1,150
Views
18
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Editorial

Epstein–Barr virus in the development of multiple sclerosis

Pages 331-333 | Published online: 10 Jan 2014

In contrast to previous smaller studies, Aloisi and colleagues have recently reported the presence of large numbers of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infected B cells in the brains of a large majority of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) Citation[1]. These cells were more numerous in areas with active inflammatory infiltrates, where cytotoxic CD8+ T cells displaying an activated phenotype were seen contiguous to the EBV-infected cells. Independent confirmation of these findings would lead to the beginning of a new era in MS research. Whereas these pathological findings alone may provide only suggestive evidence for a causal role of EBV in MS, their convergence with the epidemiological evidence accumulated over the past several years Citation[2] is so striking that noncausal explanations, such as infiltration of EBV-infected B cells being a secondary phenomenon, would become improbable. The prevailing view that MS is a T-cell mediated autoimmune disease will have to be modified to accommodate EBV-infected B cells on the central stage.

That MS is most likely a rare complication of a widespread infection was postulated over 40 years ago, largely on the basis of its geographical distribution, evidence of a change in risk among migrants Citation[3] and the possible, albeit controversial, occurrence of epidemics Citation[4]. Many years elapsed, however, without a specific infectious agent being identified, and multiple unsubstantiated claims implicating a broad variety of microorganisms led to widespread skepticism. An alternative hypothesis emerged, often named the ‘hygiene hypothesis’, according to which protection against MS is conferred by persistent effects on the immune responses of a heavy burden of microbial or parasitic infections in childhood Citation[5]. This would explain the low rates of MS among individuals born in developing countries, even after migration to high-risk areas, and the positive correlations of MS risk with socioeconomic status, education, childhood infections at a late age and other markers of a low infection burden in childhood. However, this hypothesis does not explain the critical finding that individuals who are not infected with EBV infection, despite having par excellence a low burden of childhood infections, have an extremely low MS risk. The significance of this finding has long gone unappreciated, because the rarity of EBV negativity in adults reduced the power of individual studies, and the consistency and strength of the association became clear only in meta-analyses Citation[2,6]. An additional concern was the possibility that EBV-negative individuals are coincidentally genetically resistant to both EBV infection and MS, but this explanation is virtually ruled out by the low MS risk in EBV-negative children – most of whom will be infected with EBV before adulthood and are thus genetically susceptible – compared with EBV-positive children Citation[7,8]. The integration of these findings with the observation that mononucleosis, which is usually the expression of a primary EBV infection during adolescence or adulthood, is associated with a two- to threefold increase in the risk of MS Citation[9,10], provides consistent and compelling evidence that EBV infection is a strong risk factor for MS – infection in childhood increases MS hazard by eight- to tenfold, whereas infection later in life increases the hazard by 20- to 30-fold.

To better understand the nature of the relation between EBV and MS, we Citation[11–13] and others Citation[14] have examined the temporal relation between antibody responses to EBV and MS onset in longitudinal studies. The most consistent finding is that plasma antibody titers against the EBV nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1) increase several years before the onset of neurological symptoms of MS. These antibodies in patients with mononucleosis appear only during convalescence and then persist at stable levels for several decades, and are thus a marker of previous EBV infection. Among individuals who will develop MS, a secondary (i.e., not due to primary EBV infection) increase in anti-EBNA-1 titers seems to occur at some point between 17 and 29 years of age Citation[12]. Since anti-EBNA-1 titers correlate with cellular immunity to EBV, this increase may reflect a reactivation of T-cell immune responses to EBV Citation[15]. Whether this reactivation is caused by re-infection with EBV itself or with other exogenous or endogenous factors remains unknown. It has been recently reported that a substantial proportion of healthy individuals carry more than one EBV strain Citation[16], but it is uncertain whether these were acquired simultaneously or sequentially, and there are no data on antibody responses following reinfection with a different EBV strain.“...evidence from pathological and epidemiological studies suggests that prevention of EBV infection would result in a marked decline in MS incidence.”

Although the epidemiology of mononucleosis and MS are strikingly similar Citation[17], some critical aspects of MS epidemiology are not easily explained by EBV infection Citation[2]. Among these, the most notable is the decrease in MS risk among migrants from high to low MS risk areas Citation[3]. Although migration in early childhood could conceivably afford some protection by anticipating age at EBV infection, no protection would be expected among individuals who migrate at later ages. By contrast, a decrease in MS risk seems to be associated with migration up to 15 years of age and, in one study, even with migration during adulthood Citation[18]. Furthermore, the MS epidemics in the Faroe Islands cannot be explained by EBV, because almost certainly EBV was ubiquitous in the Faroe Islands, as it is in all other human populations investigated Citation[4]. One possibility is that the EBV strains in areas of low MS incidence are less likely to cause MS. Alternatively, other infectious or non-infectious factors may modulate the results of EBV infection. Neither of these explanations, however, contradicts the strong association between EBV infection and MS risk.

The combined evidence from pathological and epidemiological studies suggest that prevention of EBV infection would result in a marked, probably tenfold, decline in MS incidence. Considering that mononucleosis itself is a major cause of morbidity, and that EBV may also increase risk of systemic lupus erythematosus Citation[19] (and perhaps other autoimmune diseases), ongoing efforts to develop a vaccine that prevents infection are worthwhile Citation[20]. Monitoring the long-term effects of the vaccine, however, would be important, because we cannot exclude the possibility that the effects on the immune system of persistent EBV infection still have some unknown beneficial effects and because a partially-effective vaccine could delay age at EBV infection and paradoxically increase incidence of both mononucleosis and MS. What about the treatment of MS? The results of three placebo-controlled trials of the antiviral alacyclovir or its precursor valacyclovir suggested overall a non-significant benefit in the treated patients Citation[21–23], but these studies were too small to be conclusive and alacyclovir does not decrease the number of latently infected B cells. Currently, several new drugs for MS treatment are in the pipeline, but none are an antiviral nor have they been developed taking into account the presence and probable pathogenic role of EBV-infected B cells in the CNS Citation[24]. Attempts to confirm the presence of EBV-infected B cells in the brains of most MS patients and the relation between these cells and MS pathology are ongoing in different laboratories. Meanwhile, perhaps pharmaceutical companies should start warming to the idea that MS could, after all, be a rare complication of EBV infection and that this may be important in drug development.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

References

  • Serafini B, Rosicarelli B, Franciotta D et al. Dysregulated Epstein–Barr virus infection in the multiple sclerosis brain. J. Exp. Med.204, 2899–2912 (2007).
  • Ascherio A, Munger KL. Environmental risk factors for multiple sclerosis. Part I: the role of infection. Ann. Neurol.61, 288–299 (2007).
  • Gale CR, Martyn CN. Migrant studies in multiple sclerosis. Prog. Neurobiol.47, 425–448 (1995).
  • Kurtzke JF, Hyllested K. Multiple sclerosis in the Faroe Islands. I. Clinical and epidemiological features. Ann. Neurol.5, 6–21 (1979).
  • Bach JF. The effect of infections on susceptibility to autoimmune and allergic diseases. N. Engl. J. Med.347, 911–920 (2002).
  • Ascherio A, Munch M. Epstein–Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. Epidemiology11, 220–224 (2000).
  • Alotaibi S, Kennedy J, Tellier R, Stephens D, Banwell B. Epstein–Barr virus in pediatric multiple sclerosis. JAMA291, 1875–1879 (2004).
  • Pohl D, Krone B, Rostasy K et al. High seroprevalence of Epstein–Barr virus in children with multiple sclerosis. Neurology67, 2063–2065 (2006).
  • Thacker EL, Mirzaei F, Ascherio A. Infectious mononucleosis and risk for multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis. Ann. Neurol.59, 499–503 (2006).
  • Nielsen TR, Rostgaard K, Nielsen NM et al. Multiple sclerosis after infectious mononucleosis. Arch. Neurol.64, 72–75 (2007).
  • Ascherio A, Munger KL, Lennette ET et al. Epstein–Barr virus antibodies and risk of multiple sclerosis: a prospective study. JAMA286, 3083–3088 (2001).
  • Levin LI, Munger KL, Rubertone MV et al. Temporal relationship between elevation of Epstein–Barr virus antibody titers and initial onset of neurological symptoms in multiple sclerosis. JAMA293, 2496–2500 (2005).
  • DeLorenze GN, Munger KL, Lennette E et al. Epstein–Barr virus and multiple sclerosis: evidence of association from a prospective study with long-term follow-up. Arch. Neurol.63, 839–844 (2006).
  • Sundstrom P, Juto P, Wadell G et al. An altered immune response to Epstein–Barr virus in multiple sclerosis: a prospective study. Neurology62, 2277–2282 (2004).
  • Kusunoki Y, Huang H, Fukuda Y et al. A positive correlation between the precursor frequency of cytotoxic lymphocytes to autologous Epstein–Barr virus-transformed B cells and antibody titer level against Epstein–Barr virus-associated nuclear antigen in healthy seropositive individuals. Microbiol. Immunol.37, 461–469 (1993).
  • Sitki-Green D, Covington M, Raab-Traub N. Compartmentalization and transmission of multiple Epstein–Barr virus strains in asymptomatic carriers. J. Virol.77, 1840–1847 (2003).
  • Warner HB, Carp RI. Multiple sclerosis and Epstein–Barr virus (letter). Lancet2, 1290 (1981).
  • Hammond SR, English DR, McLeod JG. The age-range of risk of developing multiple sclerosis: evidence from a migrant population in Australia. Brain123, 968–974 (2000).
  • James JA, Neas BR, Moser KL et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus in adults is associated with previous Epstein–Barr virus exposure. Arthritis Rheum.44, 1122–1126. (2001).
  • Moutschen M, Leonard P, Sokal EM et al. Phase I/II studies to evaluate safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant gp350 Epstein–Barr virus vaccine in healthy adults. Vaccine25, 4697–4705 (2007).
  • Lycke J, Svennerholm B, Hjelmquist E et al. Acyclovir treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. J. Neurol.243, 214–224 (1996).
  • Bech E, Lycke J, Gadeberg P et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MRI study of anti-herpes virus therapy in MS. Neurology58, 31–36 (2002).
  • Friedman JE, Zabriskie JB, Plank C et al. A randomized clinical trial of valacyclovir in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler.11, 286–295 (2005).
  • Hemmer B and Hartung HP. Toward the development of rational therapies in multiple sclerosis: what is on the horizon? Ann. Neurol.62, 314–326 (2007).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.