A. van de Waterweg Berends
B. Broux
B. Machiels
L. Gillet
N. Hellings- 1Neuro-Immune Connections and Repair Lab, Biomedical Research Institute, Department of Immunology and Infection, UHasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium
- 2University MS Center, Campus Diepenbeek, Diepenbeek, Belgium
- 3Laboratory of Immunology and Vaccinology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals and Health (FARAH), ULiège, Liège, Belgium
1 Introduction
In multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, the central nervous system (CNS) is affected by the infiltration of inflammatory immune cells, resulting in demyelination and axonal loss. Although the exact trigger for the activation of autoimmune responses against the CNS has not been elucidated yet, a genetic predisposition in combination with environmental factors seems essential to develop MS. Therefore, MS is considered to be a multifactorial disease. The main environmental factors increasing the risk of MS are obesity, smoking, low vitamin D levels, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection (1). EBV is a human gammaherpesvirus and its life cycle starts after infection of epithelial cells where it replicates and then spreads to B cells to establish lifelong latency. Latent EBV can be reactivated in memory B cells. EBV was first linked to MS almost 40 years ago. The first hypothesis was developed after identifying many similarities between the occurrence and latitude gradient of MS and infectious mononucleosis (IM) caused by EBV, and therefore MS was proposed to be a complication of an EBV infection (2). EBV is also reported to be associated with MS relapses (3), however, here we emphasize the involvement in MS etiology rather than in disease progression and we highlight the progress made in the field and provide suggestions for future research.
2 Epidemiological evidence
A lot of epidemiological evidence is available that shows the association between EBV and MS. For example, anti-EBV antibodies are elevated 5 or more years before the onset of MS symptoms, and the most consistent observations are found for antibodies against EBV nuclear antigens (e.g. EBNA-1 and EBNA-2) which are expressed during a latent infection (4). Besides antibodies against the latent-expressed EBNA, also antibodies against the lytic-expressed viral capsid antigen (VCA) are elevated in MS patients (5) and correlates with disease activity (6). Also, the risk of MS can be neglected in individuals who are seronegative for EBV (7). In immunocompetent individuals, an EBV infection is often mild and self-limiting (8), especially when infected during childhood. However, when an individual is exposed to EBV during adolescence, the chances of developing IM after an EBV infection are increased (9). IM-affected individuals have a 2-3 times higher MS risk than individuals who are infected with EBV during childhood and did not develop IM (10, 11).
In most high MS risk areas, the hygiene standards are higher and people are generally exposed to EBV later in life while in low MS risk areas, there is a high chance of an early EBV infection during childhood (12, 13). Therefore, the epidemiological observation that there is a reduction in MS risk when migrating from a high to a low MS risk area could only be explained by EBV if migration occurred in early childhood resulting in earlier exposure to EBV and a lower risk for developing IM. While many studies show that the effects after migration are age independent (14, 15), Martyn et al. showed that this reduction in MS risk is documented for migration at all ages (16). This observation seems in conflict with the EBV-MS hypothesis and suggests that additional factors such as EBV strain differences or differences in exposure to other important synergistic exposure are contributing to overall MS risk.
Recently, Bjornevik et al. published the largest and most comprehensive study on the relationship between EBV and MS that has been conducted so far. This elegantly performed study involved a 20-year follow-up of over 10 million US army personnel from which serum samples were collected during this time (17). Of these people, 955 individuals were diagnosed with MS. Serum samples that were insufficient to perform EBV serology were excluded which in the end led to 801 MS cases and 1566 matched controls. A higher rate of prior EBV seroconversion was found in individuals who eventually developed MS compared to those who remained healthy. Moreover, a 32-fold increased risk for MS was seen in people who seroconverted compared to those who remained EBV-negative and a good correlation with neurofilament light (NFL) serum levels, a marker for neurodegeneration was seen. Based on this, the researchers suggest that EBV is the leading cause of MS.
This study got significant attention, reigniting interest in this topic, and has been cited over 400 times. While this study is important and statistically rigorous, certain caution should still be taken regarding the conclusions related to actual causality in this paper. More specifically, 1) An impressive number of 10 million individuals and 955 MS cases were monitored, but only 32 MS cases seroconverted prior to disease development. While statistics were convincing, readers should realize that the conclusions on actual causality and the positive correlation with NFL levels are based on this relatively small sample size. 2) One MS case remained EBV negative. This number seems neglectable, however, based on the sample size (n=33) this is still 3%. Although this may not contradict the possibility of causality, it refutes that EBV is necessary for the development of MS. 3) Any data regarding IM status is missing while it is reported that IM increases MS risk (18, 19). If the percentage of persons who developed IM after EBV infection is different between cases versus controls, this can significantly impact the hazard ratio reported here, especially since the cohort consisted of individuals who seroconverted later in life and thus have a higher risk for developing IM (10).
Drawing definitive conclusions on causality based on epidemiological studies remains challenging, primarily due to the widespread prevalence of EBV within the adult population. While this longitudinal study has made substantial efforts in this regard, caution is warranted when news items and editorials are stating that EBV is necessary for the development of MS. Even more so, when zooming in on pediatric MS. Two reports indicate that no less than 13-14% of pediatric MS patients compared to 26% of age and region-matched healthy controls are tested negative for EBV (20, 21). While these findings reaffirm the association between EBV and MS, they challenge the theory that EBV infection is necessary for MS development.
3 Mechanistic evidence
Several mechanisms have been proposed about how EBV could contribute to the immunopathology of MS, including molecular mimicry, bystander activation of autoimmune T cells, B cell transformation, and CNS tropism [for further readings see (22, 23)]. One of the best-documented mechanisms is the involvement of EBV-infected B cells in pathogenic mechanisms related to MS. However, until now the exact mechanistic explanation of how EBV infection contributes to MS remains speculative.
Lanz et al. recently provided further evidence for the molecular mimicry hypothesis. This is a phenomenon in which the virus shares structural similarities with host proteins and thus could lead to cross-activation of autoimmune reactive lymphocytes. The study demonstrated molecular mimicry between the EBV nuclear antigen EBNA1 and the glial cell adhesion protein that is expressed in the CNS by both astrocytes and oligodendrocytes (GlialCAM). They identified that one-third of the clonally expanded antibodies in the CSF of MS patients recognize EBNA-1 and part of them cross-reacted with GlialCAM (22). Although interesting, cross-reactivity between EBNA1 and GlialCAM was only found in 20 to 25% of the MS patients. This highlights that MS is not solely driven by this specific cross-reactivity. Lastly, antibody reactivity to EBNA-1 and GlialCAM is also seen in healthy controls, indicating that molecular mimicry is not sufficient to break immune tolerance and trigger autoimmunity. Moreover, vaccination against EBNA-1 prior to disease induction aggravated clinical symptoms in EAE, an animal model of MS. Even though, EBNA1 vaccination is pathogenic in mice, the role of EBNA1 antibodies in humans remains poorly understood.
To find a plausible explanation for why only certain individuals with EBNA-1-GlialCAM cross-reactivity develop MS and others do not, Vietzen et al. investigated the potential underlying immunological mechanisms (24). They identified distinct cytotoxic NK cell responses that control GlialCAM specific lymphocytes. Those protective NK responses are less functional in MS patients compared to healthy controls with similarly high levels of cross-reactive EBNA-1 IgG. A notable aspect of this study is that it elaborates on the Nature paper of Lanz et al. with a potential mechanical explanation. However, the presence of GlialCAM antibodies in MS patients is not universal, thus this does not comprehensively elucidate the mechanism concerning the involvement of EBV in all MS patients.
EBV could also indirectly influence susceptibility to MS by interacting with other pathogens. For example, EBV is known to reactivate endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) (25) which is associated with both MS development and progression (26, 27). The reactivation of HERVs can decrease oligodendrocyte maturation and myelination through innate immune responses and it can lead to the production of nitric oxide and pro-inflammatory cytokines (28). On the other hand, human cytomegalovirus (CMV) can lead to infectious mononucleosis and thus manifest in a similar manner as EBV. However, studies show that CMV infection did not increase MS risk or may even be protective (17, 29). CMV infection is associated with lower EBNA1 levels (29, 30), indicating that CMV might modulate immune responses towards EBV and could in this way affect MS risk.
4 Challenges
Not all EBV infections cause disease directly, thus identifying the factor that causes the disruption in immunotolerance in EBV-infected MS patients is crucial. Studying the underlying mechanism of how EBV is involved in MS is laborious. Using animal models can be challenging since humans are the only natural hosts for EBV. The murine virus related to EBV, murid herpesvirus 4 (MuHV-4) can be used to overcome this problem and to study the effect of gammaherpesvirus infection in mouse models of MS such as experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) (31, 32). MuHV-4 shows important biological similarities to EBV; both infect B cells, have similar immune clearance of the acute infection and establish a life-long latency in the host (33). However, some genes that encode the immune controlling of latency differ between EBV and MuHV-4 as they uniquely adapted to their host (34). Human immune system (HIS) mice, in which human immune cells and their progenitors are engrafted into immunodeficient mice, may provide a solution to this problem, since these mice can be infected with EBV (35, 36). A disadvantage remains that only the leukocytes are sensitive and resemble the human situation.
On the other hand, unraveling the mechanisms in humans is also very demanding and difficult. Given the high prevalence of EBV in the general population and the relative rarity of MS, assembling a cohort of EBV-seroconverted individuals who will develop MS is exceptionally challenging. Since seroconversion precedes MS development 5 to 7 years on average (17) long-term follow-up is needed and sampling and storing blood samples of all individuals would cost a fortune. The cohort used in Bjornevik’s study involving US army personnel illustrates this as the study starts with a pool of 10 million and ends up with only 32 cases that seroconverted and developed MS. To gain insights into potential mechanisms, investigating immune cell differences from these individuals could offer valuable answers.
5 Future prospects
There is undoubtedly a connection between EBV and MS. To further acknowledge EBV as causal factor, future studies on plausible mechanisms are highly needed. The most convincing evidence would emerge from a human study in which EBV seronegative individuals are administered a yet-to-be-released preventive EBV vaccine and followed up long-term to see whether any of them develop MS. Many clinical studies have been conducted with the aim of developing an effective EBV vaccine, but none have reached the finish line. While some could reduce the risk of IM, none of them were able to prevent EBV infection (37). Currently, the company Moderna is developing an EBV-based mRNA vaccine mRNA-1189 (NCT05164094), encoding EBV envelope glycoproteins (gp350, gB, gH/gL and pg42) which mediate entry in the host cells and testing this in seronegative adults. The vaccine aims at preventing EBV-induced IM and might even stop EBV infection, but it is still too early to conclude whether this vaccine is effective, since it is still in phase 1. Another point of argument is to determine the best timing of vaccination. If the idea would be to prevent EBV infection, immunization of infants should be considered. Also, it is worth contemplating the potential evolutionary advantages of viruses as it is postulated by the “old friends” hypothesis. For instance, mice infected with MuHV-4 are resistant to infections with heterologous pathogens (38, 39). Additionally, MuHV-4 infection has beneficial capacities for its host by protecting against allergic asthma through imprinting of the monocyte compartment (40). Therefore, a thorough understanding of the mechanisms that drive either the beneficial or detrimental effects is needed and needs to be taken into consideration when aiming for EBV vaccination to prevent MS development.
While a plethora of underlying EBV mediated mechanisms has been proposed to contribute to MS, one area that is understudied is the influence of the innate immune system. While most research has primarily concentrated on the involvement of lymphocytes in the EBV-MS connection, it is well established that EBV affects myeloid cells (41, 42). These cells also play major roles in the MS pathogenesis. Monocytes and macrophages are particularly of importance in the early stages of MS and could thus contribute to the idea that EBV initiates MS through priming myeloid cells. Primary EBV infection is known to alter the host cytokine response, potentially compromising the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and therefore making the CNS more prone to immune cell invasion resulting in CNS damage. Recently, the effect of EBV on BBB permeability has been tested in vitro, but in vivo results are lacking (43). Apart from the question of how EBV contributes to the etiology of MS, a substantial number of studies demonstrated that it might also aggravate existing disease (31, 32).
6 Conclusion
Based on the multitude of studies performed, a clear connection between EBV and MS emerges. However, drawing definitive conclusions regarding causality remains challenging. EBV is highly prevalent in the adult population, and nearly everyone is exposed to EBV once in their lifetime. Moreover, many other risk factors are associated with MS that are independent of EBV. Before assuming that the entire MS puzzle is solved, there is still a substantial amount of unknowns left to discover. EBV is thought to contribute to MS development through various pathways, involving multiple mechanisms. Unravelling the precise mechanism through which EBV may contribute to the development of MS could aid in establishing causation since intervening in this mechanism would provide another strategy to find causative proof. Until the mechanisms are uncovered, this topic will continue to be a subject of debate and limit the investments in EBV targeted therapies against MS.
Author contributions
AW: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. BB: Writing – review & editing. BM: Writing – review & editing. LG: Writing – review & editing. NH: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Our research on EBV and MS is funded by the Belgian Charcot Foundation, the Flemish Research Foundation (FWO), and the National Fund of Scientific Research (FNRS).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Huang J, Kockum I, Stridh P. Trends in the environmental risks associated with earlier onset in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Related Disord. (2022) 68:104250. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.104250
2. Warner HB, Carp RI. Multiple Sclerosis etiology — an Epstein-Barr virus hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. (1988) 25:93–7. doi: 10.1016/0306-9877(88)90024-2
3. Angelini DF, Serafini B, Piras E, Severa M, Coccia EM, Rosicarelli B, et al. Increased CD8+ T cell response to Epstein-Barr virus lytic antigens in the active phase of multiple sclerosis. PloS Pathog. (2013) 9:e1003220. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003220
4. Ascherio A, Munger KL, Lennette ET, Spiegelman D, Hernán MA, Olek MJ, et al. Epstein-Barr virus antibodies and risk of multiple sclerosis: a prospective study. Jama. (2001) 286:3083–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.24.3083
5. Abdelrahman HS, Selim HS, Hashish MH, Sultan LI. Epstein-Barr virus in multiple sclerosis. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. (2014) 89:90–5. doi: 10.1097/01.EPX.0000452287.65133.fc
6. Farrell RA, Antony D, Wall GR, Clark DA, Fisniku L, Swanton J, et al. Humoral immune response to EBV in multiple sclerosis is associated with disease activity on MRI. Neurology. (2009) 73:32–8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181aa29fe
7. Dobson R, Kuhle J, Middeldorp J, Giovannoni G. Epstein-Barr-negative MS: a true phenomenon? Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. (2017) 4:e318. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000318
8. Balfour HH Jr., Odumade OA, Schmeling DO, Mullan BD, Ed JA, Knight JA, et al. Behavioral, virologic, and immunologic factors associated with acquisition and severity of primary Epstein-Barr virus infection in university students. J Infect Dis. (2013) 207:80–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis646
9. Kuri A, Jacobs BM, Vickaryous N, Pakpoor J, Middeldorp J, Giovannoni G, et al. Epidemiology of Epstein-Barr virus infection and infectious mononucleosis in the United Kingdom. BMC Public Health. (2020) 20:912. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09049-x
10. Thacker EL, Mirzaei F, Ascherio A. Infectious mononucleosis and risk for multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis. Ann Neurol. (2006) 59:499–503. doi: 10.1002/ana.20820
11. Nielsen TR, Rostgaard K, Nielsen NM, Koch-Henriksen N, Haahr S, Sørensen PS, et al. Multiple sclerosis after infectious mononucleosis. Arch Neurol. (2007) 64:72–5. doi: 10.1001/archneur.64.1.72
12. Trottier H, Buteau C, Robitaille N, Duval M, Tucci M, Lacroix J, et al. Transfusion-related Epstein-Barr virus infection among stem cell transplant recipients: a retrospective cohort study in children. Transfusion. (2012) 52:2653–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03611.x
13. Papesch M, Watkins R. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. (2001) 26:3–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2273.2001.00431.x
14. Munk Nielsen N, Corn G, Frisch M, Stenager E, Koch-Henriksen N, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Multiple sclerosis among first- and second-generation immigrants in Denmark: a population-based cohort study. Brain. (2019) 142:1587–97. doi: 10.1093/brain/awz088
15. Compston A, Confavreux C. Compston A, Confavreux C, Lassmann H, McDonald I, Miller D, Noseworthy J, et al. editors. McAlpine’s Multiple Sclerosis, 4th ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh (2006). 71–111.
16. Gale CR, Martyn CN. Migrant studies in multiple sclerosis. Prog Neurobiol. (1995) 47:425–48. doi: 10.1016/0301-0082(95)80008-V
17. Bjornevik K, Cortese M, Healy BC, Kuhle J, Mina MJ, Leng Y, et al. Longitudinal analysis reveals high prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus associated with multiple sclerosis. Science. (2022) 375:296–301. doi: 10.1126/science.abj8222
18. Goldacre R. Risk of multiple sclerosis in individuals with infectious mononucleosis: a national population-based cohort study using hospital records in England, 2003-2023. Mult Scler. (2024) 30:489–95. doi: 10.1177/13524585241237707
19. Xu Y, Hiyoshi A, Smith KA, Piehl F, Olsson T, Fall K, et al. Association of infectious mononucleosis in childhood and adolescence with risk for a subsequent multiple sclerosis diagnosis among siblings. JAMA Netw Open. (2021) 4:e2124932. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.24932
20. Banwell B, Krupp L, Kennedy J, Tellier R, Tenembaum S, Ness J, et al. Clinical features and viral serologies in children with multiple sclerosis: a multinational observational study. Lancet Neurol. (2007) 6:773–81. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70196-5
21. Nourbakhsh B, Cordano C, Asteggiano C, Ruprecht K, Otto C, Rutatangwa A, et al. Multiple sclerosis is rare in epstein-barr virus-seronegative children with central nervous system inflammatory demyelination. Ann Neurol. (2021) 89:1234–9. doi: 10.1002/ana.26062
22. Robinson WH, Steinman L. Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. Science. (2022) 375:264–5. doi: 10.1126/science.abm7930
23. Soldan SS, Lieberman PM. Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2023) 21:51–64. doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00770-5
24. Vietzen H, Berger SM, Kühner LM, Furlano PL, Bsteh G, Berger T, et al. Ineffective control of Epstein-Barr-virus-induced autoimmunity increases the risk for multiple sclerosis. Cell. (2023) 186:5705–18.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.11.015
25. Cossu D, Tomizawa Y, Sechi LA, Hattori N. Epstein–barr virus and human endogenous retrovirus in Japanese patients with autoimmune demyelinating disorders. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:17151. doi: 10.3390/ijms242417151
26. Meier UC, Cipian RC, Karimi A, Ramasamy R, Middeldorp JM. Cumulative roles for epstein-barr virus, human endogenous retroviruses, and human herpes virus-6 in driving an inflammatory cascade underlying MS pathogenesis. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:757302. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.757302
27. Antony JM, van Marle G, Opii W, Butterfield DA, Mallet F, Yong VW, et al. Human endogenous retrovirus glycoprotein-mediated induction of redox reactants causes oligodendrocyte death and demyelination. Nat Neurosci. (2004) 7:1088–95. doi: 10.1038/nn1319
28. Censi ST, Mariani-Costantini R, Granzotto A, Tomassini V, Sensi SL. Endogenous retroviruses in multiple sclerosis: A network-based etiopathogenic model. Ageing Res Rev. (2024) 99:102392. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102392
29. Grut V, Biström M, Salzer J, Stridh P, Jons D, Gustafsson R, et al. Cytomegalovirus seropositivity is associated with reduced risk of multiple sclerosis-a presymptomatic case-control study. Eur J Neurol. (2021) 28:3072–9. doi: 10.1111/ene.14961
30. Maple PAC, Tanasescu R, Gran B, Constantinescu CS. A different response to cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection in UK people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) compared to controls. J Infect. (2020) 80:320–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.10.017
31. Márquez AC, Croft C, Shanina I, Horwitz MS. Influence of type I interferons in gammaherpesvirus-68 and its influence on EAE enhancement. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:858583. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.858583
32. Casiraghi C, Shanina I, Cho S, Freeman ML, Blackman MA, Horwitz MS. Gammaherpesvirus latency accentuates EAE pathogenesis: relevance to Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis. PloS Pathog. (2012) 8:e1002715. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002715
33. Flaño E, Woodland DL, Blackman MA. A mouse model for infectious mononucleosis. Immunol Res. (2002) 25:201–17. doi: 10.1385/IR:25:3
34. Virgin H, Latreille P, Wamsley P, Hallsworth K, Weck KE, Dal Canto AJ, et al. Complete sequence and genomic analysis of murine gammaherpesvirus 68. J Virol. (1997) 71:5894–904. doi: 10.1128/jvi.71.8.5894-5904.1997
35. Zdimerova H, Murer A, Engelmann C, Raykova A, Deng Y, Gujer C, et al. Attenuated immune control of Epstein-Barr virus in humanized mice is associated with the multiple sclerosis risk factor HLA-DR15. Eur J Immunol. (2021) 51:64–75. doi: 10.1002/eji.202048655
36. Münz C. EBV infection of mice with reconstituted human immune system components. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. (2015) 391:407–23. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22834-1_14
37. Sokal EM, Hoppenbrouwers K, Vandermeulen C, Moutschen M, Léonard P, Moreels A, et al. Recombinant gp350 vaccine for infectious mononucleosis: a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of an Epstein-Barr virus vaccine in healthy young adults. J Infect Dis. (2007) 196:1749–53. doi: 10.1086/523813
38. Dourcy M, Maquet C, Dams L, Gilliaux G, Javaux J, Desmecht D, et al. A gammaherpesvirus licenses CD8 T cells to protect the host from pneumovirus-induced immunopathologies. Mucosal Immunol. (2020) 13:799–813. doi: 10.1038/s41385-020-0293-7
39. Barton ES, White DW, Cathelyn JS, Brett-McClellan KA, Engle M, Diamond MS, et al. Herpesvirus latency confers symbiotic protection from bacterial infection. Nature. (2007) 447:326–9. doi: 10.1038/nature05762
40. Machiels B, Dourcy M, Xiao X, Javaux J, Mesnil C, Sabatel C, et al. A gammaherpesvirus provides protection against allergic asthma by inducing the replacement of resident alveolar macrophages with regulatory monocytes. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:1310–20. doi: 10.1038/ni.3857
41. Moyano A, Ferressini Gerpe NM, De Matteo E, Preciado MV, Chabay P. M1 macrophage polarization prevails in epstein-barr virus-infected children in an immunoregulatory environment. J Virol. (2022) 96:e0143421. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01434-21
42. Wang J, Su M, Wei N, Yan H, Zhang J, Gong Y, et al. Chronic active epstein-barr virus disease originates from infected hematopoietic stem cells. Blood. (2023) 143:32–41. doi: 10.1182/blood-2023-173226
Keywords: autoimmunity, multiple sclerosis, herpesviruses, Epstein-Barr virus, molecular mimicry 1
Citation: van de Waterweg Berends A, Broux B, Machiels B, Gillet L and Hellings N (2024) The EBV-MS connection: the enigma remains. Front. Immunol. 15:1466339. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1466339
Received: 17 July 2024; Accepted: 13 August 2024;
Published: 29 August 2024.
Edited by:
Davide Cossu, Juntendo University, JapanReviewed by:
Patrick K. A. Kearns, University of Edinburgh, United KingdomStefano Ruberto, University of Sassari, Italy
Copyright © 2024 van de Waterweg Berends, Broux, Machiels, Gillet and Hellings. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: N. Hellings, niels.hellings@uhasselt.be