Distinct Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteomes Differentiate Post-Treatment Lyme Disease from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Department of Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, United States of America.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 02/2011; 6(2):e17287. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017287
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Neurologic Post Treatment Lyme disease (nPTLS) and Chronic Fatigue (CFS) are syndromes of unknown etiology. They share features of fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, making it difficult to differentiate them. Unresolved is whether nPTLS is a subset of CFS.
Pooled cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from nPTLS patients, CFS patients, and healthy volunteers were comprehensively analyzed using high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS), coupled with immunoaffinity depletion methods to reduce protein-masking by abundant proteins. Individual patient and healthy control CSF samples were analyzed directly employing a MS-based label-free quantitative proteomics approach. We found that both groups, and individuals within the groups, could be distinguished from each other and normals based on their specific CSF proteins (p<0.01). CFS (n = 43) had 2,783 non-redundant proteins, nPTLS (n = 25) contained 2,768 proteins, and healthy normals had 2,630 proteins. Preliminary pathway analysis demonstrated that the data could be useful for hypothesis generation on the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying these two related syndromes.
nPTLS and CFS have distinguishing CSF protein complements. Each condition has a number of CSF proteins that can be useful in providing candidates for future validation studies and insights on the respective mechanisms of pathogenesis. Distinguishing nPTLS and CFS permits more focused study of each condition, and can lead to novel diagnostics and therapeutic interventions.

Download full-text


Available from: Tao Liu, Jun 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) are used interchangeably, the diagnostic criteria define two distinct clinical entities. Cognitive impairment, (muscle) weakness, circulatory disturbances, marked variability of symptoms, and, above all, post-exertional malaise: a long-lasting increase of symptoms after a minor exertion, are distinctive symptoms of ME. This latter phenomenon separates ME, a neuro-immune illness, from chronic fatigue (syndrome), other disorders and deconditioning. The introduction of the label, but more importantly the diagnostic criteria for CFS have generated much confusion, mostly because chronic fatigue is a subjective and ambiguous notion. CFS was redefined in 1994 into unexplained (persistent or relapsing) chronic fatigue, accompanied by at least four out of eight symptoms, e.g., headaches and unrefreshing sleep. Most of the research into ME and/or CFS in the last decades was based upon the multivalent CFS criteria, which define a heterogeneous patient group. Due to the fact that fatigue and other symptoms are non-discriminative, subjective experiences, research has been hampered. Various authors have questioned the physiological nature of the symptoms and qualified ME/CFS as somatization. However, various typical symptoms can be assessed objectively using standardized methods. Despite subjective and unclear criteria and measures, research has observed specific abnormalities in ME/CFS repetitively, e.g., immunological abnormalities, oxidative and nitrosative stress, neurological anomalies, circulatory deficits and mitochondrial dysfunction. However, to improve future research standards and patient care, it is crucial that patients with post-exertional malaise (ME) and patients without this odd phenomenon are acknowledged as separate clinical entities that the diagnosis of ME and CFS in research and clinical practice is based upon accurate criteria and an objective assessment of characteristic symptoms, as much as possible that well-defined clinical and biological subgroups of ME and CFS patients are investigated in more detail, and that patients are monitored before, during and after interventions with objective measures and biomarkers.
    Frontiers in Physiology 03/2014; 5:109. DOI:10.3389/fphys.2014.00109 · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome case designation criteria are scored as physicians' subjective, nominal interpretations of patient fatigue, pain (headaches, myalgia, arthralgia, sore throat and lymph nodes), cognitive dysfunction, sleep and exertional exhaustion. Subjects self-reported symptoms using an anchored ordinal scale of 0 (no symptom), 1 (trivial complaints), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe). Fatigue of 3 or 4 distinguished "Fatigued" from "Not Fatigued" subjects. The sum of the 8(Sum8) ancillary criteria was tested as a proxy for fatigue. All subjects had history and physical examinations to exclude medical fatigue, and ensure categorization as healthy or CFS subjects. Fatigued subjects were divided into CFS with ≥4 symptoms or Chronic Idiopathic Fatigue (CIF) with ≤3 symptoms. ROC of Sum8 for CFS and Not Fatigued subjects generated a threshold of 14 (specificity=0.934; sensitivity=0.928). CFS (n=256) and CIF (n=55) criteria were refined to include Sum8≥14 and ≤13, respectively. Not Fatigued subjects had highly skewed Sum8 responses. Healthy Controls (HC; n=269) were defined by fatigue≤2 and Sum8≤13. Those with Sum8≥14 were defined as CFS-Like With Insufficient Fatigue Syndrome (CFSLWIFS; n=20). Sum8 and Fatigue were highly correlated (R(2)=0.977; Cronbach's alpha=0.924) indicating an intimate relationship between symptom constructs. Cluster analysis suggested 4 clades each in CFS and HC. Translational utility was inferred from the clustering of proteomics from cerebrospinal fluid. Plotting Fatigue severity versus Sum8 produced an internally consistent classifying system. This is a necessary step for translating symptom profiles into fatigue phenotypes and their pathophysiological mechanisms.
    American Journal of Translational Research 01/2013; 5(1):53-68. · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a debilitating condition that has received increasing attention from researchers in the past decade. However, it has become difficult to compare data collected in different laboratories due to the variability in basic information regarding descriptions of sampling methods, patient characteristics, and clinical assessments. The issue of variability in CFS research was recently highlighted at the NIH's 2011 State of the Knowledge of CFS meeting prompting researchers to consider the critical information that should be included in CFS research reports. To address this problem, we present our consensus on the minimum data elements that should be included in all CFS research reports, along with additional elements that are currently being evaluated in specific research studies that show promise as important patient descriptors for subgrouping of CFS. These recommendations are intended to improve the consistency of reported methods and the interpretability of reported results. Adherence to minimum standards and increased reporting consistency will allow for better comparisons among published CFS articles, provide guidance for future research and foster the generation of knowledge that can directly benefit the patient.
    Brain Behavior and Immunity 03/2012; 26(3):401-6. DOI:10.1016/j.bbi.2012.01.014 · 6.13 Impact Factor