Open AccessMitochondrial morphology and MAVS‐IFN1 signaling pathway in muscles of anti‐MDA5 dermatomyositis
Author(s) -
Jiang Yanyan,
Liu Yilin,
Zhao Yawen,
Zheng Yiming,
Yu Meng,
Deng Jianwen,
Hao Hongjun,
Zhang Wei,
Wang Zhaoxia,
Yuan Yun
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
annals of clinical and translational neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.824
H-Index - 42
ISSN - 2328-9503
DOI - 10.1002/acn3.51311
Subject(s) - dermatomyositis , mda5 , medicine , antibody , inflammasome , signal transduction , phenotype , interferon , pathology , interferon regulatory factors , inflammation , muscle atrophy , immunology , endocrinology , atrophy , biology , microbiology and biotechnology , gene , receptor , biochemistry , innate immune system , rna , rna interference
Objective This study aimed to investigate mitochondrial changes and the mitochondrial antiviral‐signaling protein (MAVS)‐type I interferon (IFN1) signaling pathway in the muscles of anti‐melanoma differentiation gene 5(MDA5) dermatomyositis (DM) patients. Methods Eleven anti‐MDA5 DM and ten antibody‐negative DM patients were included. Muscle biopsies were performed in all patients. Muscle pathology and mitochondrial morphology in particular were compared between two groups. The expression of MDA5, MAVS, interferon (IFN) regulatory factor 7, and IFN‐stimulated gene 15, which are components of the MAVS‐IFN1 signaling pathway, was measured in muscle specimen. The correlation between MAVS expression in muscles and disease phenotypes and muscle pathology were analyzed. Results Anti‐MDA5 DM showed a significantly lower incidence of the characteristic DM pathology ( P < 0.05) than antibody‐negative DM, including perifascicular fiber atrophy, inflammation, and vasculopathy. Mitochondrial abnormalities in anti‐MDA5 patients revealed a high incidence of (8/11,72.7%) and different pattern from that in antibody‐negative DM. MDA5, MAVS, IFN regulatory factor 7, and IFN stimulated gene 15 expression levels in the muscles of anti‐MDA5 DM patients were higher than those of the controls ( P < 0.05) but lower than those of antibody‐negative DM patients ( P < 0.05). The MAVS levels negatively correlated with manual muscle test 8 scores ( r = 0.701, P = 0.016). Conclusions Compared to antibody‐negative DM, we presented a different distribution of the mitochondrial pathology and less severe morphology in anti‐MDA5 DM. We also revealed the enhanced but less intensive MAVS‐IFN1 signaling pathway activity in muscles of anti‐MDA5 DM. Such disparity suggested the potentially different mechanism of muscle injury in two DM groups.