Loading...
 

Volume 35, Issue 1, March 2024



Sign in to download the Issue in PDF format.

Back to the list
Mediterr J Rheumatol 2020;31(1):10-8
Article Links
Autoimmune Peripheral Neuropathies and Contribution of Antiganglioside/Sulphatide Autoantibody Testing
Dirk Roggenbuck1,2, Emilien Delmont3, Dirk Reinhold4, Peter Schierack1,2, Karsten Conrad5, Joseph Boucraut6,7
Authors Information
1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Joint Faculty of the Brandenburg University of Technology  Cottbus – Senftenberg, the Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane and the  University of Potsdam, Germany
2. Institute of Biotechnology, Faculty Environment and Natural Sciences, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany
3. Referral Center for Neuromuscular Diseases and ALS, La Timone Hospital, AP-HM, Marseille, France
4. Institute of Molecular and Clinical Immunology, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
5. Institute of Immunology, Medical Faculty of the Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
6. Aix Marseille Université, Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone, Medicine Faculty, Marseille, France
7. Immunology laboratory, Conception Hospital, AP-HM, Marseille, France
Abstract

Peripheral immune-mediated polyneuropathies (IMPN) are a diverse group of rare neurological illnesses characterized by nerve damage. Leading morphological features are mostly nerve fibre demyelination or combination of axonal damage and demyelination.

There has been remarkable progress in the clinical and electrophysiological categorization of acute (fulminant, life-threatening) and chronic (progressive/remitting-relapsing) immune-mediated neuropathies recently. Besides electrophysiological and morphological makers, autoantibodies against glycolipids or paranodal/nodal molecules have been recommended as candidate markers for IMPN. The progress in testing for autoantibodies (autoAbs) to glycolipids such as gangliosides and sulfatide may have significant implications on the stratification of patients and their treatment response. Thus, this topic was reviewed in a presentation held during the 1st Panhellenic Congress of Autoimmune Diseases, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology in Portaria, Pelion, Greece.

For acute IMPN, often referred to as Guillain-Barré syndrome and its variants, several serological markers including autoAbs to gangliosides and sulphatide have been employed successfully in clinical routine. However, the evolution of serological diagnosis of chronic variants, such as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy or multifocal motor neuropathy, is less satisfactory. Serological diagnostic markers could, therefore, help in the differential diagnosis due to their assumed pathogenic role. Additionally, stratification of patients to improve their response to treatment may be possible. In general, a majority of patients respond well to causal therapy that includes intravenous immunoglobulins and plasmapheresis. As second line therapy options, biologicals (e.g., rituximab) and immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory drugs may be considered when patients do not respond adequately.

https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.31.1.10

Article Submitted: 15 Dec 2019; Article Accepted: 4 Feb 2020; Published: 31 Mar 2020

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).

©Roggenbuck D, Delmont E, Reinhold D, Schierack P, Conrad K, Boucraut J.

Keywords: immune-mediated polyneuropathy, ganglioside, sulphatide, autoantibody
Full Text

Glycolipids as autoantigenic targets

Among antiglycolipid autoantibodies (autoAbs), those directed to gangliosides have been investigated best in the context of autoimmune nerve illnesses.1-3 The occurrence of autoAbs to glycolipids is often preceded by infections in particular intestinal ones (Campylobacter [C.] jejuni). Hence, molecular mimicry has been considered as most common reason for the development of a tolerance break to glycolipids in the context of IMPN pathophysiology.4 There is, for instance, a striking similarity of glycan structures present on C. jejuni lipo-oligosaccharides with gangliosides including GM1, GM2, GD1a, GT1a and GD3.5

Interestingly, gangliosides also represent tumour-associated antigens often overexpressed in distinct malignancies, against which the immune system can exert effector mechanisms in the context of tumour surveillance and corresponding antitumor responses.6 The assumption that a tolerance break against gangliosides can be part of antitumor responses during tumorigenesis is an interesting topic; however, it is beyond the scope of this review.

The term ganglioside introduced by Ernst Klenk in 1942 is a combination of the two terms ganglion and glycoside, which refers to the location and composition of these molecules, respectively.7 Gangliosides are integrated into the cell membrane and are probably located in lipid rafts.8,9 Gangliosides consist of a ceramide and an oligosaccharide moiety with, in general, one or more neuraminic acid residues commonly referred to as sialic acids. The ceramide part is embedded in the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane and the oligosaccharides directed to the extracellular surface (Figure 1).8 Ganglioside molecules with more than two neuraminic acid residues are mainly found in the nervous system, where they can partake in cell signal transduction events. However, they are also accessible for autoimmune attacks at special locations such as the dorsal and ventral spinal roots or the sensory and motor nerve terminals.10 In contrast, the larger part of the peripheral nervous system is less exposed due to the blood-nerve barrier generating “immunologically privileged” sites.3 Altogether, the prevalence of gangliosides in peripheral nerves is quite variable and there is a need for more precise data on the composition and distribution of gangliosides.3,11 The rare involvement of the central nervous system during a tolerance break to glycolipids is very likely caused by the blood-brain barrier limiting the crossover of autoAbs in the brain.

Figure 1. Localization of the ganglioside GT1b in the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane of nerve cells. The ceramide moiety is hidden in the outer phospholipid layer of the membrane and presumably surrounded by phospholipids, cholesterol and transmembrane molecules forming a lipid raft.
 

Since peripheral nerves exert motor, sensory and autonomic functions, the site and extent of autoimmune attack against them should have a direct impact on the characteristics of the occurring clinical symptoms in patients with IMPN. Notably, in extraneural tissues, the ganglioside content is one to two orders of magnitude lower than in the nervous system.12 That may explain the almost negligible effect of a specific autoimmune attack against them at these sites.

In contrast to gangliosides, sulphatide such as 3-O-sulphogalactosylceramide represent a class of glycolipids with a sulphate group instead of neuraminic acid. These sulphoglycolipids differ in their strong negative charge (pKa -1.8) from the gangliosides. In the peripheral nervous system, sulphatide is mainly found in the non-compact myelin of Schwann cells, where they make up about 4-7% of all myelin lipids and are essential for the integrity of the myelin sheath.13 When sulphatide is absent or attacked by autoimmune responses, the lateral loops and part of the nodes of Ranvier will be disorganized and as a result the myelin sheath may not function properly.14 For example, cerebroside sulphotransferase-deficient mice demonstrated paranodal disruption by juxtaparanodal voltage-gated potassium channel invasion which underscores the role of sulphatide in stabilizing the paranodal junctions.15 Of note, sulphatide is similar to the ganglioside GM4, which, unlike other gangliosides, is like sulphatide derived from galactosylceramide (GalCer) instead of glucosylceramide (GlcCer). Interestingly, GalCer (also referred to as galactocerebroside) was the first glycolipid to be found autoantigenic in an animal model (experimental autoimmune neuritis in rodents).16 Akin to sulphatide, GM4 was also determined in the myelin, but, only at lower levels.17

Gangliosides and sulphatide as glycolipids lack classical T-cell epitopes, so that they can be considered as thymus-independent autoantigens. Nonetheless, humoral as well as cellular autoimmune reactions, which are directed exclusively to the carbohydrate content, can be observed in humans.18 The occurrence of antiganglioside autoAbs in neurological illnesses was reported first in the early 1980s.19 These autoAbs were mainly IgM paraproteins with simultaneous reactivity to the glycan portion of the myelin-associated protein (MAG). Since the 1980s, autoAbs against more than 20 different gangliosides have been associated with a variety of acute and chronic peripheral neuropathies.1 The specificity of the autoAb binding to gangliosides seems to be largely defined by the number and location of the sialic acid residues and their interaction with adjacent molecules in the lipid rafts. Numerous combinations have been reported which can enhance or diminish autoAb binding.3 As referred to above, these differently sialylated glycosphingolipids can be located at differing sites in the peripheral nervous system with varying accessibility and even epitope presentation. Consequently, a specific autoimmune response to these epitopes can cause distinct clinical symptoms. For example, the ganglioside GM1 is highly expressed on the membranes of nerves, Schwann cells and the node of Ranvier.20 Thus, binding of anti-GM1 autoAbs can trigger immune responses such as complement activation with ensuing disruption of sodium channel clusters, which leads to conduction disorders and, interestingly, to impairment of motor functions in particular.21-23 Three major epitope patterns can be recognized by autoAbs directed to GM1, including the monospecific binding to a unique GM1 epitope, the recognition of a common sialylated epitope found on GM1 and GM2 as well as an obviously non-sialylated epitope present on GM1, GD1b and asialo-GM1.24-26

Furthermore, patients suffering from chronic ataxic neuropathy with ophthalmoplegia, M-paraprotein, cold agglutinins, disialosyl antibodies (CANOMAD) syndrome demonstrate in accordance with the definition of the syndrome autoAbs to gangliosides with two neuraminic (sialic) acid residues found primarily in sensory nerves.27

Altogether, depending on the type of neuropathy, distinct antiganglioside autoAbs or even autoAb profiles can be observed.

 

Pathogenic role of autoAbs to gangliosides/sulphatide

Acquired peripheral neuropathies can be attributed to several causes, including autoimmune responses. This assumption is supported by experimental evidence on passive and active animal transfer models, active immunization with nerve components and response to immunosuppressive treatment, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) administration as well as plasmapheresis.16,28-30 In general, multifocal demyelination of nerve cells and conditions mimicking this process are considered the leading pathogenic process in IMPN currently.31-33 Nonetheless, the common electrophysiological examination classifies nerve fibre damage into axonal and demyelinating damage. As a rule, axonal damage is considered to be irreversible and, in general, associated with poor clinical outcome. Recently, the node of Ranvier and adjacent regions have come into the limelight as targets for autoimmune attacks leading to reversible dysfunctional saltatory conduction.32 This new concept of reversible conduction failure is based on electrophysiological and experimental findings of a typical “axonal” conduction failure which, however, can rapidly recover. Thus, the term nodo-paranodopathy was coined for this particular combination.32 However, it remains to be seen, whether this novel concept can be applied to all IMPN as for most of them a clear axonal or demyelinating phenotype was established.

Overall, humoral (immunoglobulin, complement deposits) and cellular immune responses were observed in patients with IMPN.34 These findings are supported by the detection of increased serum levels of anaphylatoxin C5a and terminal complement complex (C5b9) in serum and CSF of patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy (CIDP) in contrast to controls.35 Moreover, autoreactive T-cell responses against myelin epitopes have been identified in IMPN as well as CD4+ and essentially CD8+ T cells in inflammatory infiltrates in CIDP.36-38 Since gangliosides should be considered as thymus-independent autoantigenic targets not bearing typical T-cell epitopes, other antigen-presenting molecules than human leukocyte antigens (HLA) class I and II need to be involved. Candidates could be the CD1 family of MHC-like molecules, which have been shown to present glycolipid and lipid antigens, including sulphatide, self-lipids and microbial ones to T cells.39-41 Of note, glycolipids play a pivotal role in immune cell functions regulating immune responses.42   

Gangliosides are components of the node (GM1, GD1a, GD1b) and paranodal regions (GQ1b) but also to a lesser extent of the myelin. Sulphatide is mainly located in the non-compact myelin of Schwann cells, but can be also found in the node and paranode. Both can apparently act as autoantigenic targets, triggering immune effector mechanisms, such as the formation of IgG and IgM autoAbs. However, autoAb occurrence and the putative corresponding damage sites do not always reflect clinical findings as outlined above. Although GM1 for instance is abundant in both sensory and motor nerves, the occurrence of corresponding autoAbs is clinically mainly correlated with motor phenotypes such as acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) or multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN).43-45 This may indicate other factors influencing the epitope structure of gangliosides, such as interaction with further molecules present in ganglioside-containing lipid rafts, including the gangliosides themselves as mentioned earlier. Another reason could be a greater susceptibility of motor neurons to axonal damage, although the underlying processes are largely unknown.46 Despite the fact that autoAbs to gangliosides were the first serum autoAbs to be linked with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and their putative pathogenic potential, the clinical and electrophysiological findings still dominate the diagnosis of IMPN.18 In addition to the leading autoantigenic gangliosides GM1, GD1b and GQ1b, individual autoimmune humoral reactions against a variety of other gangliosides were observed in patients with peripheral neuropathies. Though there are obviously many cross-reactive responses, the specificity of distinct patient sera to only one glycolipid target is remarkable. Even single-positive patient sera for the similarly structured sulphatide and GM4 have been reported.47,48

 

Association of autoAbs to gangliosides/sulphatide with clinical symptoms

In contrast to acute immune-mediated neuropathies, the presence of autoAbs against gangliosides and sulphatide in chronic IMPN is still a controversial issue (Table 1). Their diagnostic significance was only established for a minority of them. This is probably due to the fact that chronic IMPN, such as CIDP, can encompass several clinical subentities, as well as a number of atypical variants with a wide variety of clinical phenotypes and response to treatment.31 Thus, IgM AutoAbs against disialosyl epitopes, especially for GD1b, have been found in chronic sensory ataxic neuropathy, which is often clinically similar to CIDP.27 CANOMAD syndrome patients can also develop IgM autoAbs to other disialosyl gangliosides such as GD3, GT1b, and GQ1b.27 Remarkably, the majority of patients with IgM against GD1b benefited from IVIg therapy or biologicals.49,50 Thus, these IgM autoAbs obviously may play a pathogenic role in the development of sensory ataxia, which can also be seen in CIDP.

 

AutoAbs to sulphatide were found mostly in IMPN with axonal damage.51,52 Patients demonstrating autoAbs to sulphatide had a higher rate of conduction blocks in nerve conduction studies. Thus, the impairment of primarily motor functions may be explained by the depletion of sulphatide and myelin proteins, such as neurofascin 155, in the paranodal region.52 Nonetheless, a demyelinating variant with a lower prevalence was reported as well.53 Moreover, antisulphatide autoAbs nonreactive to sulphated glucuronic acid can also be associated with predominantly sensory neuropathies.54

Giannotta et al. reported reactivity to sulphatide in only 1% of CIDP patients.55 Interestingly, a recent report highlighted an elevated frequency of at least one IgM autoAb to GM1, GD1b and sulphatide in patients suffering from CIDP.27 Here, patients with autoAbs to sulphatide were younger and demonstrated typical manifestations of clinical symptoms characteristic for CIDP. However, there was no association with axonal degeneration, monoclonal IgM gammopathy or with positivity of autoAbs to MAG as reported earlier.53,55-57 Conversely, in neuropathy patients with IgM gammopathy with late onset and sensory damage, elevated titres of IgM to sulphatide were often associated with a concomitant reactivity to MAG.56 Of note, the so called anti-MAG neuropathy syndrome was the first autoimmune neuropathy in which the target specificity was reported in humans.58

On the contrary, IgM against GM1 was found in up to 60% of patients suffering from multifocal motor neuropathy, a chronic progressive motor polyneuropathy.59 Normally, this IgM to GM1 is not of paraprotein origin and can interact with different epitope patterns on GM1 as outlined above. Furthermore, a recent retrospective analysis found IgM autoAbs to GM1 in 46% of patients with multifocal motor neuropathy but in only 3% of CIDP patients.60

In acute polyneuropathies which encompass several acute variants of the GBS, stronger associations of pathogenic autoAbs with different clinical variants were established.25,61 Interestingly, autoAbs to sulphatide-ganglioside complexes analysed with a combinatorial glycoarray methodology constituted the largest group of anti-glycolipid autoAbs in patients with GBS.56

AutoAbs to GQ1b and GT1a have been found primarily in patients with the Miller-Fisher syndrome, a subtype of GBS with involvement of ocular nerves causing ophthalmoplegia.25,62-64 The occurrence of autoAbs to GQ1b is related to a good prognosis characterized by complete remission of clinical and electrophysiological symptoms.1 Moreover, the combination of anti-GQ1b/GT1a autoAbs could be found in ataxic GBS and the pharyngeal-cervical brachial variant of GBS.65,66

In GBS patients showing acute axonal damage (acute motor axonal neuropathy), there is a strong association with autoAbs to sialylated epitopes present on GM1a, GM1b and N-acetylgalactoseamin-GD1a.67,68

The most common form of the GBS, the acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) can also demonstrate autoAbs to gangliosides of Schwann cells though their significance is still elusive.69

Acute ataxic neuropathies predominantly demonstrate anti-GD1b IgG, whereas the corresponding IgM isotype is more common in chronic variants. A similar distribution has been reported for autoAbs to GM1.65,70

 

Assay techniques for the detection of antiganglioside autoAbs

Over the last 40 years, various assay techniques have been developed for the analysis of autoAbs against gangliosides. Thin-layer chromatography overlay was one of the first antiganglioside assays to be used and is still considered the gold standard assay technique today.27,71,72 Due to its technical complexity, however, it is not suitable for routine use and limited to specialized laboratories only.73 Therefore, agglutination tests,74 flow cytometry analyses75 and several in-house76,77 and commercially available techniques have been developed to test for antiganglioside autoAbs.47,77 In particular, solid-phase enzyme immune assays have been proposed such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) or line immunoassays (LIA). The line immunoassays (LIA) and the similar combinatorial glycoarray may be suitable alternatives, especially for the multiplex assessment of autoAbs to gangliosides or their complexes (Figure 2).51,78 The solid phase used for the immobilisation of gangliosides appears to play a pivotal role for the detection of antiganglioside autoAbs.47 Disease-specific antibodies presumably recognize gangliosides incorporated in cell membranes and, thus, may fail to bind to gangliosides immobilized on a non-appropriate solid phase.77 For example, we clearly observed that the flow cytometry technique for anti-GM1 autoAb testing was more sensitive and specific than our in-house ELISA regarding the diagnosis of motor neuropathies.75 However, this method is time-consuming, unsuitable for routine laboratory use and not applicable for most other gangliosides. One strategy is to use immobilized lipid complexes. By optimal preservation of the mostly conformational autoantigenic epitopes on the glycan part, and by concealing of the hydrophobic ceramide in the porous, also hydrophobic polyvinylidene difluoride membranes during the binding of the glycolipids, LIA and combinatorial glycoarray techniques may have advantages over the ELISA. The superiority of this particular hydrophobic solid phase has been demonstrated for the immobilisation of other amphiphatic molecules such as lipopolysaccharides and phospholipids exhibiting similar physicochemical characteristics.79-83 Hydrophobic PVDF membranes as solid phases seem to mimic membranous antigen/antibody interactions more efficiently. For example, hydrophobic membranes appear to function better to test for antiphospholipid autoAbs in contrast to the solid phases used in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.84,85    

Figure 1. Localization of the ganglioside GT1b in the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane of nerve cells. The ceramide moiety is hidden in the outer phospholipid layer of the membrane and presumably surrounded by phospholipids, cholesterol and transmembrane molecules forming a lipid raft.
 


Altogether, there are several commercially available methods for antiganglioside autoAb testing. Their advantages and drawbacks have been compared recently in depth.77 For this comparative analysis, patients with CANOMAD syndrome were selected according to their specific antiganglioside antibody profiles foreseen for a French national registry of CANOMAD syndrome. Line immunoassays showed the best performance and were confirmed as efficient and robust tests for the multiplex analysis of autoAbs to gangliosides.

Obviously, currently available assays differ in their accuracy, sensitivity and specificity due to the varying purity of gangliosides from different commercial sources, use of detergents in wash buffers, different incubation characteristics and background issues as a result of unspecific binding. For example, incubation at 4° C rather than room temperature appeared to be advantageous.73 Moreover, different cut-off values to discriminate patients from disease controls and healthy individuals influenced the assessment of serum antiganglioside autoAbs significantly.86 For example, a great variability in the frequency of IgM or IgG to GM1 by ELISA has been reported, either in the same laboratory or between laboratories.86 As mentioned above, up to 20 different autoAbs to gangliosides and sulphatide can be correlated with clinical symptoms in patients with IMPN. Thus, a key requirement is the number of autoantigenic targets since a large panel of gangliosides is essential to correctly analyse complex antiganglioside autoAb profiles found in patients with GBS or its variants, as well as with CANOMAD.2,27,87 Until now, the standardization and harmonization of antiganglioside autoAb testing remains an unmet requirement. Often, results obtained in different laboratories are difficult to compare. Altogether, a simple, multiplexed analysis of antiganglioside autoAbs is required for the serological processing of patients with IMPN to address the clinical need and to overcome limitations of monoplex, non-standardised immunoassays. In contrast, one of the difficulties in exploring antiglycolipid autoAbs is that they are present at low levels in healthy subjects and are often part of natural autoantibodies. Monoplex ELISAs could make it easier to determine a positive threshold for single antiglycolipid autoAbs.

It should be noted that differences in assay techniques may be the reason for different reports on the frequency of autoAbs on gangliosides and sulphatide.55 For example, higher frequencies of IgM autoantibodies to GM1 (16%) by LIA were found in patients with CIDP and multifocal motor neuropathy in contrast to the glycoarray technique (7%).88,89

In summary, there appears to be a clear need to replace in-house assays by validated, widely available tests enabling multiplex analysis of autoAbs to gangliosides and sulphatide. This development addresses the rising number of patient samples on the one hand and of newly emerging gangliosides as autoantigenic targets on the other hand in the context of the differential diagnosis of peripheral IMPN.

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

DR has a management role and is a shareholder of GA Generic Assays GmbH and Medipan GmbH. Both companies are diagnostic manufacturers. All the other authors declare that they have no financial competing and non-financial conflicts of interest. All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this review and approved submission.

References
  1. Willison HJ, Yuki N. Peripheral neuropathies and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain 2002;125(Pt 12):2591-625.
  2. Roggenbuck JJ, Boucraut J, Delmont E, Conrad K, Roggenbuck D. Diagnostic insights into chronic-inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies. Ann Transl Med 2018 2018 Sep;6(17):337.
  3. Willison HJ. Anti-ganglioside Antibodies in Peripheral Nerve Pathology. Methods Mol Biol 2018;1804:173-88.
  4. Yuki N, Taki T, Inagaki F, Kasama T, Takahashi M, Saito K. A bacterium lipopolysaccharide that elicits Guillain-Barre syndrome has a GM1 ganglioside-like structure. J Exp Med 1993;178(5):1771-5.
  5. Yuki N. Ganglioside mimicry and peripheral nerve disease. Muscle Nerve 2007;35(6):691-711.
  6. Groux-Degroote S, Guerardel Y, Delannoy P. Gangliosides: Structures, Biosynthesis, Analysis, and Roles in Cancer. Chembiochem 2017;18(13):1146-54.
  7. Klenk E. Über die Ganglioside des Gehirns bei der infantilen amaurotischen Idiotie vom Typ Tay-Sachs. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft 1942;75:1632.
  8. Hakomori S. Glycosylation defining cancer malignancy: new wine in an old bottle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99(16):10231-3.
  9. Simons K, Ikonen E. Functional rafts in cell membranes. Nature 1997;387(6633):569-72.
  10. Kanda T. Biology of the blood-nerve barrier and its alteration in immune mediated neuropathies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84(2):208-12.
  11. Svennerholm L, Bostrom K, Fredman P, Jungbjer B, Lekman A, Månsson JE, et al. Gangliosides and allied glycosphingolipids in human peripheral nerve and spinal cord. Biochim Biophys Acta 1994;1214(2):115-23.
  12. Kolter T. Ganglioside biochemistry. ISRN Biochem 2012;2012:506160.
  13. Xiao S, Finkielstein CV, Capelluto DG. The enigmatic role of sulfatides: new insights into cellular functions and mechanisms of protein recognition. Adv Exp Med Biol 2013;991:27-40.
  14. Honke K. Biosynthesis and biological function of sulfoglycolipids. Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci 2013;89(4):129-38.
  15. Ishibashi T, Dupree JL, Ikenaka K, Hirahara Y, Honke K, Peles E, et al. A myelin galactolipid, sulfatide, is essential for maintenance of ion channels on myelinated axon but not essential for initial cluster formation. J Neurosci 2002;22(15):6507-14.
  16. Saida T, Saida K, Dorfman SH, Silberberg DH, Sumner AJ, Manning MC, et al. Experimental allergic neuritis induced by sensitization with galactocerebroside. Science 1979;204(4397):1103-6.
  17. Ledeen RW, Yu RK, Eng LF. Gangliosides of human myelin: sialosylgalactosylceramide (G7) as a major component. J Neurochem 1973;21(4):829-39.
  18. Ilyas AA, Willison HJ, Quarles RH,  Jungalwala FB, Cornblath DR, Trapp BD, et al. Serum antibodies to gangliosides in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Ann Neurol 1988;23(5):440-7.
  19. Ilyas AA, Quarles RH, MacIntosh TD, Dobersen MJ, Trapp BD, Dalakas MC, et al. IgM in a human neuropathy related to paraproteinemia binds to a carbohydrate determinant in the myelin-associated glycoprotein and to a ganglioside. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1984;81(4):1225-9.
  20. Sheikh KA, Deerinck TJ, Ellisman MH, Griffin JW. The distribution of ganglioside-like moieties in peripheral nerves. Brain 1999;122(Pt 3):449-60.
  21. Rasband MN. Composition, assembly, and maintenance of excitable membrane domains in myelinated axons. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2011;22(2):178-84.
  22. Cats EA, Jacobs BC, Yuki N, Tio-Gillen AP, Piepers S, Franssen H, et al. Multifocal motor neuropathy: association of anti-GM1 IgM antibodies with clinical features. Neurology 2010;75(22):1961-7.
  23. Susuki K, Rasband MN, Tohyama K, Koibuchi K, Okamoto S, Funakoshi K, et al. Anti-GM1 antibodies cause complement-mediated disruption of sodium channel clusters in peripheral motor nerve fibers. J Neurosci 2007;27(15):3956-67.
  24. Willison HJ, Paterson G, Kennedy PG, Veitch J. Cloning of human anti-GM1 antibodies from motor neuropathy patients. Ann Neurol 1994;35(4):471-8.
  25. Goodfellow JA, Willison HJ. Antiganglioside, antiganglioside-complex, and antiglycolipid-complex antibodies in immune-mediated neuropathies. Curr Opin Neurol 2016;29(5):572-80.
  26. Townson K, Boffey J, Nicholl D, Veitch J, Bundle D, Zhang P, et al. Solid phase immunoadsorption for therapeutic and analytical studies on neuropathy-associated anti-GM1 antibodies. Glycobiology 2007;17(3):294-303.
  27. Willison HJ, O'Leary CP, Veitch J, Blumhardt LD, Busby M, Donaghy M, et al. The clinical and laboratory features of chronic sensory ataxic neuropathy with anti-disialosyl IgM antibodies. Brain 2001;124(Pt 10):1968-77.
  28. Querol L, Siles AM, Alba-Rovira R, Jáuregui A, Devaux J, Faivre-Sarrailh C, et al. Antibodies against peripheral nerve antigens in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Sci Rep 2017;7(1):14411.
  29. Yan WX, Taylor J, Andrias-Kauba S, Pollard JD. Passive transfer of demyelination by serum or IgG from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy patients. Ann Neurol 2000;47(6):765-75.
  30. Meyer zu HG, Hartung HP, Kieseier BC. From bench to bedside--experimental rationale for immune-specific therapies in the inflamed peripheral nerve. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2007;3(4):198-211.
  31. Mathey EK, Park SB, Hughes RA, Pollard JD, Armati PJ, Barnett MH, et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: from pathology to phenotype. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86(9):973-85.
  32. Uncini A, Susuki K, Yuki N. Nodo-paranodopathy: beyond the demyelinating and axonal classification in anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Clin Neurophysiol 2013;124(10):1928-34.
  33. Uncini A, Yuki N. Sensory Guillain-Barre syndrome and related disorders: an attempt at systematization. Muscle Nerve 2012;45(4):464-70.
  34. Dalakas MC, Engel WK. Immunoglobulin and complement deposits in nerves of patients with chronic relapsing polyneuropathy. Arch Neurol 1980;37(10):637-40.
  35. Quast I, Keller CW, Hiepe F, Tackenberg B, Lünemann JD. Terminal complement activation is increased and associated with disease severity in CIDP. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2016;3(9):730-5
  36. Schneider-Hohendorf T, Schwab N, Uceyler N, Göbel K, Sommer C, Wiendl H. CD8+ T-cell immunity in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Neurology 2012;78(6):402-8.
  37. Klehmet J, Goehler J, Ulm L, Kohler S, Meisel C, Meisel A, et al. Effective treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins reduces autoreactive T-cell response in patients with CIDP. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86(6):686-91.
  38. Yang M, Peyret C, Shi XQ, Siron N, Jang JH, Wu S, et al. Evidence from Human and Animal Studies: Pathological Roles of CD8(+) T Cells in Autoimmune Peripheral Neuropathies. Front Immunol 2015;6:532.
  39. Mori L, De LG. T cells specific for lipid antigens. Immunol Res 2012;53(1-3):191-9.
  40. Gras S, Van R, I, Shahine A, Le Nours J. Molecular recognition of microbial lipid-based antigens by T cells. Cell Mol Life Sci 2018;75(9):1623-39.
  41. Le NJ, Shahine A, Gras S. Molecular features of lipid-based antigen presentation by group 1 CD1 molecules. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2018;84:48-57.
  42. Zhang T, de Waard AA, Wuhrer M, Spaapen RM. The Role of Glycosphingolipids in Immune Cell Functions. Front Immunol 2019;10:90.
  43. Chiba A, Kusunoki S, Obata H, Machinami R, Kanazawa I. Ganglioside composition of the human cranial nerves, with special reference to pathophysiology of Miller Fisher syndrome. Brain Res 1997;745(1-2):32-6.
  44. Greenshields KN, Halstead SK, Zitman FM, Rinaldi S, Brennan KM, O'Leary C, et al. The neuropathic potential of anti-GM1 autoantibodies is regulated by the local glycolipid environment in mice. J Clin Invest 2009;119(3):595-610.
  45. Ito M, Matsuno K, Sakumoto Y, Hirata K, Yuki N. Ataxic Guillain-Barre syndrome and acute sensory ataxic neuropathy form a continuous spectrum. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82(3):294-9.
  46. Fewou SN, Rupp A, Nickolay LE, Carrick K, Greenshields KN, Pediani J, et al. Anti-ganglioside antibody internalization attenuates motor nerve terminal injury in a mouse model of acute motor axonal neuropathy. J Clin Invest 2012;122(3):1037-51.
  47. Conrad K, Schneider H, Ziemssen T, Talaska T, Reinhold D, Humbel RL, et al. A new line immunoassay for the multiparametric detection of antiganglioside autoantibodies in patients with autoimmune peripheral neuropathies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007;1109:256-64.
  48. Townson K, Greenshields KN, Veitch J, Nicholl D, Eckhardt M, Galanina O, et al. Sulfatide binding properties of murine and human antiganglioside antibodies. Glycobiology 2007;17(11):1156-66.
  49. Attarian S, Boucraut J, Hubert AM, Uzenot D, Delmont E, Verschueren A, et al. Chronic ataxic neuropathies associated with anti-GD1b IgM antibodies: response to IVIg therapy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;81(1):61-4.
  50. Delmont E, Jeandel PY, Hubert AM, Marcq L, Boucraut J, Desnuelle C. Successful treatment with rituximab of one patient with CANOMAD neuropathy. J Neurol 2010;257(4):655-7.
  51. Rinaldi S, Brennan KM, Kalna G, Walgaard C, van Doorn P, Jacobs BC, et al. Antibodies to heteromeric glycolipid complexes in Guillain-Barre syndrome. PLoS One 2013;8(12):e82337.
  52. Palavicini JP, Wang C, Chen L, Ahmar S, Higuera JD, Dupree JL, et al. Novel molecular insights into the critical role of sulfatide in myelin maintenance/function. J Neurochem 2016;139(1):40-54.
  53. Dabby R, Weimer LH, Hays AP, Olarte M, Latov N. Antisulfatide antibodies in neuropathy: clinical and electrophysiologic correlates. Neurology 2000;54(7):1448-52.
  54. Lopate G, Kornberg AJ, Yue J, et al. Anti-myelin associated glycoprotein antibodies: variability in patterns of IgM binding to peripheral nerve. J Neurol Sci 2001;188(1-2):67-72.
  55. Giannotta C, Di PD, Gallia F, Choksi R, Pestronk A. Anti-sulfatide IgM antibodies in peripheral neuropathy: to test or not to test? Eur J Neurol 2015;22(5):879-82.
  56. Campagnolo M, Ferrari S, Dalla TC, Cabrini I, Cacciavillani M, Lucchetta M, et al. Polyneuropathy with anti-sulfatide and anti-MAG antibodies: clinical, neurophysiological, pathological features and response to treatment. J Neuroimmunol 2015;281:1-4.
  57. Fraussen J, Claes N, de BL, Somers V. Targets of the humoral autoimmune response in multiple sclerosis. Autoimmun Rev 2014;13(11):1126-37.
  58. Burger D, Simon M, Perruisseau G, Steck AJ. The epitope(s) recognized by HNK-1 antibody and IgM paraprotein in neuropathy is present on several N-linked oligosaccharide structures on human P0 and myelin-associated glycoprotein. J Neurochem 1990;54(5):1569-75.
  59. Nobile-Orazio E, Giannotta C, Musset L, Messina P, Léger JM. Sensitivity and predictive value of anti-GM1/galactocerebroside IgM antibodies in multifocal motor neuropathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85(7):754-8.
  60. Nobile-Orazio E, Giannotta C, Briani C. Anti-ganglioside complex IgM antibodies in multifocal motor neuropathy and chronic immune-mediated neuropathies. J Neuroimmunol 2010;219(1-2):119-22.
  61. Willison HJ, Jacobs BC, Van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barre syndrome. Lancet 2016;388(10045):717-27.
  62. Chiba A, Kusunoki S, Shimizu T, Kanazawa I. Serum IgG antibody to ganglioside GQ1b is a possible marker of Miller Fisher syndrome. Ann Neurol 1992;31(6):677-9.
  63. Plomp JJ, Molenaar PC, O'Hanlon GM, Jacobs BC, Veitch J, Daha MR, et al. Miller Fisher anti-GQ1b antibodies: alpha-latrotoxin-like effects on motor end plates. Ann Neurol 1999;45(2):189-99.
  64. Fisher M. An unusual variant of acute idiopathic polyneuritis (syndrome of ophthalmoplegia, ataxia and areflexia). N Engl J Med 1956;255(2):57-65.
  65. Yuki N, Susuki K, Hirata K. Ataxic Guillain-Barre syndrome with anti-GQ1b antibody: relation to Miller Fisher syndrome. Neurology 2000;54(9):1851-3.
  66. Serrano-Munuera C, Gallardo E, Rojas R, De Luna N, González-Masegosa A, Martí-Massó JF, et al. Antiganglioside antibodies in acute self-limiting ataxic neuropathy: incidence and significance. J Neuroimmunol 2001;120(1-2):78-83.
  67. Kaida K, Kusunoki S, Kamakura K, Motoyoshi K, Kanazawa I. GalNAc-GD1a in human peripheral nerve: target sites of anti-ganglioside antibody. Neurology 2003;61(4):465-70.
  68. Ho TW, Willison HJ, Nachamkin I, Li CY, Veitch J, Ung H, et al. Anti-GD1a antibody is associated with axonal but not demyelinating forms of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Ann Neurol 1999;45(2):168-73.
  69. Hafer-Macko CE, Sheikh KA, Li CY, Ho TW, Cornblath DR, McKhann GM, et al. Immune attack on the Schwann cell surface in acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Ann Neurol 1996;39(5):625-35.
  70. Yuki N, Susuki K, Hirata K. Ataxic form of Guillain-Barr syndrome associated with anti-GD1b IgG antibody. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69(1):136-7.
  71. Ilyas AA, Quarles RH, Dalakas MC, Fishman PH, Brady RO. Monoclonal IgM in a patient with paraproteinemic polyneuropathy binds to gangliosides containing disialosyl groups. Ann Neurol 1985;18(6):655-9.
  72. Obi T, Kusunoki S, Takatsu M, Mizoguchi K, Nishimura Y. IgM M-protein in a patient with sensory-dominant neuropathy binds preferentially to polysialogangliosides. Acta Neurol Scand 1992;86(2):215-8.
  73. Chabraoui F, Derrington EA, Mallie-Didier F, Confavreux C, Quincy C, Caudie C. Dot-blot immunodetection of antibodies against GM1 and other gangliosides on PVDF-P membranes. J Immunol Methods 1993;165(2):225-30.
  74. Alaedini A, Latov N. Detection of anti-GM1 ganglioside antibodies in patients with neuropathy by a novel latex agglutination assay. J Immunoassay 2000;21(4):377-86.
  75. Escande-Beillard N, David MJ, Portoukalian J, Pouget J, Azulay JP, Bernard D, et al. A sensitive flow cytometry method for anti-GM1 antibodies detection. J Neuroimmunol 2002;125(1-2):163-9.
  76. Caudie C. Monoclonal IgM autoantibody reactivity in M-IgM peripheral neuropathy. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2000;19(1):7-18.
  77. Caudie C, Vial C, Petiot P, Bouhour F. [Serum antibody profiles against gangliosides and sulfatide in peripheral neuropathies: evaluation of a new immunoassay]. [Article in Frence] Ann Biol Clin (Paris) 2010;68(6):675-80.
  78. Milnik A, Roggenbuck D, Conrad K, Bartels C. Acute inflammatory neuropathy with monoclonal anti-GM2 IgM antibodies, IgM-k paraprotein and additional autoimmune processes in association with a diffuse large b-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. BMJ Case Rep 2013. pii: bcr1120115087.
  79. Seifert M, Schoenherr G, Roggenbuck D, Marx U, von Baehr R. Generation and characterization of a human monoclonal IgM antibody that recognizes a conserved epitope shared by lipopolysaccharides of different gram-negative bacteria. Hybridoma 1996;15(3):191-8.
  80. Schoenherr G, Roggenbuck D, Seifert M, Jahn S, Porstmann T. Technical problems arising from the use of the immunoblot for determination of the reactivity of natural antibodies with different lipopolysaccharides (LPS). J Immunol Methods 1996;190(2):185-8.
  81. Roggenbuck D, Borghi MO, Somma V, Büttner T, Schierack P, Hanack K, et al. Antiphospholipid antibodies detected by line immunoassay differentiate among patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, with infections and asymptomatic carriers. Arthritis Res Ther 2016;18(1):111.
  82. Roggenbuck D, Somma V, Schierack P, Borghi MO, Meroni PL. Autoantibody profiling in APS. Lupus 2014;23(12):1262-4
  83. Nalli C, Somma V, Andreoli L, Büttner T, Schierack P, Mahler M, et al. Anti-phospholipid IgG antibodies detected by line immunoassay differentiate patients with anti-phospholipid syndrome and other autoimmune diseases. Auto Immun Highlights 2018;9(1):6.
  84. Roggenbuck D, Egerer K, von Landenberg P, Hiemann R, Feist E, Burmester GR, et al. Antiphospholipid antibody profiling - Time for a new technical approach. Autoimmun Rev 2012;11(11):821-6.
  85. Egerer K, Roggenbuck D, Buettner T, Lehmann B, Kohn A, von Landenberg P, et al. Single-step autoantibody profiling in antiphospholipid syndrome using a multi-line dot assay. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13(4):R118.
  86. Willison HJ, Veitch J, Swan AV, Baumann N, Comi G, Gregson NA, et al. Inter-laboratory validation of an ELISA for the determination of serum anti-ganglioside antibodies. Eur J Neurol 1999;6(1):71-7.
  87. Caudie C, Quittard PA, Taravel D, Sivadon-Tardy V, Orlikowski D, Rozenberg F, et al. Preceding infections and anti-ganglioside antibody profiles assessed by a dot immunoassay in 306 French Guillain-Barre syndrome patients. J Neurol 2011;258(11):1958-64.
  88. Klehmet J, Marschenz S, Ruprecht K, Wunderlich B, Büttner T, Hiemann R, et al. Analysis of anti-ganglioside antibodies by a line immunoassay in patients with chronic-inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies (CIDP). Clin Chem Lab Med 2018.
  89. Morikawa M, Kuwahara M, Ueno R, Samukawa M, Hamada Y, Kusunoki S. Serological study using glycoarray for detecting antibodies to glycolipids and glycolipid complexes in immune-mediated neuropathies. J Neuroimmunol 2016;301:35-40.