Dataset Information

Genomic Insights into Myasthenia Gravis Identify Distinct Immunological Mechanisms in Early and Late Onset Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this study was to identify disease relevant genes and explore underlying immunological mechanisms that contribute to early and late onset forms of myasthenia gravis.

Methods

We used a novel genomic methodology to integrate genomewide association study (GWAS) findings in myasthenia gravis with cell-type specific information, such as gene expression patterns and promotor-enhancer interactions, in order to identify disease-relevant genes. Subsequently, we conducted additional genomic investigations, including an expression quantitative analysis of 313 healthy people to provide mechanistic insights.

Results

We identified several genes that were specifically linked to early onset myasthenia gravis including TNIP1, ORMDL3, GSDMB, and TRAF3. We showed that regulators of toll-like receptor 4 signaling were enriched among these early onset disease genes (fold enrichment = 3.85, p = 6.4 × 10^-3 ). In contrast, T-cell regulators CD28 and CTLA4 were exclusively linked to late onset disease. We identified 2 causal genetic variants (rs231770 and rs231735; posterior probability = 0.98 and 0.91) near the CTLA4 gene. Subsequently, we demonstrated that these causal variants result in low expression of CTLA4 (rho = -0.66, p = 1.28 × 10^-38 and rho = -0.52, p = 7.01 × 10^-22 , for rs231735 and rs231770, respectively).

Interpretation

The disease-relevant genes identified in this study are a unique resource for many disciplines, including clinicians, scientists, and the pharmaceutical industry. The distinct immunological pathways linked to early and late onset myasthenia gravis carry important implications for drug repurposing opportunities and for future studies of drug development. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:455-463.

SUBMITTER: Handunnetthi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8581766 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUse of biologic agents in generalized myasthenia gravis is generally limited to therapy-refractory cases; benefit in new-onset disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess rituximab in refractory and new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis and rituximab vs conventional immunotherapy in new-onset disease.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data was conducted on a county-based community sample at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Participants included 72 patients with myasthenia gravis, excluding those displaying muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies, initiating rituximab treatment from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, and patients with new-onset disease initiating conventional immunotherapy from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, with 12 months or more of observation time. The present study was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020.ExposuresTreatment with low-dose rituximab (most often 500 mg every 6 months) or conventional immunosuppressants.Main outcomes and measuresTime to remission (main outcome) as well as use of rescue therapies or additional immunotherapies and time in remission (secondary outcomes).ResultsOf the 72 patients included, 31 patients (43%) were women; mean (SD) age at treatment start was 60 (18) years. Twenty-four patients had received rituximab within 12 months of disease onset and 48 received rituximab at a later time, 34 of whom had therapy-refractory disease. A total of 26 patients (3 [12%] women; mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years at treatment start) received conventional immunosuppressant therapy. Median time to remission was shorter for new-onset vs refractory disease (7 vs 16 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.26-5.07; P = .009 after adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity) and for rituximab vs conventional immunosuppressant therapies (7 vs 11 months: HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.43-6.18; P = .004 after adjustment). In addition, fewer rescue therapy episodes during the first 24 months were required (mean [SD], 0.38 [1.10] vs 1.31 [1.59] times; mean difference, -1.26; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.56; P < .001 after adjustment), and a larger proportion of patients had minimal or no need of additional immunotherapies (70% vs 35%; OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 1.40-21.43; P = .02 after adjustment). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with rituximab compared with conventional therapies (3% vs 46%; P < .001 after adjustment).Conclusions and relevanceClinical outcomes with rituximab appeared to be more favorable in new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis, and rituximab also appeared to perform better than conventional immunosuppressant therapy. These findings suggest a relatively greater benefit of rituximab earlier in the disease course. A placebo-controlled randomized trial to corroborate these findings is warranted.