« Slowly taking off... | Main | Focus on Addiction »

The natalizumab enigma

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a heterogeneous disease that affects primarily young adults and often leads to serious disability. We don't know what causes it, and we cannot cure it. This summer, in our July issue, we editorialized about the tragic crash-and-burn of the promising MS drug natalizumab (marketed as Tysabri(R)). In a nutshell - after passing preliminary clinical trials with flying colors, and being approved by the FDA in an accelerated procedure, natalizumab had to be pulled after just three months because a few patients came down with PML, a devastating, crippling or deadly, infection of brain oligodendrocytes. PML is caused by the JC virus, which most of us get exposed to at some point, without it ever doing any noticable harm. How exactly natalizumab would activate the somnolent JCV is unknown, in large part because we don't know enough about its life cycle and physiology. PML is extremely rare, and mice can't catch it - two facts that unfortunately tend to discourage research.

In response to our editorial, Richard Ransohoff from the Cleveland Clinic wrote us a letter putting forward an interesting hypothesis about the natalizumab - PML link. We had his letter peer-reviewed, and we published it in our October issue. Here's a summary of the idea:

Natalizumab works by interfering with a specific adhesion molecule that the myelin-attacking T cells in MS need to migrate into the brain. The same molecule also functions in cell adhesion in the bone marrow, where blood and immune cells are generated. It is known that natalizumab, as a side effect, leads to release of immature blood cells into the circulation. It has also been suggested that the specific genetic rearrangement that activates dormant JCV occurs in the bone marrow. Therefore natalizumab could lead to release of large numbers of JCV-infected immature cells in JCV carriers, overwhelming the immunosurveillance mechanisms that usually keep JCV in check.

Although we know that about 80% of the population have been exposed to JCV and carry antibodies to it, it is completely unknown how many carry dormant virus that could be activated. And there is no easy reliable test to find out.

Ransohoff's letter has triggered a small flurry of follow-up letters, with authors suggesting their own ideas, or variants on the Ransohoff hypothesis. Now, we can't really publish everyone's favorite thoughts on the subject in the printed pages of the journal - first, not all of them are as original as Ransohoff's, and second - it would never end! The journal is really meant for hard data; we publish hypotheses very, very rarely.

But this discussion itself is very much worth having. If there's any chance at salvaging natalizumab - apparently the most effective treatment for MS that's ever been available - and the entire class of drugs it represents, it will emerge from frank discussion among the experts. So why not have the discussion here, on our blog, on "Action Potential"? We'd be proud and happy to host your "virtual meeting".

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/58

Comments

> why not have the
> discussion here,
> on our blog?

I can imagine one common response: "if I have any good ideas I'll work them up myself, why put them out to be scooped by my rivals?".

Personally, I am hoping to see that attitude die out of the research community, replaced with the idea of acting in good faith to establish collaborations. This will require a degree of trust that seems largely to be missing, but if it is to develop then forums like this will surely play a part in that.

So thank you for taking this step in to the blogosphere. Is this the first "journal-blog" in the natural sciences? The editors of Am J Bioethics have a blog (http://blog.bioethics.net/), but I don't know of any others.

P.S. on preview: if you're moderating, how about allowing html?

Hi Bill,

thanks a lot for your comment. We have now enabled HTML for commenting - it was turned off inadvertently.

You're certainly correct that scientists these days play their cards close to their vests for fear of being scooped. And from my editor's vantage point, I am well aware that scooping happens. But this particular subject, JCV physiology, seems more underresearched than overcompetitive. So freewheeling discussion could be very useful to direct scarce manpower into the most promising directions. Then, of course, I'm an optimist, which is one of the reasons I got myself into this blogging project ;-)

"Action Potential", together with "Free Association" by our colleagues at Nature Genetics, are the first true blogs by Nature journals. I think we are the first "journal-blog" in neuroscience, but I wouldn't know for the entire natural sciences.

A while back I did research into the impulse control disorders, specifically the I.E.Disorder. Generally, the behavioral indicators involved some sort of felt "anxiety", followed by the rage episode, and concluded with some degree of "remorse" as a conclusion. This description is extremely simplified but my interest was piqued when I read the Nov. Nature Neuroscience's perspective article by "Koob" and "Le Moal". Would there be any reason to consider the behavior of abusers in domestic violence relationships (the ones seen commonly where the victim suffers from the "Battered Woman's Syndrome") to be suffering from I.E.Disorder, or an impulse control disorder in general, with similar neurobiological circuitry found in substance abuse addictions (limbic structures, HPA axis, prefrontal cortex)?

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are useful in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'actionpotential at natureny dot com'.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 381 total comments,
the most recent eight were: