Pathogenesis of Multiple Sclerosis: Genetic, Environmental, and Random Mechanisms

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS)-pathogenesis requires both environmental-events and genetic-factors [1-4]. Considering genetics, familial-aggregation of MS-cases is well-established. MS-risk is increased ∼30-fold in non-twin siblings and ∼250-fold in monozygotic (MZ)-twins of an MS-proband [1,2,5]. Moreover, 233 MS-associated genetic-traits are now identified [6]. Nevertheless, MS-genetics is complex. The strongest MS-association is with the Class-II haplotype, HLA-DRB1*15:01∼DQB1*06:02, located at (6p21), having an odds-ratio (OR) of (∼3) in heterozygotes and of (∼6) in homozygotes [1,2,5,6]. Other MS-associations are quite weak [6] – (median − OR = 1.158; interquartile − range = 1.080 − 1.414). Also, DRB1*15:01∼DQB1*06:02 is highly “selected”, accounting for (∼13%) of DRB1∼DQB1- haplotypes – the most frequent such haplotype – among European-decedents [1-8]. Moreover, everyone (except MZ-twins) possesses a unique combination of the 233 MS-associated genetic-traits [3]. Finally, the observed probability-range for MZ-twin-concordance is: (0.11 – 0.46) and, consequently, genetics plays only a minor role in determining disease-expression (Table-4; Reference:[3]).

MS is also linked to environmental-events. First, a well-documented month-of-birth effect, linking MS-risk to the solar cycle, likely implicates intrauterine/perinatal environmental-events in MS-pathogenesis [2,9-11]. Second, given an MS-proband, the MS-recurrence-rate for dizygotic (DZ)-twins exceeds that for non-twin siblings [2,3,5] – also implicating intrauterine/perinatal environmental-events [2,3]. Third, MS becomes increasingly prevalent farther north or south from equatorial-regions [2,12]. Because this gradient is also evident for MZ-twin-recurrence-rates (Table-4; Reference:[3]), environmental-factors are likely responsible. Fourth, a prior Epstein-Barr viral (EBV) infection is found in almost all (> 99%) current MS patients [2,13,14]. If these rare EBV-negative patients represent false-negative-tests – either from inherent-errors when using any fixed antibody-titer “cut-off” to determine EBV-positivity, or from only determining antibody-responses to some EBV-antigens [2] – then one can conclude that EBV-infection is a necessary-factor in every causal-pathway, which led to MS in these individuals [2]. Regardless, an EBV-infection must somehow be involved in MS-pathogenesis [2,13,14]. Lastly, smoking and vitamin-D deficiency are implicated in MS-pathogenesis [2,15,16].

This manuscript presents an analysis regarding genetic and environmental susceptibility to MS [4] in a relatively non-mathematical format to make its conclusions accessible. The terms and definitions used for this analysis are presented in Table-1. For interested readers, the mathematical-development is presented in the Supplemental-Material. This analysis is based on the Canadian-Collaborative-Project-on-Genetic-Susceptibility-to-Multiple-Sclerosis (CCPGSMS)-dataset [5,8,9,17-23] – a summary of which is provided in the Supplemental-Material-Sections:10a-b. The CCPGSMS-dataset includes 29,478 MS-patients (born: 1891 - 1993) – estimated to represent (65 - 83%) of Canadian MS-patients [5,23,24]. This cohort is assumed to represent a large random sample of the Canadian MS-population. Also, this single population provides point-estimates and confidence-intervals for the MS-recurrence-rates in MZ-twins, DZ-twins, and non-twin siblings (S), and for the time-dependent changes in the female-to-male (F:M)-sex-ratio.

Methods

3. MZ-Twins, DZ-Twins, and Siblings

The term (MZ) represents the event that a proband, randomly-selected from (Z), is an (MZ)-subset member or, equivalently, is an MZ-twin. This proband’s twin is called their “co-twin”. The probability that the proband belongs to the (MS, MZ)-subset and their co-twin belongs to (MZ) is the same as the probability that the proband belongs to (MZ) and their co-twin belongs to (MS, MZ). Therefore, for clarity, (MS, MZ) indicates this subset (or event) for the proband, whereas (MZ_MS) indicates the same subset (or event) for their co-twin. The analogous subsets (or events) for DZ “co-twins” (DZ_MS) and non-twin “co-siblings” (S_MS) are defined similarly (Table-1).

Consequently, P(MS|MZ_MS) represents the life-time probability that a randomly-selected proband belongs to (MS, MZ), given that their co-twin belongs to (MZ_MS) – a probability estimated by the proband-wise (or case-wise) MZ-twin-concordance-rate [25].

The term P(MS|IG_MS) represents this concordance-rate – i.e., P(MS|MZ_MS) – adjusted because MZ-twins, in addition to sharing “identical” genotypes (IG), also share intrauterine and, probably, other environments. This adjustment – made by multiplying the proband-wise MZ-twin-concordance-rate by the (S: DZ) concordance-ratio [4] – isolates the genetic-contribution to the observed MZ-twin concordance-rates (see Supplemental-Material-Section:2a).

4. Estimating P(G)

If the population (Z) and the (G)-subset are identical, then, during any (E_T), the MS-penetrance of (Z) and (G) are also identical. Consequently, the ratio of these two penetrance-values [4] estimates P(G) such that: If this ratio is (1), then everyone in the population can develop MS under some environmental-conditions. However, if the MS-penetrance of (G) exceeds that of (Z), then this ratio is less than (1), indicating that only some members of (Z) have any possibility of developing MS, regardless of any exposure they either have had or could have had. Even if the “exposure-probability”, P(E|G, E_T), never reaches 100% under any realistic conditions, if (Z) and (G) are the same, then this ratio is (1) during every (E_T). Moreover, in any circumstance where: [p = P(F|G) ≠ P(F)], it must be that: (P(G) < 1).

5. Data-Analysis

Cross-sectional-Models use data from the “current” (E_T) – Table-2. Longitudinal-Models use data regarding changes in MS-epidemiology, which have occurred over the last century [3,4,23] – see also Supplemental-Material; Figure-S1. Cross-sectional-Models make the two common assumptions that: 1) MZ-twinning is independent of genotype and: 2) MS-penetrance is independent of (MZ)-subset membership (Supplemental-Material-Section:4a). Longitudinal-Models make neither assumption. Initially, “plausible-value-ranges” are defined for both “observed” and “non-observed” parameter-values (Table-2). Subsequently, a “substitution-analysis” determined those parameter-value-combinations (solutions) that fall within the “plausible-value-ranges” for each parameter. For each Model, (∼10¹¹) possible parameter-value-combinations were systematically-interrogated.

Currently, MS-penetrance for female-probands, whose co-twin belongs to (MZ_MS), is (5.7)-fold greater than MS-penetrance for comparable male-probands (Table-2). Moreover, currently, both the (F:M)-sex-ratio and P(MS) are increasing [2-4,23]. Under such circumstances, almost certainly, the current MS-penetrance in susceptible-women exceeds that in susceptible-men (see Supplemental-Material-Sections:3a&7g). Therefore, it is assumed that, currently: No assumptions are made regarding the circumstances of other Time-Periods

6. Cross-sectional Models

For notational simplicity, parameter-abbreviations are used: MS-penetrance for the i^th susceptible individual is: {x_i = P(MS|G_i)} ; the set (X) consists of MS-penetrance values for all susceptible-individuals – i.e., (X) = (x₁, x₂,…, x_m) ; the variance of (X) is: ; MS-penetrance for the (G)-subset is: x = P(MS|G) ; the adjusted MZ-twin concordance-rate is: x’ = P(MS|IG_MS).

During any (E_T), the MS-penetrance for (Z) is P(MS). As demonstrated in the Supplemental-Material-Section:4a, during any (E_T), the MS-penetrance for (G) is: Consequently, during any (E_T), the probability P(G) is estimated by the ratio of these penetrance-values (Methods #4).

7. Longitudinal Models

Proportional Hazard

The “apparent” value of (R), or (R^app), is defined as the value of (R) when: (c =d ≤1). As demonstrated in Supplemental-Material-Sections:7c&7g, for proportional-hazards with proportionality-factor (R), three conditions must hold:

1. if: R≤ 1 ; or, if: R< R^app ; or, if: λ≤0 ; then: c< d

2. if: c =d≤1 ; then, both: R> 1 and: λ> 0

3. if: R> 1 ; then: λ > 0

Condition #1 excludes any possibility that: (c =d ≤ 1) – see Figures-1&2 and Results.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Response-curves representing the likelihood of developing MS in genetically-susceptible women (black lines) and men (red lines) with an increasing probability of a sufficient environmental exposure – see Methods #2 & Supplemental-Material-Section:1a. The curves depicted in Panels A and B are proportional, with a proportionality-factor (R), although the environmental threshold is greater for men than for women – i.e., under conditions in which: (λ < 0) – see Text. The curves depicted in Panels C and D are “strictly” proportional, meaning that the environmental threshold is the same for both men and women – i.e., under conditions in which: (λ = λ_W = λ_m = 0) – see Text. The blue lines represent the change in the (F:M)-sex-ratio (plotted at various scales; indicated in each Panel) with increasing exposure. The thin grey vertical lines represent the portion of the response-curve that covers the change in the (F:M)-sex-ratio from 2.2 to 3.2 (i.e., the actual change observed in Canada [23] between Time-Periods #1 & #2). The grey lines are omitted in Panel C because the observed (F:M)-sex-ratio change is not possible under these conditions. In Panel A, although the (F:M)-sex-ratio change is possible, the condition (Zw > Zm) is never possible throughout the entire response-curve. Response-curves A, B, and D reflect conditions in which (R < 1); whereas curve C reflects conditions in which (R> 1). If (R= 1), the blue line in Panel C would be flat (see Supplemental-Material-Sections;7c-f). Response-curves A and C reflect conditions in which (c =d= 1); whereas curves B and D reflect those conditions in which (c< d= 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Response-curves for the likelihood of developing MS in genetically susceptible-women (black lines) and men (red lines) with an increasing probability of a sufficient environmental exposure – see Methods #2 & Supplemental-Material-Section:1a. The curves depicted are proportional, with a proportionality-factor (R), although the environmental threshold is greater for women than that it is in men – i.e., these are conditions in which: (λ> 0). Also, all of these response-curves represent actual solutions. The blue lines represent the change in the (F:M)-sex-ratio (plotted at various scales; indicated in each Panel) with increasing exposure. Panels A and B are for conditions where: (c =d = 1). The value of (R), specific for this condition, is termed (R^app). Indeed, for every condition in which: (c=d ≤ 1), both: (R = R^app) and the response curves for men and women have the same relationship to each other (see Supplemental-Material-Sections:7c-f). By contrast, Panels C and D represent conditions where: (c <d ≤ 1) and, in these circumstances: (R < R^app). To account for the observed increase in the (F:M)-sex-ratio, the response-curves in Panels A and B require that the Canadian observations [23] were made within a very narrow window – i.e., for most of these response-curves, the (F:M)-sex-ratio is actually decreasing. By contrast, the response-curves in Panels C and D demonstrate an increasing (F:M)-sex-ratio for every two-point interval of exposure along the entire response-curves for women and men. The thin grey vertical lines represent the portion of these response-curves (for the depicted solution), which represents the actual change in the (F:M)-sex-ratio for specific “solutions” between Time-Periods #1 & #2.

Conditions #2&3 (where: λ> 0), require that, as the odds of a sufficient-exposure decreases, there must come a point where only susceptible-men can develop MS. This implies that, at (or below) this sufficient-exposure-level, (R = 0). Consequently, the additional requirement that: (R > 1) poses a potential paradox.

There are two obvious ways to avoid this paradox (see Supplemental-Material-Sections:7d-h). First, if the hazards are non-proportional, although this creates other problems. For example, women and men in the same exposure-group, necessarily, have proportional-hazards (Supplemental-Material-Section:7h). Therefore, if women and men are never in the same exposure-group, each sex must develop MS in response to distinct {E_i} families, in which case female-MS and male-MS would represent different diseases.

Second, Condition #1 is compatible with any (λ) so that, if: (λ> 0) and (R ≤1), then, at every sufficient-exposure-level (u = a), the probability that a susceptible-man, randomly-selected, will experience a sufficient-exposure is as great, or greater, than this probability for a susceptible-woman.

Results

Discussion

The two principal conclusions from this analysis are: 1) the penetrance of (G) is greater than that of (Z) and, thus, not everyone in the population is susceptible to developing MS and: 2) at maximum exposure-levels, the limiting probability for developing MS in susceptible-men (c) is less than that for susceptible-women (d). These two conclusions, stated explicitly, are: Conclusion #1 seems inescapable (see Results). Indeed, given any of the reported MZ-twin-concordance-rates, the notion that MS-penetrance for (G) is the same as that for (Z) is untenable (Table-4; Reference:[3]). Therefore, a large proportion of the population (Z) must be impervious to developing MS, regardless of any environmental-events they either have experienced or could have experienced.

Regarding Conclusion #2, however, scenarios exist where: (c = d ≤ 1) might be possible. Principal among these is the possibility of non-proportional-hazards, which requires female-MS and male-MS to be different diseases (Methods #7). However, given the genetic and environmental evidence, this too seems untenable. For example, all but one of the 233 MS-associated loci are autosomal, and the single X-chromosome risk-variant is present in both sexes [6] – see also Supplemental-Material-Section:7f. Moreover, the MS-association with different HLA-haplotypes is the same for both sexes – see Tables-3&4; Reference:[4]. Family studies also suggest a common genetic-basis for MS in women and men [2-5,8,22,27,28]. Thus, both twin and non-twin siblings (male or female) of an MS-proband have increased MS-risk, regardless of proband sex [5,27,28]. Similarly, both sons and daughters of conjugal couples have markedly increased MS-risk [8,27]. Also, male and female full-or half-siblings with an MS-proband parent (mother or father) have increased MS-risk [2,8,22,27]. Each of these observations, supports a similar (if not the same) genetic-basis for MS in both sexes.

Also, contrary to those circumstances required whenever the proportionality-factor (R) is greater than (1) – i.e., when (R > 1) – women don’t seem more likely than men to experience the MS-associated environmental-events (either known or suspected). Thus, for both sexes, the month-of-birth effect is equally evident [2,4,9-11]; the latitude gradient is the same [2,4,12]; the impact of intrauterine/perinatal environments is similar (Supplemental-Material-Section:2c); EBV infection is equally common [2,4,13,14]; vitamin-D levels are the same [2,4,15,16]; and smoking tobacco is actually less common among women [2,4]. Collectively, these observations suggest that, currently, each sex experiences the relevant environmental-events in an approximately equivalent manner. Taken together, this genetic and environmental evidence implies that female-MS and male-MS represent the same underlying disease-process and, therefore, that the hazards are proportional (Methods #7).

Also, several lines of evidence indicate that the proportional-hazard condition of: (c = d ≤ 1) is unlikely. First, the environmental-observations (described above) suggest that: (R^app > R ≈ 1), which is impossible whenever: (c = d ≤ 1) – see Methods #7 & Results. Second, as in Figure-1, whenever (λ ≤ 0) or whenever (R ≤ 1), the condition that: (c < d) is established (Methods #7). Third, the alternative of: (R > 1) & (λ > 0) creates a potential paradox (Methods #7). Although there are ways to rationalize this potential paradox with: (c = d ≤ 1), in every case, the conditions required whenever: (c < d ≤ 1) are far less extreme [4]. Finally, the response-curves when: (c = d ≤ 1) & (R > 1) are steeply ascending and present only a very narrow exposure-window to explain the (F:M)-sex-ratio data [23] – see Figures-2A&2B. Moreover, following this narrow-window, the (F:M)-sex-ratio decreases with increasing exposure. By contrast, the Canadian MS-data documents a steadily-progressive rise in the (F:M)-sex-ratio over the past century [4,23] – see also Supplemental-Material; Figure-S1.

Nevertheless, whenever (c < d), some susceptible-men will never develop MS, even when a susceptible-genotype co-occurs with a sufficient-exposure. Thus, the Canadian MS-data [5,8,9,17-23] seems to indicate that MS-pathogenesis involves a “truly” random element. This cannot be attributed to other, unidentified, environmental-factors (e.g., other infections, diseases, nutritional deficiencies, toxic-exposures, etc.) because each set of environmental-exposures is defined to be sufficient, by itself, to cause MS in a specific susceptible-individual. If other conditions were necessary for this individual to develop MS, then one (or more) of their sufficient-exposure sets would include these conditions (Methods #2). This also cannot be attributed to the possibility that some individuals can only develop MS under improbable conditions. Thus, the estimates for (c) and (d) are based solely upon observable parameter-values (Methods #7). Finally, this cannot be attributed to mild or asymptomatic-disease because this disease-type occurs disproportionately among women compared to the current (F:M)-sex-ratio in MS [4,23]. Naturally, invoking “truly” random-events in disease-expression requires replication. Nevertheless, any finding that: (c < d) indicates that the behavior of some complex physical-systems (e.g., organisms) involve “truly” random-mechanisms.

Moreover, considering those circumstances where: (R = 1) & (d = 1) and, also, considering a man, randomly-selected from the (M, G)-subset, who also experiences a sufficient-environment, the chance that he will not develop MS is (21 − 99%) – see Results. Consequently, both the genetic and environmental data, which support the conclusion that: (R ≈ 1) – see above – also, support the conclusion that it is this “random-element” of disease-pathogenesis, which is primarily responsible for the difference in disease-expression currently-observed between susceptible-women and men. Importantly, the fact that a process favors disease-development in women over men does not imply that the process must be non-random. For example, when flipping a biased-coin compared to a fair-coin – if both are random-processes – the only difference is that, for the biased-coin, the two possible outcomes are not equally likely. In the context of MS-pathogenesis, the characteristics of “female-ness” and “male-ness” would each simply be envisioned as biasing the coin differently (whatever characteristics are implied by these two terms).

Other authors, modeling immune-system function, also invoke random-events in MS-disease-expression [4]. In these cases, however, randomness is incorporated into their Models to reproduce the MS-disease-process more faithfully. However, the fact that including randomness improves a model’s performance doesn’t constitute a test of whether “true” randomness ever occurs. For example, the outcome of a dice-roll may be most accurately modeled by treating this outcome as a random-variable with a well-defined probability-distribution. Nevertheless, the question remains whether this probability distribution represents a complete description of the process, or whether this distribution is merely a convenience, compensating for our ignorance regarding the initial orientation of the dice and the direction, location, and magnitude of the forces that act on the dice during the roll [4,29,30].

It is hard to imagine that the outcomes of complex-biological-processes such as evolution and immune-function are pre-determined events, especially considering the fact that both processes are so remarkably adaptive to contemporary external-events [4,30]. Nevertheless, proving that any macroscopic-process is “truly” random is difficult. This requires an experiment (i.e., a test), in which the outcome predicted by determinism differs from that predicted by non-determinism.

The Canadian MS-data presents an opportunity to apply just such a test. Thus, the widely-held deterministic-hypothesis [4,30] requires that: (c = d = 1). Any observation that either: (c < d = 1) or: (c ≤ d < 1) indicates that “true” randomness is a component of disease-development and undermines the deterministic-view. Therefore, the Canadian MS-data [5,8,9,17-23], which strongly implies that: (c < d), provides empirical evidence in support of the non-deterministic hypothesis. Importantly, this analysis explicitly includes all those genetic-factors and environmental-events (including interactions), which are necessary for MS-pathogenesis, regardless of whether these factors, events, and interactions are known, suspected, or as yet unrecognized. Nevertheless, in addition to these necessary prerequisites, “true” randomness also seems critical to disease-pathogenesis. Moreover, both sexes seem to have the same underlying-disease. Thus, both seem to have a similar genetic-basis and, also, a similar response to the same environmental disease-determinants (see above). These observations suggest both that the hazards are proportional (Methods #7) and that (R ≈1). If correct, this indicates that it is this “truly” random-element in disease-pathogenesis, which is primarily responsible for the currently-observed differences in disease-expression between susceptible-women and susceptible-men.