Genetics, Vitamin D and MS

[Marco]

Excerpts from the article.

New research from scientists based at The Westmead Institute in Sydney has drawn a link between the genetic and environmental circumstances of multiple sclerosis.


The project led by immunologist Dr David Booth capitalises on data from a landmark 2013 study that profiled the DNA of 30,000 MS patients worldwide. The study found there are more than 100 genetic risk factors of MS, which is characterised by the scarring of tissue in the central nervous system.

"Previously, it was thought that t-cells orchestrated an attack on the myelin sheath around nerves, causing their destruction," Dr Booth said. "Because we have found out the gene risk types, we now know there are various immune cells involved in this process, and different sub-sets of cells causing MS in different people."

Dr Booth and his team worked backwards to find the cellular source of two of the 110 genes associated with MS, called EOMES and TBX21.

Using blood samples from 50 patients of Westmead Hospital, they were able to identify the immune cell CD56+ as largely responsible for expressing the two risk factor genes. In MS patients, CD56+ cells were found to be inactive or deficient compared with the general population.

"The study has shown that whether these risk factor genes are turned on or off in the CD56+ cell, it is related to Vitamin D activation," Dr Booth explained.

Complete article
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-mul...21-gqxob4.html

[headrift]

Interesting, Marco. I guess I'll try using the lizard light more. That and keep taking D3 supplements.

[ru4cats]

So with this latest study, perhaps one more "piece of the puzzle" that leads to the development of MS is in place. I asked my neurologist about the Epstein-Barr virus, and she said 80% of the population carries the virus. However, she said there had to be more. Epstein-Barr, genes, and D3 sounds like a good start. I still believe that within 10 years MS will be manageable, much like HIV is now, and I think stem cells are the answer.

[Marco]

Here's my 30,000 foot opinion

• I believe there has to be a genetic susceptibility
• Vitamin D can help protect an individual with compromised DNA
• An event needs to occur to alter the immune system's normal operation
• An event needs to occur to engage the immune system
• If everything lines up in the wrong way the Multiple Sclerosis mechanism is activated
• Disease progression occurs on a case-by-case basis, but it can be altered

Identical twins have the same DNA, but there's only a 1/3rd of chance that both twins will get MS. They have roughly the same environment, possibly meals, outdoor activities, etc.

It's all madness, but hopefully we will have better tools quickly than the ones we have today.

[ru4cats]

Well said, and I agree. Let's just hope the mystery is solved within our lifetime and a vaccine is created to prevent any further cases, just like HPV.

[Tawanda]

Well said, and I agree. Let's just hope the mystery is solved within our lifetime and a vaccine is created to prevent any further cases, just like HPV.

Amen to that!

[Poppy7402]

When you look at the places where they have the highest rates of MS (Scotland and the bottom of NZ) the Vitamin D thing and genetics sort of fits. People in NZ who aren't of Maori decent mostly have an Anglo-Saxon decent, so would have pretty much the same genetics as the Scottish. I've always found it interesting that the Eskimo's who must have very little Vitamin D from sunlight don't get MS, suggesting that they don't have the genetics for it.

I know my parents quietly lament the fact that they moved our family to somewhere with much less sunshine than where they were born and wonder whether things would be different for me if they hadn't.

[Marco]

I've always found it interesting that the Eskimo's who must have very little Vitamin D from sunlight don't get MS, suggesting that they don't have the genetics for it.

I know my parents quietly lament the fact that they moved our family to somewhere with much less sunshine than where they were born and wonder whether things would be different for me if they hadn't.

Conclusion:
Much work remains to be done to understand the differences in vitamin D metabolism among human populations. Clearly, humans have successfully adapted to environments where vitamin D is much less available through solar UVB synthesis in the skin or through dietary intake. Such adaptation has probably come about through a number of physiological changes, given the complexity of vitamin D metabolism and the possibilities for alternate metabolic pathways.
There is thus good reason to believe that we are pathologizing northern Natives who, in fact, are quite healthy. Our vitamin D norms may simply reflect what is normal for humans whose physiology has adapted to lighter skin, lower latitudes and more solar UVB.
For the time being, it would be unwise to supplement the diets of northern Native peoples with vitamin D in the hope of lowering disease risk. The actual health outcomes might not be as expected. In particular, if lower serum 25(OH)D levels simply reflect a lower optimal range, dietary supplementation might push treated individuals into a zone of suboptimal or even adverse outcomes.

This is from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417586/

[Jules A]

Here's my 30,000 foot opinion
Identical twins have the same DNA, but there's only a 1/3rd of chance that both twins will get MS. They have roughly the same environment, possibly meals, outdoor activities, etc.

But this is so clinically significant imo. I have seen people attempt to downplay the genetic factors by using this statistic. When comparing the average estimate of the general population's risk of developing MS at 0.1% (1 in 750) and those with a twin who has MS 25-30% (1 in 3) chance of getting this miserable disease? Those aren't odds I be willing to knowingly risk.

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Who-Gets-MS

[Tawanda]

But this is so clinically significant imo. I have seen people attempt to downplay the genetic factors by using this statistic. When comparing the average estimate of the general population's risk of developing MS at 0.1% (1 in 750) and those with a twin who has MS 25-30% (1 in 3) chance of getting this miserable disease? Those aren't odds I be willing to knowingly risk.

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Who-Gets-MS

As usual, Jules, I must agree. Also I don't know anyone who HASN'T had Ebstein-Barr; Mono or whatever (to me, it is like saying if you have skin, your risk of MS increases!). I never paid much attention to that risk factor, but genetics is another story (and as for vitamin D, who knows, but it is easy enough to take so we do...).

[quietposter]

I can only speak from my family experience. My maternal grandmother, my cousin and I all have MS. (My grandmother and cousin are both deceased.) So, I do believe in a genetic link. I also find I do better when I take vitamin D.

Another interesting tidbit I heard on some news show recently is that they are looking at a link between an expectant mothers vitamin D levels and the possibility of low vitamin D predisposing the infant to MS. I feel like that's a stretch even though I know my mother was bedridden and not able to get natural vitamin D when she was carrying me.