in multiple tissues, such as the gastrointestinal tract and brain, were detected at elevated levels in plasma of PLWH2, compared with HIV negative controls. Moreover, viremic HIV-2 infection appeared to induce enhanced release of proteins from a broader range of tissues compared to aviremic HIV-2 infection. This study expands the knowledge on the link between plasma proteome remodeling and the pathological cell engagement in tissues during HIV-2 infection., Competing Interests: The authors or their institutions declare no competing financial interests and did not at any time receive payment or services from a third party (government, commercial, private foundation, etc.) for any aspect of the submitted work (including data monitoring board, study design, manuscript preparation, statistical analysis, etc.). The authors have no patents, whether planned, pending, or issued, broadly relevant to the work., (© 2024 The Authors.)