Friday, March 13, 2015

Molecular Mimicry: A Maladaptation of Learning

"Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery - it's the sincerest form of learning." - George Bernard Shaw

Generally speaking, knowledge is the pursuit of all living things. As part of the animal kingdom we educate ourselves for our survival, as do birds learning to fly or lions learning to hunt. Learning even has implications on the molecular level, with increasing evidence pointing to long-term potentiation via the regulation of AMPA and NMDA channels in the synapse. The idea here is that post-synaptic neurons in the brain physically change in response to use over time, correlating use with channel up regulation. Perhaps this is why cramming before a test is less effective than reviewing the material on a regular basis leading up to an exam.

It is clear that how we understand learning is becoming increasingly more and more physical as we learn about physical factors on both the macro and the micro level; and most would agree that that this is good. Learning must of course be a positive experience, and many people nobly spend their lives in the pursuit of knowledge.  However, Zheng and Zhang of the Beijing Tiantan Hospital’s department of neurology may warn you that molecular “learning” may not always be as positive as it seems.

One important part of your physiology that clearly learns over time is your immune system. Dendritic cells, macrophages and b-cells circulating in your blood are on the look out for pathogens and intruders. Once one of these cells, known as an antigen presenting cell, comes in contact with a pathogen via specialized and unique receptors on its membrane, the pathogen is rapidly phagocytized and pieces are presented to t-cells, which patrol your blood looking to destroy or mark for destruction any pathogen or pathogen infected cell. In the process of an immune response, b-cells will create b-memory cells that can survive for years or even decades in our system. This is the basis of immunization – your body is exposed to a small amount of pathogen, which elicits an immune response so that in the future if you come in contact with the antigen your body will recognized the problem via these memory cells, initiate an immune attack, and prevent the disease or infection from taking hold.

In theory and in practice this makes a lot of sense, the immune system is able to learn and protect you from the pathogens you are frequently exposed to in your environment, enabling continued survival a reproduction to pass along the genes encoding for this system. The only caveat is that the body needs to ensure it is only responding to harmful pathogens and not harmless molecules we have ingested or worse molecules endogenous to our physiology. Immune cells that learn to respond to molecules endogenous to our pathology is the basis of debilitating autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, where auto reactive antibodies attack myelin native to the nervous system, wreaking havoc on the present neurons.

The question in MS is often not just how do these auto reactive cells pass the blood brain barrier, but also why do these auto reactive cells stay in the barrier once inside? Zheng and Zhang flush out an idea for how this occurs known as “molecular mimicry”. The idea is that in the process of responding to a pathogen – be it viral or bacterial – the antibodies created may mistake an endogenous molecule for an invading one. Specifically, they look at the interactions between t-cells primed with various viruses, most of which the majority of the population is immunized against, and myelin basic protein or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein, two of the essential proteins involved in the creation and maintenance of integrity within the myelin sheath. As you can imagine, an immune response against either protein in the brain would result in catastrophic effects for the host of the immune system. But how plausible is this idea?


As it turns out, in vitro experiments leading up to this point have shown this idea to be very plausible. A b-cell antibody will only present an amino acid sequence on the order or 10-15 amino acids, making this idea not only appealing but also plausible mathematically. What is so interesting about what Zheng and Zhang are researching is they have produced results of molecular mimicry in vivo using Lewis rats. For those studying molecular mimicry, these results have been illusive, but indicate that molecular mimicry may really underlie the pathology behind autoimmune multiple sclerosis. While the idea of molecular mimicry has been around for a decade or so, scientists are just now beginning to understand the processes a little more in depth. In fact, the solid evidence for molecular mimicry has been so difficult to obtain that the first person to finally crack the code on this maladaptation of learning will almost certainly be in the running for a nobel prize – for molecular biologists and immunologists, the race is on.  

Zheng, M. M., & Zhang, X. H. (2014). Cross-reactivity between human cytomegalovirus peptide 981-1003 and myelin oligodendroglia glycoprotein peptide 35-55 in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis in lewis rats. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 443(3), 1118-1123. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2013.12.122 [doi]

10 comments:

  1. I am guessing that you are either a neuroscience or psychology major based on the post. If this the case, I was wondering if you could say a little more about the way that "post-synaptic neurons in the brain physically change in response to use over time." I don't know anything about the science of memory, and think that it is really cool that we have a sense of how learning happens physically. Is this post-synaptic change something that we could stimulate to make learning easier? Has some sort of pathology in the process been observed in patients with learning disabilities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Learning on a molecular level is still something scientists are trying to understand, but one of the most important concepts to understand is Long Term Potentiation and Long Term Depression. Long term potentiation is induced by use of the neuron - long story short increased use causes and increase in the amount of glutamate receptors in the post-synaptic membrane which allows the neuron to respond more efficiently to glutamate release from the pre-synaptic neuron in the future; long term depression is essentially the opposite so that lack of use leads to a decrease in post-synaptic receptors. Thinking about this in terms of studying, you would hypothesize that repeated exposure to material causes repeated use of specific neurons that in turn up regulate receptors in the post synaptic neuron and lead to long term storage or ability to recall the information.

      Delete
  2. I would like to hear more about what Zheng and Zhang did in their study to produce results of molecular mimicry using Lewis rats. What techniques did they use? It would be cool to see a figure to better visualize this idea!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They specifically used Lewis rats and induced EAE (an animal form of MS) by using various immunizations known to induce this, as well as other antigens that could potentially cross react. The idea is that if molecular mimicry ensues, an antigen that appears similar to a protein such as MOG will have similar inflammatory and disease progressing effects as the MOG antigen itself.

      Delete
  3. My question is if our immune system is targeting our own cells, what causes it to focus primarily on neurons? Could this mistargeting be responsible for diseases in other parts of the body as well? Finally, it would be very interesting to explore what initially causes the immune system to target the wrong cells.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In MS specifically, the immune system actually attacks the oligodendrocytes that surround the neuron and create the myelin sheath. A popular hypothesis is that the immune system attacks these oligodendrocytes because of a protein that is specific to the myelin sheath, either MOG or MBP. In molecular mimicry, the immune system will focus on which ever protein contains the sequence it has been primed to - popular ideas of things that could cause the immune system to target endogenous proteins are viruses or bacteria. The mistargeting, or mimicry, will be specific to the antigen and the protein it mimics, as well as where in the body this protein is located; so yes, molecular mimicry has the potential to relate to a variety of physiological diseases.

      Delete
  4. This is a very interesting article; I did not know that learning and memory was so involved in the development of MS. I know that this article focused on MS, but I am just wondering whether the majority of the auto-immune attacks are on neurons to an extreme degree, or if there are a variety of "problem areas." Also, I am curious as to whether in prenatal development some "antibodies" are developed regarding endogenous cells (not in the same way that they attack, say, the flu virus, but more of a "getting-used-to" type deal), and if things such as MS or allergies develop due to something lacking in the development of these auto-recognition pathways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the degree to which an autoimmune disease effects the CNS is specific to the disease - in this case the attacks are very likely on the oligodendrocytes rather than the neurons themselves, although the neurons also become damaged either by a loss of myelin, an increase of inflammatory mediators, or some currently unknown variable. During development, your body does categorize endogenous proteins in an attempt to avoid auto-immune disorders, and for the most part this works. However we know that something goes wrong with this process in auto-immune diseases although we do not fully understand exactly what is going wrong, which is part of what makes these diseases so difficult to treat.

      Delete
  5. I am curious to know how learning more about molecular mimicry and MS can lead to potential treatment or prevention of the disease. What other experiments are being built upon these findings or is this as far as research has gotten so far?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While there are some potential treatments for MS, it is a relative mystery and we are a long way away from preventative measures, especially since MS likely results from a complicated interacting between environmental and genetic factors. As far as I am aware this is as far as the research has gotten with molecular mimicry as it pertains to MS.

      Delete