ArticlePloS one2025
Potential drug targets for Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD): A Mendelian randomization analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal Exposures of Immune Cells in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders: A Mendelian Randomization Study and Flow Cytometry Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Decoding paraneoplastic neuromyelitis optica: a multi-omics investigation of tumor-driven T and B cell dynamics.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCertain peripheral proteins are involved in the development of Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD), such as IL-6, complement proteins, and MHC class II molecules. However, the roles of other new protein biomarkers are unclear. Current NMOSD treatments (e.g., intravenous pulse methylprednisolone, or satralizumab for IL-6 receptor inhibition) can only manage symptoms, necessitating the identification of new drug targets to treat NMOSD. The objective of this study is to identify potential drug targets for NMOSD through Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, thereby addressing the limitations of current treatments and providing better clinical options for patients.
methodsNMOSD potential drug targets were evaluated via MR. Data was obtained from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with 132 individuals with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD and 1244 controls. Genetic instruments for plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins were identified. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using Bayesian co-localization, reverse causality testing and phenotype scanning. Additionally, a comparison and analysis of protein-protein interactions (PPI) were conducted to identify potential causal proteins. The implications of these findings were further explored by evaluating existing NMOSD drugs and their respective targets.
resultsFour proteins were identified at the FDR correction via MR analysis (p < 0.05). Higher levels of PF4V1 (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78; p = 3.39 × 10-3) and FAM3B (OR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45; p = 1.65 × 10-3) were associated with a reduced risk of NMOSD, whereas elevated SERPINA1 (OR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.29-4.04; p= 4.71 × 10-3) and CLEC11A (OR = 13.45; 95% CI, 1.29-4.04; p = 4.71 × 10-3) were related to an increased risk of NMOSD. Bayesian co-localization showed that the protein-related genes shared the same mutation as NMOSD (all PPH4>0.80). Reverse causality testing showed no evidence of NMOSD-driven protein changes (all p > 0.05). PPI analysis revealed SERPINA1 interacts with PF4V1 (combined score = 0.72). Drug evaluation identified Mercaptoethanol and Ferrous gluconate as repurposing candidates.
conclusionIncreased levels of plasma CLEC11A and SERPINA1 are correlated with an elevated risk of NMOSD, whereas elevated levels of plasma PF4V1 and CSF FAM3B are associated with a decreased risk of NMOSD. The opposing effects of risk or protective proteins suggest synergistic targeting could improve efficacy beyond current immunosuppressive regimens. Nonetheless, clinical trials are required to confirm the findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.