Lymphocyte profiles after a first demyelinating event suggestive of multiple sclerosis reveal early monocyte and B cell alterations
===================================================================================================================================

* C. Alvarez Gonzalez
* A. Wiedemann
* M. Schroeder-Castagno
* S. Asseyer
* Claudia Chien
* Joseph Kuchling
* J. Bellmann-Strobl
* K. Ruprecht
* C. Infante-Duarte
* T. Dörner
* F. Paul

## Abstract

**Introduction** Often, isolated clinical event suggestive of CNS demyelination confers a risk of conversion to multiple sclerosis. In this study, we investigate lymphocyte profiles after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis (MS), which could contribute to the current understanding of early inflammatory responses in this demyelinating disease.

**Methods** Twenty treatment-naïve clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) patients and fifteen healthy participants were included in our assessment of lymphocyte profiles and B cell subsets using multicolour flow cytometry. Analysis was made at 3-6 months (Baseline), 12, and 24 months after a first clinical event. We also performed a sub-analysis of patients that received glatiramer acetate (GLAT) after their baseline visit up to 24 months after the first clinical event.

**Results** Our analysis revealed monocyte and B cell differences between groups. Percentages of CD19+CD20+ B cells were lower in CIS patients compared to healthy individuals at baseline. Additionally, monocyte distribution among groups was different.

A subgroup analysis of patients treated with GLAT (n= 10) showed an increased percentage of naïve (p<0.05) and memory pre-switched (p<0.01) B cells up to 24 months after their baseline visit compared to the untreated group (n= 10).

**Conclusion** Our results showed early monocyte and B cell subsets alterations in pwCIS. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of B cells and monocyte disturbances during inflammatory processes after a first clinically-MS suggestive event.

## 1. Introduction

Around 85% of patients with an acute neurological isolated clinical event (patients with clinically isolated syndrome or pwCIS) progress to multiple sclerosis (MS)1,2. Thus, the characterisation of lymphocyte subpopulations in the early stages of MS could – in conjunction with clinical and paraclinical data – contribute to our understanding of disease pathomechanisms and help develop biomarkers for treatment response and prognostication 3,4.

Evidence from animal models of MS for long suggested that MS is a CD4 Th1/Th17 - cell-mediated disease. Nonetheless, current evidence indicates that B cells, other lymphocytes subpopulations, and monocytes contribute likewise significantly to the pathogenesis of MS 5–9. For instance, lymphocytic investigation from anti-CD20 therapies and oral cladribine (CLAD) studies showed that the decrease in disease activity could be attributed to the depletion of B cells and that the effect on T cells might not be as relevant as previously claimed 10–13.

Here, we aim to investigate phenotypic patterns of lymphocyte subsets after a first clinical event suggestive of MS. We hypothesised that analysis of lymphocyte profiles in treatment-naïve pwCIS may contribute to the development of clinically applicable biomarkers for treatment response and disease course prognostication. In addition, in a small explorative sub-analysis in pwCIS, we compared lymphocyte subpopulations between two groups: pwCIS receiving glatiramer acetate (GLAT) and pwCIS who remained untreated.

## 2. Patients & Methods

### 2.1 Patients

Twenty treatment-naïve pwCIS (without MS disease-modifying treatment) from the Berlin CIS cohort ([NCT01371071](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01371071&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom)), an ongoing prospective observational study initiated at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in 2011, were selected to assess lymphocyte profiles and B cell subsets by using multicolour flow cytometry. The inclusion criteria, as described previously14, were: >18 years of age and a first clinical event suggestive of demyelination of the CNS, according to the McDonald 2010 criteria 15, within the 6 first months before cohort enrolment. Exclusion criteria were inability or unwillingness to provide informed consent, incomplete collection of blood samples for follow-up, and a history of any health condition or devices impeding immunological, clinical, and radiological examination. Moreover, sample selection was also limited to those individuals with sufficient availability of frozen peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). All participants provided written informed consent and ethics approval for this study was given by the institutional review board of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA1/180/10).

During the visits, all patients underwent clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessments and blood extraction for PBMCs isolation. The first visit (baseline visit) was scheduled between 3-6 months after a first clinical event suggestive of demyelination of the CNS according to the McDonald 2010 criteria, and before administration of GLAT. The second visit was performed at around 12 months after the first clinical event, and the third visit at around 24 months after the first clinical event. Out of twenty pwCIS, ten received GLAT after baseline visit (due to signs of disease activity**),** whilst the other half remained untreated. PBMCs were isolated using Biocoll separating solution and stored in liquid nitrogen according to standard operating procedures (SOP) at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Frozen PBMCs from fifteen unmatched healthy donors (HDs) were used as controls. Disease activity was defined as the presence of new lesions in T2-weighted and/or contrast-enhancing MRI, and/or new clinical events suggestive of demyelination of the CNS, and/or confirmed deterioration on EDSS at 12 and/or 24 months of follow-up.

### 2.2 Immunophenotyping

Frozen PBMCs samples were thawed and subsequently stained and analysed by flow cytometry. Briefly, a set of markers to discriminate between lymphocytic profiles and B cell subsets was established: CD3, CD4, CD14, CD19, CD20, CD25, CD27, CD38, CD127, CD138, IgD, and HLA-DR. A live/dead fixable blue dead cell stain kit (Invitrogen) was used per the manufacturer’s instructions to identify dead cells. Cells were stained for 15 min at 4°C, washed and filtered before acquisition.

Stained samples were analysed on LSR Fortessa X-20 (LSRFortessa; BD Biosciences, USA). To ensure stable analysing conditions, flow cytometer setup and tracking beads from BD were used daily. Diva and FlowJo software (v10.4; BD, USA) were used to determine different subpopulations. Results are expressed as percentages. For details on antibodies and gating strategy (see **Supplementary Figure 1**).

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F4/graphic-8.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F4/graphic-8)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F4/graphic-9.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F4/graphic-9)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F4/graphic-10.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F4/graphic-10)

Supplement Figure 1: Gating Strategy

### 2.3 MRI acquisition and post-processing

All study subjects were scanned using 3 Tesla (Tim Trio; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) MRI scanners at the Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging. Pre- and post-contrast 3D T1-weighted magnetisation prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) images (resolution 1 × 1 × 1 mm3; TR = 1,900 ms, TE = 3.03 ms, TI = 900 ms, flip angle 9°) and a 3D T2-weighted fluid -attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) images (resolution 1 × 1 × 1 mm3; TR = 6,000 ms, TE = 388 ms, TI = 2,100 ms, flip angle 120°) were acquired for each patient. MPRAGE and FLAIR were cropped, co-registered to MNI-152 space ([https://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/Fslutils#Tools](https://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/Fslutils#Tools)), N4-bias corrected ([http://stnava.github.io/ANTs/](http://stnava.github.io/ANTs/)) and linearly co-registered with each other using FSL FLIRT 16.

Longitudinal co-registration was performed by using the same FSL tools and each MPRAGE and FLAIR from follow-up scans per patient were co-registered to their baseline scan. T2-hyperintense and gadolinium contrast-enhancing lesions were segmented from FLAIR and post-contrast MPRAGE images manually using ITK-SNAP 17 by 2 expert MRI technicians with more than 10 years of experience with multiple sclerosis lesion identification. Whole brain T2-hyperintense lesion count was extracted using FSL cluster.

### 2.4 Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed using JAMOVI for macOS (The jamovi project (2020). jamovi (v.2.0.0.0) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from [https://www.jamovi.org](https://www.jamovi.org)) and Prism 8.4.2 (GraphPad, La Jolla, USA). An independent t-test was used to compare percentages between two unpaired groups. A Fisher’s exact test was used to analyse any difference between categorical variables. For cross-sectional data, one-way ANOVA analysis with Tukey’s multiple comparison post hoc analysis was performed to compare frequencies of PBMC subpopulations between pwCIS at different time points and between those treated with GLAT and those who were untreated. A *p-value* of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Unless stated otherwise, data shows mean percentage and standard deviation (SD).

## 3. Results

### 3.1 Demographics

Twenty pwCIS (male-to-female ratio 9:11) and fifteen HDs (male-to-female ratio 7:8) were included in this study (**Table 1**). No relevant difference between the two groups in sex (p=0.909) and age (p=0.548), was found. The baseline median EDSS for pwCIS was 2.00 (1.00 – 4.00) and 1.00 (0.00 – 2.50) for males and females, respectively. PBMCs from one CIS individual on baseline were not viable for flow cytometry analysis. Whilst in the GLAT group disease activity was high at the baseline, no major differences in disease activity were found between groups at any time point afterwards (see **Table 1**, and **Supplementary Figure 2**).

![Supplement Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F5.medium.gif)

[Supplement Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F5)

Supplement Figure 2: Disease Activity

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/T1)

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of pwCIS and healthy donors

### 3.2 Differences between treatment-naïve pwCIS and HDs at baseline

First, we analysed the difference between lymphocytes and monocytes in pwCIS and HDs at baseline. Results are shown in **Figure 1** and **Table 2**. We found notable differences that showed lower percentages of lymphocytes in pwCIS compared to HDs (**Figure 1A**; 84.0 vs 91.7, *p*˂ 0.001). In contrast, the frequency of monocytes was higher among pwCIS than HDs (**Figure 1A**; 16.0 vs 8.2, *p* < 0.001).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F1)

Figure 1. Differences between pwCIS and HDs at Baseline.
A) Mean percentage of lymphocytes and monocytes between isolated PBMCs. Mean percentage of CD3+ T cells and CD19+CD20+ B cells in the lymphocyte population.) Mean percentage of different T cell subpopulations in the lymphocyte population. C) Mean percentage of different B cell subpopulations in the lymphocyte population. D) Mean percentage of different B cell subpopulations in the CD20+ subpopulation. Data are presented as mean percentage ± SD. **p*˂ 0.05, ***p*˂ 0.01, \***|*p*˂ 0.001. *n*=*15*.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/T2)

Table 2. Differences between pwCIS and HDs at Baseline

Lymphocyte subsets were categorised as shown in **Figure 1**. Briefly, T cells were defined by the expression of CD3, monocytes by the expression of CD14 and B cells characterised by the absence of CD3 and CD14 with the expression of CD19 and CD20. Afterwards, a set of markers to discriminate between specific T and B cell subsets was established (see gating strategy in **supplementary information**). Our results did not show any difference in the percentage of CD3+ (**Figure 1A**) or CD3+CD4+ T cells among groups (**Figure 1B**). However, the fraction of CD4+CD38+HLADR+ within the T cell population was slightly higher in pwCIS (**Figure 1B**1; 0.36 vs 0.23, *p*=0.015). Moreover, the percentage of CD4+CD25high/CD127low cells (defining Tregs) in pwCIS was somewhat higher than in HDs (**Figure 1B**; 3.9 vs 2.6, p˂ 0.001).

Interestingly, the percentage of CD19+CD20+ B cells among lymphocytes was notably lower in pwCIS compared to HDs (**Figure 1A**; 5.7 vs 9.3, p˂ 0.001). Percentages of both, CD20+CD27− naïve and CD20+CD27+ memory B cells, were higher in HDs (naïve= 4.0 and memory= 2.5) than in pwCIS (naïve= 6.6 and memory= 1.5) (**Figure 1C**; *p*˂ 0.001 and *p*˂ 0.01, respectively); however, there was no substantial difference between the percentages of CD19+CD20−CD27high cells (Plasmablasts; **Figure 1C**).

When we compared the proportions of B cell subsets defined by CD27 and IgD markers (CD27−IgD+ naïve, CD27+IgD+ pre-switched memory, CD27+IgD− switched memory, and CD27−IgD− atypical memory) between pwCIS and HDs, we did not find any substantial difference among these cohorts (**Figure 1D**).

### 3.3 Analysis of lymphocytes in treated-GLAT and untreated pwCIS

Subsequently, we analysed the difference between lymphocyte subsets and monocytes in two subgroups of patients; those who remained untreated (n=10) and those who received glatiramer acetate (GLAT; n=10). The outcomes analysed for the two subgroups of patients were either at 3 - 6 months (Baseline), at 12 months, and at 24 months after the first clinical event suggestive of demyelination of CNS (**Table 1**). Results are depicted in **Figures 2** and **3** and **Table 3**.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F2)

Figure 2. Glatiramer acetate in pwCIS’s peripheral lymphocytes.
A) Mean percentage of lymphocytes and monocytes B) Mean percentage of CD3+ T cells and CD19+CD20+ B cells in the lymphocyte population. C) Mean percentage of different T cell subpopulations in the lymphocyte population. Data are presented as mean percentage ± SD.**p*˂ 0.05, ***p*˂ 0.01, \***|*p*˂ 0.001.

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/F3)

Figure 3. Glatiramer acetate effect in pwCIS’s peripheral B cells.
A) Mean percentage of different B cell subpopulations in the lymphocyte population. B) Mean percentage of different B cell subpopulations into the CD20+ subpopulation. Data are presented as mean percentage ± SD. **p˂* 0.05, ***p˂* 0.01, \***|*p˂* 0.001.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/T3)

Table 3. Sub-analysis in pwCIS receiving GLAT

First, we analysed the difference between lymphocytes and monocytes in pwCIS at different time points. We, nonetheless, did not find any important changes among groups (**Figure 2A**).

We categorised lymphocyte subsets as shown in **Figures 2** and **3** (see gating strategy in **Supplementary Figure 1**). Overall, our analysis showed no difference within the T cell subpopulations (**Figure 1**). Nevertheless, a subpopulation of CD4+HLA-DR+ cells was slightly higher in the GLAT group (2.03) compared to those untreated (1.46), after 24 months (**Figure 2C**; *p*< 0.05).

Our results also showed that CD19+CD20+ B cells were present at similar frequencies at baseline for both patient groups. However, B cells increased after 24 months (GLAT=7.85 and Untreated= 5.47) in the GLAT group (**Figure 2B**; *p*< 0.05). The difference in the GLAT group appears to be secondary to an increased percentage of CD20+CD27− naïve B cells, especially by 24 months (**Figure 3A**; *p<* 0.01). The percentage of CD20+CD27+ memory B cells was slightly reduced in the GLAT group after 24 months, whilst the untreated group had a little increase, but no difference was observed (**Figure 3A**). Finally, no differences were observed in plasmablast percentages at different time points (**Figure 3A**).

Finally, we compared the proportions of B cell subsets (CD27−IgD+ naïve, CD27+IgD+ pre-switched memory, CD27+IgD− switched memory, and CD27−IgD− atypical memory) between untreated and GLAT treated patients (**Figure 3B**). Interestingly, we confirmed the tendency of CD20+CD27−IgD+ naïve B cells to increase within the group under GLAT after 24 months (**Figure 3B**; *p*< 0.05). Our results also showed that the percentage of CD20+CD27+IgD+ pre-switched memory B cells in the GLAT group was lower after 24 months (**Figure 3B**; *p*< 0.01); in stark contrast to the GLAT group, pre-switched memory B cells tended to increase in the untreated group compared to baseline (**Figure 3B**; p< 0.01, Table 3). In addition, the percentage of CD20+CD27+IgD− switched memory B cells also decreased during the intervals measured in the GLAT group, although statistically not different. Lastly, our analysis did not show any substantial change in the CD20+CD27−IgD− atypical memory B cell subpopulation.

## 4. Discussion

Our observational explorative study aimed to characterise lymphocyte subsets after a first demyelinating event suggestive of MS. Our results showed early monocyte and B cell alterations in pwCIS using a broad immunophenotyping platform.

### 4.1 Differences between pwCIS and HDs

Results showed that the distribution of peripheral lymphocytes and monocytes differs between HDs and pwCIS. The percentage of lymphocytes in pwCIS is lower whilst the percentage of monocytes is higher compared to healthy individuals. Previous studies have highlighted the important role of monocytes in MS pathogenesis; they can contribute to the breakdown of the blood-brain barrier18. Furthermore, the T cell/monocyte ratio analysis has identified pwCIS at risk of rapid disease progression19. In line with previous studies, our results encourage further characterisation of monocyte subsets (in connection with dynamic changes among B cell subsets) in pwCIS in future clinical research projects with large samples.

Within the T cell compartment, the distribution of CD4+ cells did not show differences between HDs and pwCIS. Specifically, CD4+ subpopulations expressing activation markers, such as CD38 and HLA-DR, did not differ from the aforementioned groups. Interestingly, the proportion of T regulatory cells (Tregs) was higher in pwCIS compared to HDs at baseline. However, a steady, higher proportion of peripheral Tregs did not show any further benefit in preventing disease activity during the 24 months of follow-up (see **Table 2**).

Moreover, increasing evidence shows that several cell subsets contribute to the inflammatory cascade inside the CNS20–22. Our results showed that the percentage of CD19+CD20+ B cells was lower in pwCIS compared to HDs. This is an interesting finding, considering that within the T cell compartment there was no or very little difference between groups. Our results are in line with Kreuzfelder *et al*. which showed that the percentage of peripheral CD19+ cells in pwMS is lower than in HDs23. Whether this relatively low percentage of peripheral B cells is due to a higher monocyte proportion in pwCIS or to an active exchange between the periphery and CNS, including an increased influx of B cells into the inflamed CNS tissue, needs further investigation 22.

Intriguingly, a separate analysis of B cell subsets (with the CD19+CD20− plasmablast population excluded,) showed that the percentage of peripheral switched memory, pre-switched memory, and atypical memory B cell subpopulations are slightly higher in pwCIS, but the difference is not significant. Unfortunately, the heterogeneity of protocols used by different studies to evaluate pwCIS in PBMCs23–28 makes comparing the study results difficult.

### 4.2 Sub-analysis in pwCIS receiving GLAT

We also performed a subanalysis of pwCIS divided into two different groups, untreated and GLAT treated individuals, at three different time points (3-6, 12, and 24 months after disease onset). Taken as a whole, lymphocytes and monocytes, we did not observe any significant change between those untreated compared to GLAT treated individuals at different time points. We, nonetheless, observed an increase in the percentage of B cells (CD19+CD20+) in those patients being treated with GLAT. Our results showed no significant changes within the plasmablast population (CD19+CD20−CD27high) subset.

B cell subsets seem to be mildly affected by GLAT but not equally. Our analysis showed a higher percentage of naïve (*p*˂ 0.05) and lower pre-switched memory (*p*˂ 0.01) B cells after 24 months in the GLAT group, compared to the untreated group. Furthermore, whilst switched memory B cells seemed to be reduced after 24 months in people receiving GLAT treatment, our analysis of variance did not show a substantial change among groups at different time points.

Due to this study’s explorative nature and aim, it is difficult to make assumptions about the therapeutic effect of GLAT in pwCIS, and therefore, our results are just observational; interindividual differences can also drive these changes. Interestingly, it has been observed that GLAT could affect various aspects of dysregulated B cells subsets in pwMS 24.

### 4.3 B cells and immune status monitoring in pwCIS and MS

Whilst B cells could overreact, generating a hostile and extreme autoimmune reaction, evidence has also shown that some subsets could regulate autoreactive T cell responses 25,26. For instance, it is believed that alemtuzumab depletes CD19+CD27+ B memory cells and allows a rapid repopulation of immature B cells 4. Furthermore, a new study by Ruck *et al*., using an in-depth multidimensional immune phenotyping analysis, showed that the presence of hyperexpanded T cell clones might predict the development of secondary autoimmunity in some patients under alemtuzumab treatment. The effect of these T cell clones in MS pathophysiology is still unclear27.

The depletion of peripheral B cells by anti-CD20 therapies shows that B cells play a key role in MS pathogenesis 28. However, the depletion of B cell subsets might not be enough to maintain an effective therapeutic outcome. Depletion of other reactive T cell subsets to obtain a more effective response might be needed. 29,30 Moreover, some studies have found that the production of interleukin-10 (IL-10) by B cell subsets is a key factor for regulatory responses26,31,32. It has been proposed that IL-10 produced by naïve and memory B cells has a direct effect on activated Th1/Th17 and T regulatory cells to regulate immune responses in both health and pathological conditions32.

It is of note that we were unable to observe plasma cells in all measured samples. It seems that plasma cells are less likely to survive the freezing/thawing procedures applied to PBMCs. Moreover, in our study, we did not perform absolute counts due to the use of frozen samples. We propose that future lymphocyte immunophenotyping shall be performed in fresh blood and include absolute counting. This would not have been possible with the current methodology of this cohort. Nevertheless, and despite the limitations of this observational retrospective study and small sample size, we consider our results could encourage further research by using methodological assets of phenotypic and molecular studies to identify cellular biomarkers in these MS entities. In this study, we show that lymphocyte characterization may be useful in characterising differences in peripheral lymphocyte subsets in pwCIS after a first demyelinating event.

## 5. Conclusion

In conclusion, our results showed early monocyte and B cell subsets alterations in pwCIS. These alterations, however, did not show any treatment response or disease course prognostication. Therefore, in future extensive clinical research, lymphocyte alterations found in our study could be considered to examine potential associations with ongoing MS activity after a first clinical manifestation. In addition, further inclusion of a wider immunophenotyping platform in larger cohorts could help to identify predictive immunological patterns.

## Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to local regulations concerning the protection of patient data, but upon reasonable request, approval for distribution of data will be obtained from the institutional review board of Charite-Universitatsmedizin Berlin and anonymised data will be made available by the corresponding authors.

View this table:
[Supplement Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.11.13.23298459/T4)

Supplement Table 1 Staining at Fortessa→B cells in MS

## Funding & COI

**CAG** has received funding from the Mexican Government agency CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology) for this project.

**AW** and **TD** declare to have no conflict of interest.

**MSC** has received fellowships from the Bayer Foundation and the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for her PhD studies.

**CC** received speaker and writing honoraria from Bayer and the British Society of Immunology, research support from Novartis and Alexion, unrelated to this current study. CC is a member of the Standing Committee on Science for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

**JK** received congress registration fees from Biogen and speaker honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme and Bayer Schering.

**SA** received congress registration fees from Biogen, and speaker honoraria from Alexion, Roche and Bayer Schering.

**KR** received research support from Novartis, Merck Serono, German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union (821283-2), Stiftung Charité (BIH Clinical Fellow Program) and Arthur Arnstein Foundation; received travel grants from Guthy-Jackson Charitable Foundation.

**CID** reports research grants from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; German Research Council) as well as conference honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme and Novartis.

**JBS** has received speaking honoraria and travel grants from Bayer Healthcare, and sanofi-aventis/Genzyme, in addition received compensation for serving on a scientific advisory board of Roche, unrelated to the presented work.

**FP** Reports research grants from German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Einstein Foundation, Guthy Jackson Charitable Foundation, EU FP7 Framework Program, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Parexel and Almirall. Payment honoraria from Guthy Jackson Foundation, Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Viela Bio, Roche, UCB, Mitsubishi Tanabe and Celgene. Support attending meetings from Guthy Jackson Foundation, Bayer, Biogen, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion, Viela Bio, Roche, UCB, Mitsubishi Tanabe and Celgene. All unrelated to the present work.

## Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to local regulations concerning the protection of patient data, but upon reasonable request, approval for distribution of data will be obtained from the institutional review board of Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin and anonymised data will be made available by the corresponding authors.

## Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## Funding

The study was supported by the NeuroCure Clinical Research Center. **CAG** has received funding from the Mexican Government agency CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology) for a post-doctoral fellowship to carry out this project and **MSC** received fellowships from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD, Germany) and Bayer Foundation for her PhD studies.

## Authors’ contributions

CAG, AW, MSC, CID, TD, FP: Conceived, designed the experiments and interpreted the data; CAG, AW: Performed the experiments; CAG, AW, MSC: Analysed the data; CAG, CID, SA, JK, JB-S, CC, KR: Helped with patients’ recruitment and clinical, MRI and/or laboratory data acquisition; CAG wrote the manuscript; CAG, CC, AW, MSC, CID, TD, FP: Critically edited the manuscript.

## Acknowledgements

We thank patients and healthy donors who participated in this study. We thank Rene M. Gieß, Bibiane Seeger-Schwinge, Gritt Stoeffels, Claudia Messelhauser and Katharina Stoesslein (NeuroCure Clinical Research Center, ECRC, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) for their technical assistance.

## Footnotes

*   * First joint authors

*   ‡ Joint Correspondent Authors

*   ** Joint senior authors

*   Received November 13, 2023.
*   Revision received November 13, 2023.
*   Accepted November 13, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Pitt D, Lo CH, Gauthier SA, et al. Toward Precision Phenotyping of Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology - Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation 2022; 9: e200025.
    
    

2.  2.Lin T-Y, Vitkova V, Asseyer S, et al. Increased Serum Neurofilament Light and Thin Ganglion Cell–Inner Plexiform Layer Are Additive Risk Factors for Disease Activity in Early Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology - Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation 2021; 8: e1051.
    
    

3.  3.Jager PLD, Rossin E, Pyne S, et al. Cytometric profiling in multiple sclerosis uncovers patient population structure and a reduction of CD8low cells. Brain : a journal of neurology 2008; 131: 1701–11.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awn118&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18567923&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000257397100005&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Baker D, Herrod SS, Alvarez-Gonzalez C, et al. Interpreting Lymphocyte Reconstitution Data From the Pivotal Phase 3 Trials of Alemtuzumab. JAMA neurology 2017; 74: 961–969.
    
    

5.  5.Bittner S, Ruck T, Wiendl H, et al. Targeting B cells in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: from pathophysiology to optimal clinical management. Ther Adv Neurol Diso 2017; 10: 51–66.
    
    

6.  6.Baker D, Pryce G, James LK, et al. Failed B cell survival factor trials support the importance of memory B cells in multiple sclerosis. European Journal of Neurology. Epub ahead of print 2019. DOI: 10.1111/ene.14105.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ene.14105&link_type=DOI) 

7.  7.Gelfand JM, Cree BA, Hauser SL. Ocrelizumab and Other CD20+ B-Cell-Depleting Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics 2017; 14: 835–841.
    
    

8.  8.Lassmann H. The changing concepts in the neuropathology of acquired demyelinating central nervous system disorders. Curr Opin Neurol 2019; 1.
    
    

9.  9.Roodselaar J, Zhou Y, Leppert D, et al. Anti-CD20 Disrupts Meningeal B-Cell Aggregates in a Model of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation 2021; 8: e975.
    
    

10. 10.Baker D, Herrod SS, Alvarez-Gonzalez C, et al. Both cladribine and alemtuzumab may effect MS via B-cell depletion. Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation 2017; 4: e360.
    
    

11. 11.Cellerino M, Ivaldi F, Pardini M, et al. Impact of treatment on cellular immunophenotype in MS: A cross-sectional study. Neurology - Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation 2020; 7: e693.
    
    

12. 12.Staun-Ram E, Najjar E, Volkowich A, et al. Dimethyl fumarate as a first- vs second-line therapy in MS: Focus on B cells. Neurology - Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation 2018; 5: e508.
    
    

13. 13.Sèze J de, Maillart E, Gueguen A, et al. Anti-CD20 therapies in multiple sclerosis: From pathology to the clinic. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1004795.
    
    

14. 14.Gieß RMM, Pfuhl C, Behrens JR, et al. Epstein-Barr virus antibodies in serum and DNA load in saliva are not associated with radiological or clinical disease activity in patients with early multiple sclerosis. PloS one 2017; 12: e0175279.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0175279&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 

15. 15.Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 Revisions to the McDonald criteria. Annals of Neurology 2011; 69: 292–302.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.22366&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21387374&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000288284900012&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16.Greve DN, Fischl B. Accurate and robust brain image alignment using boundary-based registration. Neuroimage 2009; 48: 63–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.060&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19573611&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000269321100010&link_type=ISI) 

17. 17.Rasche L, Scheel M, Otte K, et al. MRI Markers and Functional Performance in Patients With CIS and MS: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front Neurol 2018; 9: 718.
    
    

18. 18.Waschbisch A, Schröder S, Schraudner D, et al. Pivotal Role for CD16+ Monocytes in Immune Surveillance of the Central Nervous System. Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md : 1950) 2016; 1558–67.
    
    

19. 19.Nemecek A, Zimmermann H, Rübenthaler J, et al. Flow cytometric analysis of T cell/monocyte ratio in clinically isolated syndrome identifies patients at risk of rapid disease progression. Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) 2016; 22: 483–93.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1352458515593821&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26163073&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 

20. 20.Büdingen H-C von, Kuo TC, Sirota M, et al. B cell exchange across the blood-brain barrier in multiple sclerosis. J Clin Invest 2012; 122: 4533–4543.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1172/JCI63842&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23160197&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000311926200027&link_type=ISI) 

21. 21.Lisak RP, Nedelkoska L, Benjamins JA, et al. B cells from patients with multiple sclerosis induce cell death via apoptosis in neurons in vitro. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2017; 309: 88–99.
    
    

22. 22.Stern JNH, Yaari G, Heiden JAV, et al. B cells populating the multiple sclerosis brain mature in the draining cervical lymph nodes. Sci Transl Med 2014; 6: 248ra107.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6InNjaXRyYW5zbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI2LzI0OC8yNDhyYTEwNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzExLzEzLzIwMjMuMTEuMTMuMjMyOTg0NTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

23. 23.Kreuzfelder E, Shen G, Bittorf M, et al. Enumeration of T, B and Natural Killer Peripheral Blood Cells of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis and Controls. European Neurology 2004; 32: 190–194.
    
    

24. 24.Ireland SJ, Guzman AA, O’Brien DE, et al. The Effect of Glatiramer Acetate Therapy on Functional Properties of B Cells From Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. Jama Neurol 2014; 71: 1421–1428.
    
    

25. 25.Staun-Ram E, Miller A. Effector and regulatory B cells in Multiple Sclerosis. Clinical Immunology 2017; 184: 11–25.
    
    

26. 26.Rieger A, Bar-Or A. B-cell-derived interleukin-10 in autoimmune disease: regulating the regulators. Nature Reviews Immunology 2008; 8: 486–487.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18500232&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256105700019&link_type=ISI) 

27. 27.Ruck T, Barman S, Schulte-Mecklenbeck A, et al. Alemtuzumab-induced immune phenotype and repertoire changes: implications for secondary autoimmunity. Brain 2022; 145: 1711–1725.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awac064&link_type=DOI) 

28. 28.Comi G, Bar-Or A, Lassmann H, et al. Role of B Cells in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. Ann Neurol 2021; 89: 13–23.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.25927&link_type=DOI) 

29. 29.Graf J, Mares J, Barnett M, et al. Targeting B Cells to Modify MS, NMOSD, and MOGAD. Neurology Neuroimmunol Neuroinflammation 2020; 8: e918.
    
    

30. 30.Disanto G, Morahan J, Barnett M, et al. The evidence for a role of B cells in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2012; 78: 823–832.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0b013e318249f6f0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22411958&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 

31. 31.Fillatreau S, Sweenie CH, McGeachy MJ, et al. B cells regulate autoimmunity by provision of IL-10. Nature Immunology 2002; 3: 944–950.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ni833&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12244307&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F11%2F13%2F2023.11.13.23298459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178242100015&link_type=ISI) 

32. 32.Fillatreau S, Gray D, Anderton SM. Not always the bad guys: B cells as regulators of autoimmune pathology. Nature Reviews Immunology 2008; 8: nri2315.