Longitudinal analysis reveals high prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus associated with multiple sclerosis, Bjornevik et al (2022)

Merged thread

"Study identifies how Epstein-Barr virus triggers multiple sclerosis
share
A new study found that part of the Epstein-Barr virus mimics a protein made in the brain and spinal cord, leading the immune system to mistakenly attack the body’s nerve cells.---"

I recall th molecular mimicry discussions on this forum - so this caught my attention!

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/01/epstein-barr-virus-multiple-sclerosis.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04432-7
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FMMM1 said:
Merged thread

"Study identifies how Epstein-Barr virus triggers multiple sclerosis
share
A new study found that part of the Epstein-Barr virus mimics a protein made in the brain and spinal cord, leading the immune system to mistakenly attack the body’s nerve cells.---"

I recall th molecular mimicry discussions on this forum - so this caught my attention!

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/01/epstein-barr-virus-multiple-sclerosis.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04432-7
Click to expand...


FYI the Guardian has a long piece today on the paper published in Science:

Can we vaccinate against Epstein-Barr, the virus you didn’t know you had? | Science | The Guardian

I don't suppose, when the team from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health did their big longitudinal study (10m blood samples from US military personnel over 20 years), they looked at incidence of ME/CFS as well?
 
Jacob Richter said:
FYI the Guardian has a long piece today on the paper published in Science:

Can we vaccinate against Epstein-Barr, the virus you didn’t know you had? | Science | The Guardian

I don't suppose, when the team from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health did their big longitudinal study (10m blood samples from US military personnel over 20 years), they looked at incidence of ME/CFS as well?
Click to expand...

Interesting i.e. "I don't suppose, when the team from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health did their big longitudinal study (10m blood samples from US military personnel over 20 years), they looked at incidence of ME/CFS as well?"
If you search on this thread then I think you'll find a comment from Jonathan indicating that that is a reasonable idea [EDIT - see below*]. I might drop Solve an email i.e. to ask if anyone is doing that/thinking of doing that.

[EDIT - I've consulted internally and the thinking is to leave it for a short period of time - so possibly I'll email Solve in a few weeks.
If you want to press ahead then try Emily Taylor (Vice President of Advocacy and Engagement) and Oved Amitay (President and Chief Executive Officer) - Solve.
If you contact them then grateful if you tag me here.]

@Michiel Tack

*
https://www.s4me.info/threads/longi...bjornevik-et-al-2022.24194/page-2#post-401820
 
Last edited:
Jacob Richter said:
I don't suppose, when the team from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health did their big longitudinal study (10m blood samples from US military personnel over 20 years), they looked at incidence of ME/CFS as well?
Click to expand...
Now that the threads are merged, Robert 1973's posts about his conversation with the researcher are earlier in this thread. starting with this one (click on the arrow to go to it). The researchers haven't looked at the incidence of ME/CFS, but they potentially could.

Robert 1973 said:
I’ve not read this paper, but I’m wondering if there is any possibility that a prospective study like this could be used retrospectively to test whether EBV infection increased risk of developing ME/CFS or any other conditions. I assume it would depend on the consent that participants gave, and I’m guessing that would have been specific to notification of an MS diagnosis, but it could be useful if it allowed for wider access to anonymised medical records retrospectively.
Click to expand...
 
Merged thread

The quest to prevent MS — and understand other post-viral diseases

Erin Longbrake, a neurologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, has thought about how to balance the need for early intervention with the side effects a treatment can bring. Her therapy of choice is the FDA-approved MS drug ocrelizumab, which kills B cells to reset the malfunctioning immune system. It was not designed as an antiviral, but by happy accident it knocks out at least some of the EBV reservoir. Because it broadly depletes the immune system, however, treated individuals are at high risk of other infections. It’s a high price to pay for someone without a disease.

So Longbrake has been looking for those with most to gain. A tiny subset of people have damaged areas in their brains similar to those caused by MS, but none of the accompanying symptoms. Such lesions are sometimes noticed incidentally on a brain scan. Nearly half of these people will develop MS within ten years of the discovery.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00808-x
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ocrelizumab is essentially the same as rituximab. Its effect on MS probably has nothing to do with depleting EBV though, even if EBV is a necessary factor in genesis of the problem. The drugs remove the B cells that give rise to antibody-secreting plasma cells in brain.

The problem about using Rituximabb or ocrelizumab early is that as far as we know from the dozen or so diseases that have been treated since we started with RA you do not get any special bonus from early intervention. You do not get rid of the problem long term, but have to repeat treatment at intervals. This is not always so. Immune thrombocytopenia may remit permanently but it does that anyway so is a bit unusual.

So treating early is a good idea for MS to prevent attacks but I don't see any special relevance to the potential role of EBV.

The risk from infection is not that great - unless you have a pandemic going on, which has proved a major issue. The bigger risk is from pneumonitis, which has never been properly studied so that it can be avoided if possible. It is a sad fact that since we introduced rituximab in 2000 not very much progress has been made in streamlining the treatment and reducing risk, other than patenting new versions that may be a bit more potent, like ocrelizumab.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Ocrelizumab is essentially the same as rituximab. Its effect on MS probably has nothing to do with depleting EBV though, even if EBV is a necessary factor in genesis of the problem. The drugs remove the B cells that give rise to antibody-secreting plasma cells in brain.

The problem about using Rituximabb or ocrelizumab early is that as far as we know from the dozen or so diseases that have been treated since we started with RA you do not get any special bonus from early intervention. You do not get rid of the problem long term, but have to repeat treatment at intervals. This is not always so. Immune thrombocytopenia may remit permanently but it does that anyway so is a bit unusual.

So treating early is a good idea for MS to prevent attacks but I don't see any special relevance to the potential role of EBV.

The risk from infection is not that great - unless you have a pandemic going on, which has proved a major issue. The bigger risk is from pneumonitis, which has never been properly studied so that it can be avoided if possible. It is a sad fact that since we introduced rituximab in 2000 not very much progress has been made in streamlining the treatment and reducing risk, other than patenting new versions that may be a bit more potent, like ocrelizumab.
Click to expand...

The B cells are EBV infected, that is why Rituximab probably works.
 
butter. said:
The B cells are EBV infected, that is why Rituximab probably works.
Click to expand...

I think that is very unlikely. The presence of EBV in our B cells generally has no consequences. It just sits there. If it proliferates the B cell is killed. In all autoimmune diseases something else has happened to the B cell population that is not removed simply by temporary removal of EBV infected cells. The response kinetics in MS with rituximab and ocrelizumab is of blockage of new relapses during the period off B cell depletion but not long term. The role of EBV in MS is almost certainly as an early permissive step. Remember, I introduced rituximab for autoimmune disease in 1998 and before that my mother was in charge of the central EBV virology lab in the UK! I recommended rituximab for blocking MS attacks to the neurologists in 2002 but it took them ten years to get around to it. The rationale was independent of EBV. The kinetics of these diseases are complicated.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I think that is very unlikely. The presence of EBV in our B cells generally has no consequences. It just sits there. If it proliferates the B cell is killed. In all autoimmune diseases something else has happened to the B cell population that is not removed simply by temporary removal of EBV infected cells. The response kinetics in MS with rituximab and ocrelizumab is of blockage of new relapses during the period off B cell depletion but not long term. The role of EBV in MS is almost certainly as an early permissive step. Remember, I introduced rituximab for autoimmune disease in 1998 and before that my mother was in charge of the central EBV virology lab in the UK! I recommended rituximab for blocking MS attacks to the neurologists in 2002 but it took them ten years to get around to it. The rationale was independent of EBV. The kinetics of these diseases are complicated.
Click to expand...

I think ATA 188 is/will be showing that you are wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
butter. said:
I think ATA 188 is/will be showing that you are wrong,
Click to expand...

Can you give a reason for saying this?

As far as I can see ATA 188 kills B cells, so if it works either explanation would fit.
It doesn't look as if there are any firm data yet.
The blurb looks fairly simplistic immunology to me. That does not mean that the drug will not work but I don't see any reason to follow the theorising which is very vague and hand-waving.

I see that there is a possibility that this approach might remove dormant EBV long term and that might lead to long term remission in MS, but that is not what happens with rituximab, which has no specificity for EBV infected cells and does not produce long term remission.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan Edwards said:
Can you give a reason for saying this?

As far as I can see ATA 188 kills B cells, so if it works either explanation would fit.
It doesn't look as if there are any firm data yet.
The blurb looks fairly simplistic immunology to me. That does not mean that the drug will not work but I don't see any reason to follow the theorising which is very vague and hand-waving.

I see that there is a possibility that this approach might remove dormant EBV long term and that might lead to long term remission in MS, but that is not what happens with rituximab, which has no specificity for EBV infected cells and does not produce long term remission.
Click to expand...

No, it kills infected B cells. Big difference.
 
Yes, I guess that if ATA 188 worked it would suggest that MS lesions are specifically mediated by EBV infected cells. But it would be a pretty big coincidence that rituximab works comparably well for all sorts of autoimmune disorders where there is no particular suggestion that EBV infection of the relevant B cells is necessary. Other autoimmune disorders have been documented in EBV negative individuals.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61042598

Is a virus we all have causing multiple sclerosis?

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is so common that nearly all of us can expect to catch it during our lives. Most of us won't even notice, but the virus is famous for "the kissing disease", which is also known as either glandular fever or mononucleosis. EBV has been on the list of suspects for MS for decades, but definitive proof has been hard to gather because the virus is so common and multiple sclerosis is so rare.

The crucial piece of evidence has come from the US military, which takes blood samples from soldiers every two years. These are kept in the freezers of the Department of Defense Serum Repository and have proven to be a goldmine for research.

A team at Harvard University went looking through samples from 10 million people to establish the connection between EBV and multiple sclerosis.

Their study, published in the journal Science, found 955 people who were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and, using the regular blood samples, they were able to chart the course of the disease.

"Individuals who were not infected with the Epstein-Barr virus virtually never get multiple sclerosis," Prof Alberto Ascherio, from Harvard, told me.

"It's only after Epstein-Barr virus infection that the risk of multiple sclerosis jumps up by over 30-fold."
Click to expand...
 
Why do people get long COVID? A virus called EBV, which causes multiple sclerosis, may hold clues
Scientists are looking at reactivation of latent viruses, and other existing post-infection syndromes, for answers about long-haul COVID-19.
In one pioneering study this January, researchers at Harvard found a causal link between Epstein-Barr virus (or EBV, which most people contract, and which gives a few unlucky individuals mononucleosis) and multiple sclerosis (MS). The study, which has been over 20 years in the making, has implications for what may one day be revealed about long COVID, said Elizabeth Jacobs, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Arizona whose team has already begun studying COVID-19 long haulers.

“We're expecting decades, decades of research on this,” she said.

Although the mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 are different from those of true latent viruses — the coronavirus might not stick around in the body as long as or in the same ways as, say, EBV — scientists are looking at reactivation of latent viruses, and other existing post-infection syndromes, for answers about long-haul COVID-19. “For long haulers, for sure, I can tell you that we're going to be looking at other viruses,” said Dr. Janko Nikolich-Žugich, the head of the immunobiology department at the University of Arizona and co-director of the Arizona Center on Aging.

Nikolich-Žugich, who is also part of a team that recently received a $9.2 million grant to study long COVID, said that he and other researchers are interested in examining the relationship between long COVID and latent viruses because it is “probably the interplay between the host and the viruses that will determine why one person got (long COVID) and the other person just sailed through,” he said.

But uncovering temporal and causal connections between latent viruses and long COVID could take a while. That’s why scientists are looking to existing knowledge, like the recently-confirmed connection between EBV and MS, for a glimpse of the future.
Click to expand...
https://eu.azcentral.com/in-depth/n...xamining-long-covid-other-viruses/6900178001/
 
Solve M.E. CEO Oved Amitay and Dr. Leonard Jason Write Letter to the Editor, Nature

"DePaul Univeristy Professor of Psychology Leonard Jason, PhD and Solve M.E. President and CEO Oved Amitay recently co-authored a response to a Nature article linking Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple sclerosis (MS), and the possibility that EBV vaccines and antivirals could prevent MS. Jason and Amitay note the connection between ME/CFS and EBV call for similar research into preventive vaccines for ME/CFS."

https://solvecfs.org/solve-m-e-ceo-...nard-jason-write-letter-to-the-editor-nature/
 
Bizarre attempt to push the psychosocial (labeled biosocial in the article, for some reason) model that stress is the explanation they prefer. Following the exact same pattern as happened with peptic ulcers, ideology just never gives up.

Falling down the biological rabbit hole: Epstein-Barr virus, biography, and multiple sclerosis
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/164141

It's basically the exact same tired BPS nonsense. Although I guess this is the latest rebranding attempt, biopsychosocial is dead, all hail biosocial, somehow still 99% psychological despite having dropped the prefix.

The main argument appears to be that the cohort in which it was observed was active duty, which would actually strongly support the hypothesis that exertion could be a significant trigger. Not many occasions to rest while on active military duty.

A side note, I read a lot of military sci-fi, often written by veterans. All the good ones are. Military life is not stressful, it's boring. Boring, boring, boring. So much waiting, so much bureaucracy, so much paperwork. Did I mention all the waiting around being bored? What a lot of people love about the military is that it's not complicated, you follow orders, you're told how and where to live.

And most active duty personnel see little combat. Long gone are the days of WWI military type of infernal trench warfare. Especially in the US, active duty soldiers keep in touch with their families, they feel like they belong.

For some reason the message is that biology is not that relevant, while psychology is, but they want to call it biosocial. Whatever. What a mess this ideology continues to be.
 
rvallee said:
Falling down the biological rabbit hole: Epstein-Barr virus, biography, and multiple sclerosis
Click to expand...
This rather excited opinion piece by psychosocial enthusiasts is founded on getting the maths wrong.

Their great "insight" is that the association between MS and EBV is generally weak, and only strong for the 36 cases of MS who were EBV negative when they join the military and 35 subsequently became EBV positive prior to their MS. The authors conclude there is something about military service that dramatically increases the risk of MS.

According to these authors, the important factor is the odds ratio for those who were already EBV -positive when they joined the military. They calculated this as the 766 who were EBV+ at baseline/801 total MS cases, to give an odds ratio (relative to the control group) of only 1.6 (p <0.05).

But the point of the original study was to look at the risk of getting MS after EBV. So, for the MS cohort who were already EBV-positive at the start of the study, the relevant figure is 766/766, which leads to an odds ratio of about 25. There is no story here.

Of course, EBV is only causal in the sense that it appears to be a necessary step for getting MS. Almost the entire adult population has EBV, while the prevalence rate is only 0.13%. Other factors are clearly at play. Genetics is definitely one factor, others are up for grabs. But the authors of the opinion piece are getting carried away when they talk about "biosocial mechanisms: the next research frontier".

I think they might soon be suffering a hangover after the giddy euphoria of coming up with the idea and getting it published.
 
Last edited:
FMMM1 said:
Interesting i.e. "I don't suppose, when the team from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health did their big longitudinal study (10m blood samples from US military personnel over 20 years), they looked at incidence of ME/CFS as well?"
If you search on this thread then I think you'll find a comment from Jonathan indicating that that is a reasonable idea [EDIT - see below*]. I might drop Solve an email i.e. to ask if anyone is doing that/thinking of doing that.

[EDIT - I've consulted internally and the thinking is to leave it for a short period of time - so possibly I'll email Solve in a few weeks.
If you want to press ahead then try Emily Taylor (Vice President of Advocacy and Engagement) and Oved Amitay (President and Chief Executive Officer) - Solve.
If you contact them then grateful if you tag me here.]

@Michiel Tack

*
https://www.s4me.info/threads/longi...bjornevik-et-al-2022.24194/page-2#post-401820
Click to expand...

@Jacob Richter I'm part of World ME Alliance group WHO Group* I've been tasked with doing some research re ME/CFS like diseases**. I took the opportunity to flag up the potential to replicate the EBV/MS study i.e. ME/CFS - [EDIT - EBV] study. Funny enough one of the Solve reps is looking at the potential to link up with MS groups & they mentioned the EBV/MS study.
Not suggesting it will lead to anything though!
@ME/CFS Skeptic

*[Action for M.E. & Solve lead the group - I'm part of EMEC]

**https://www.s4me.info/threads/disea...ay-work-with-me-cfs-groups.30987/#post-453376
 
Last edited:
FMMM1 said:
@Jacob Richter I'm part of World ME Alliance group WHO Group* I've been tasked with doing some research re ME/CFS like diseases**. I took the opportunity to flag up the potential to replicate the EBV/MS study i.e. ME/CFS - MS study. Funny enough one of the Solve reps is looking at the potential to link up with MS groups & they mentioned the EBV/MS study.
Not suggesting it will lead to anything though!
@ME/CFS Skeptic

*[Action for M.E. & Solve lead the group - I'm part of EMEC]

**https://www.s4me.info/threads/disea...ay-work-with-me-cfs-groups.30987/#post-453376
Click to expand...

I agree it would be very interesting to further explore the potential links between EBV and ME/CFS, partly because my own ME onset was co-incidental with an active EBV infection, but also because active EBV infection is more likely to be associated with ME onset than many other viruses and EBV is so ubiquitous that many people have antibodies without ever being aware of an acute infection stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom