P. James B. Dyck

Mutations in DNMT1 cause hereditary sensory neuropathy with dementia and hearing loss

DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) is crucial for maintenance of methylation, gene regulation and chromatin stability. DNA mismatch repair, cell cycle regulation in post-mitotic neurons and neurogenesis are influenced by DNA methylation. Here we show that mutations in DNMT1 cause both central and peripheral neurodegeneration in one form of hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy with dementia and hearing loss. Exome sequencing led to the identification of DNMT1 mutation c.1484A>G (p.Tyr495Cys) in two American kindreds and one Japanese kindred and a triple nucleotide change, c.1470–1472TCC>ATA (p.Asp490Glu–Pro491Tyr), in one European kindred. All mutations are within the targeting-sequence domain of DNMT1. These mutations cause premature degradation of mutant proteins, reduced methyltransferase activity and impaired heterochromatin binding during the G2 cell cycle phase leading to global hypomethylation and site-specific hypermethylation. Our study shows that DNMT1 mutations cause the aberrant methylation implicated in complex pathogenesis. The discovered DNMT1 mutations provide a new framework for the study of neurodegenerative diseases.

Microvasculitis and ischemia in diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy

Objective: To determine whether microscopic vasculitis explains the clinical and pathologic features of diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy (DLSRPN). Background: DLSRPN is usually attributed to metabolic derangement or ischemic injury, but microscopic vasculitis as the sole cause needs consideration. Methods: We prospectively studied the clinical, laboratory, and EMG features as well as the pathology of distal cutaneous nerve biopsy specimens of patients with DLSRPN. Results: Study of DLSRPN nerve biopsy specimens (n = 33) compared with those from healthy controls (n = 14) and those with diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 21) provided strong evidence for ischemic injury (axonal degeneration, multifocal fiber loss, focal perineurial necrosis and thickening, injury neuroma, neovascularization, and swollen fibers with accumulated organelles), which we attribute to microscopic vasculitis (epineurial vascular and perivascular inflammation, vessel wall necrosis, and evidence of previous bleeding). Segmental demyelination was significantly associated with multifocal fiber loss. Conclusions: 1) This severe, debilitating neuropathy begins with symptoms unilaterally and focally in the leg, thigh, or buttock and spreads to involve the other regions of the same and then opposite side and is due to multifocal involvement of lumbosacral roots, plexus, and peripheral nerve (i.e., diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy). 2) Motor, sensory, and autonomic fibers are all involved. 3) Ischemic injury explains the clinical features and pathologic abnormalities of nerve. 4) The proximate cause of the ischemic injury appears to be microscopic vasculitis. 5) The segmental demyelination is probably secondary to ischemic axonal dystrophy, thus providing a unifying hypothesis for both axonal degeneration and segmental demyelination.

Diabetic and nondiabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathies: New insights into pathophysiology and treatment

Diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy (DLRPN) (also called diabetic amyotrophy) is a well‐recognized subacute, painful, asymmetric lower‐limb neuropathy that is associated with weight loss and type II diabetes mellitus. Nondiabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy (LRPN) has received less attention. Comparison of large cohorts with DLRPN and LRPN demonstrated that age at onset, course, type and distribution of symptoms and impairments, laboratory findings, and outcomes are similar. Both conditions are lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathies that are associated with weight loss and begin focally with pain but that evolve into widespread, bilateral paralytic disorders. Although both are monophasic illnesses, patients have prolonged morbidity from pain and weakness, and many patients become wheelchair‐dependent. Although motor‐predominant, there is unequivocal evidence that autonomic and sensory nerves are also involved. Cutaneous nerves from patients with DLRPN and LRPN show pathological evidence of ischemic injury (multifocal fiber loss, perineurial thickening and degeneration, neovascularization, microfasciculation, and swollen axons with accumulated organelles) and microvasculitis (mural and perivascular inflammation, separation and fragmentation of mural smooth muscle layers of microvessels and hemosiderin‐laden macrophages). Controlled trials with immune‐modulating therapies in DLRPN are in progress, and preliminary data suggest that such therapy may be beneficial in LRPN. It is likely that DLRPN and LRPN are immune‐mediated neuropathies that should be separated from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and from systemic necrotizing vasculitis.

Diabetic neuropathies: Classification, clinical features, and pathophysiological basis

Diabetes mellitus is associated with a wide spectrum of neuropathy syndromes, ranging from a mild asymptomatic distal sensory neuropathy to a severe disabling radiculoplexus neuropathy. As the pathophysiology of these separate conditions is better understood, classification of the various phenotypes becomes important because of treatment implications. Here we provide a short summary of the history of the classification of diabetic neuropathies and try to describe the most common forms classified according to their presumed pathophysiology. We have tried to include epidemiological data where available, as well as histopathology of nerve in several diabetic neuropathies.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: from pathology to phenotype

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an inflammatory neuropathy, classically characterised by a slowly progressive onset and symmetrical, sensorimotor involvement. However, there are many phenotypic variants, suggesting that CIDP may not be a discrete disease entity but rather a spectrum of related conditions. While the abiding theory of CIDP pathogenesis is that cell-mediated and humoral mechanisms act together in an aberrant immune response to cause damage to peripheral nerves, the relative contributions of T cell and autoantibody responses remain largely undefined. In animal models of spontaneous inflammatory neuropathy, T cell responses to defined myelin antigens are responsible. In other human inflammatory neuropathies, there is evidence of antibody responses to Schwann cell, compact myelin or nodal antigens. In this review, the roles of the cellular and humoral immune systems in the pathogenesis of CIDP will be discussed. In time, it is anticipated that delineation of clinical phenotypes and the underlying disease mechanisms might help guide diagnostic and individualised treatment strategies for CIDP.

Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline† on the classification, diagnosis, investigation, and immunosuppressive therapy of non-systemic vasculitic neuropathy: executive summary

Non‐systemic vasculitic neuropathy (NSVN) is routinely considered in the differential diagnosis of progressive axonal neuropathies, especially those with asymmetric or multifocal features. Diagnostic criteria for vasculitic neuropathy, classification criteria for NSVN, and therapeutic approaches to NSVN are not standardized. The aim of this guideline was to derive recommendations on the classification, diagnosis, investigation, and treatment of NSVN based on the available evidence and, where evidence was not available, expert consensus. Experts on vasculitis, vasculitic neuropathy, and methodology systematically reviewed the literature for articles addressing diagnostic issues concerning vasculitic neuropathy and NSVN as well as treatment of NSVN and the small‐to‐medium vessel primary systemic vasculitides using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The selected articles were analyzed and classified. The group initially reached consensus on a classification of vasculitides associated with neuropathy. Non‐diabetic radiculoplexus neuropathy was incorporated within NSVN. The consensus definition of pathologically definite vasculitic neuropathy required that vessel wall inflammation be accompanied by vascular damage. Diagnostic criteria for pathologically probable vasculitic neuropathy included five predictors of definite vasculitic neuropathy: vascular deposits of IgM, C3, or fibrinogen by direct immunofluorescence; hemosiderin deposits; asymmetric nerve fiber loss; prominent active axonal degeneration; and myofiber necrosis, regeneration, or infarcts in peroneus brevis muscle biopsy (Good Practice Points from class II/III evidence). A case definition of clinically probable vasculitic neuropathy in patients lacking biopsy proof incorporated clinical features typical of vasculitic neuropathy: sensory or sensory‐motor involvement, asymmetric/multifocal pattern, lower‐limb predominance, distal‐predominance, pain, acute relapsing course, and non‐demyelinating electrodiagnostic features (Good Practice Points from class II/III evidence). Proposed exclusionary criteria for NSVN – favoring the alternate diagnosis of systemic vasculitic neuropathy – were clinicopathologic evidence of other‐organ involvement; anti‐neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCAs); cryoglobulins; sedimentation rate ≥100 mm/h; and medical condition/drug predisposing to systemic vasculitis (Good Practice Points supported by class III evidence). Three class III studies on treatment of NSVN were identified, which were insufficient to permit a level C recommendation. Therefore, the group reviewed the literature on treatment of primary small‐to‐medium vessel systemic vasculitides prior to deriving Good Practice Points on treatment of NSVN. Principal treatment recommendations were: (1) corticosteroid (CS) monotherapy for at least 6 months is considered first‐line; (2) combination therapy should be used for rapidly progressive NSVN and patients who progress on CS monotherapy; (3) immunosuppressive options include cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, and methotrexate; (4) cyclophosphamide is indicated for severe neuropathies, generally administered in IV pulses to reduce cumulative dose and side effects; (5) in patients achieving clinical remission with combination therapy, maintenance therapy should be continued for 18–24 months with azathioprine or methotrexate; and (6) clinical trials to address all aspects of treatment are needed.

History of standard scoring, notation, and summation of neuromuscular signs. A current survey and recommendation.

Abstract  In this article, we trace the history of scoring, notation, and summation of the neuromuscular signs of muscle weakness and decrease of tendon reflexes and sensation. We recommend a standard system to promote consistency in the effort introduced by Mitchell and Lewis to ‘represent systems and force by their signs.’ The scoring of neuromuscular signs began with Mitchell and Lewis in the 19th century who used pluses, minuses, and N (for normal) to express the activity of muscle stretch reflexes. Henry Plummer introduced an ordinal scoring approach for muscle weakness, reflex decrease and increase, and sensation loss. In 1919, he and Walter Sheldon and Henry Woltman introduced standard pre‐printed examination forms with written instructions for notation and scoring. Robert Lovett, a Boston orthopedist, scored weak muscles of poliomyelitis patients from 2 (mild weakness) to 6 (paralyzed), 1 being normal. Lovetts approach was used, after reversing the order of the grades and decreasing each grade by 1, by a Committee of the Medical Research Council for evaluating return of muscle weakness after nerve injury. Despite dissimilarity to existing reflex and sensation scores and uneven width of grades, this approach was widely adopted for use in neurologic practice. We introduced the Neuropathy Impairment Score using a combination of the Mitchell, Plummer, and Lovett approaches, summing all individual scores of a standard set of neuromuscular examinations. In a non‐representative survey of 19 neuromuscular physicians from different countries, we find that there is a considerable variability in the approaches used for grading. Assuming that scoring is useful, we herein suggest (a) impairments should be scored separately from hyperfunction and (b) for the scoring of impairments (muscle weakness, reflex decrease, and sensation loss), the same ordinal scoring approach should be used with 0 as normal and 1, 2, … representing increasing impairment based on the judgment of percentage abnormality with corrections made for age, sex, physical fitness, and physical characteristics.

Does impaired glucose metabolism cause polyneuropathy? Review of previous studies and design of a prospective controlled population‐based study

In spite of extensive studies it is unclear whether impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), i.e., impaired glucose metabolism (IGM), causes diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) or chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy (CIAP); the results and conclusions vary considerably in different studies. Some studies suggest that IGM is a common and important cause of CIAP, whereas others do not. On reviewing these data, we judge that a considerable degree of this disparity may relate to differences in selection of patients, choice of controls, assessment of chronic glycemic exposure and of diabetic complications, and statistical power. Here we review previous studies, list the reasons that the issue needs further study, and outline a study now in progress to address the question more definitively. Muscle Nerve, 2007

The Spectrum of Diabetic Neuropathies

Diabetes mellitus is associated with many different neuropathic syndromes, ranging from a mild sensory disturbance as can be seen in a diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy, to the debilitating pain and weakness of a diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy. The etiology of these syndromes has been studied extensively, and may vary among metabolic, compressive, and immunological bases for the different disorders, as well as mechanisms yet to be discovered. Many of these disorders of nerve appear to be separate conditions with different underlying mechanisms, and some are caused directly by diabetes mellitus, whereas others are associated with it but not caused by hyperglycemia. This article discusses a number of the more common disorders of nerve found with diabetes mellitus. It discusses the symmetrical neuropathies, particularly generalized diabetic polyneuropathy, and then the focal or asymmetrical types of diabetes-associated neuropathy.

Mass spectrometric-based proteomic analysis of amyloid neuropathy type in nerve tissue

OBJECTIVE To determine the specific type of amyloid from nerve biopsies using laser microdissection (LMD) and mass spectrometric (MS)-based proteomic analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Twenty-one nerve biopsy specimens (17 sural, 3 sciatic, and 1 root amyloidoma) infiltrated by amyloid were studied. Immunohistochemical subtyping was unable to determine the specific amyloid type for these 21 cases, but the clinical diagnosis was made based on additional testing. Clinical diagnosis was made through evaluation of serum monoclonal proteins, biopsy of bone marrow for acquired monoclonal immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis, and kindred evaluations with DNA sequencing of transthyretin (TTR) and gelsolin (GSN) genes. Our study included 8 cases of acquired monoclonal immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis, 11 cases of transthyretin amyloidosis (3 with the Val30Met mutation, 2 with the Val32Ala mutation, 2 with the Thr60Ala mutation, 1 with the Ala109Ser mutation, 1 with the Phe64Leu mutation, 1 with the Ala97Ser mutation, and 1 not sequenced), and 2 cases of gelsolin amyloidosis (1 with the Asp187Asn mutation and 1 not sequenced). One patient with transthyretin amyloidosis and 1 patient with gelsolin amyloidosis with no specific mutation identified were diagnosed based on genetic confirmation in their first-degree relative. Congophilic proteins in the tissues of these 21 cases underwent LMD, were digested into tryptic peptides, and were analyzed using liquid chromatography electrospray tandem MS. Identified proteins were reviewed using bioinformatics tools with interpreters blinded to clinical information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Specific amyloid type was ascertained by LMD tandem MS and compared with clinical diagnosis. RESULTS Specific types of amyloid were accurately detected by LMD/MS in all cases (8 cases of acquired monoclonal immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis, 2 cases of gelsolin amyloidosis, and 11 cases of transthyretin amyloidosis). Incidental serum monoclonal proteins did not interfere with detection of transthyretin amyloidosis in 2 patients. Additionally, specific TTR mutations were identified in 10 cases by LMD/MS. Serum amyloid P-component and apolipoprotein E proteins were commonly found among all cases. CONCLUSIONS Proteomic analysis of nerve tissue using LMD/MS distinguishes specific types of amyloid independent of clinical information. This new proteomic approach will enhance both diagnostic and research efforts in amyloidosis and other neurologic diseases.