Pseudo Pemphigus Phenotypes in Mice with Inactivated Desmoglein 3

In Vitro, Ex Vivo, and In Vivo Models for the Study of Pemphigus

Pemphigus is a life-threatening autoimmune disease. Several phenotypic variants are part of this family of bullous disorders. The disease is mainly mediated by pathogenic autoantibodies, but is also directed against two desmosomal adhesion proteins, desmoglein 1 (DSG1) and 3 (DSG3), which are expressed in the skin and mucosae. By binding to their antigens, autoantibodies induce the separation of keratinocytes, in a process known as acantholysis. The two main Pemphigus variants are Pemphigus vulgaris and foliaceus. Several models of Pemphigus have been described: in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo, passive or active mouse models. Although no model is ideal, different models display specific characteristics that are useful for testing different hypotheses regarding the initiation of Pemphigus, or to evaluate the efficacy of experimental therapies. Different disease models also allow us to evaluate the pathogenicity of specific Pemphigus autoantibodies, or to investigate the role of previously not described autoantigens. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of Pemphigus disease models, with the main focus being on active models and their potential to reproduce different disease subgroups, based on the involvement of different autoantigens.

Current status and prospects for the diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris

Introduction: Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is an intraepidermal autoimmune bullous disease (AIBD) characterized by autoantibodies against desmosomal adhesion proteins, most commonly desmoglein (Dsg)3, leading to the suprabasal cleft formation and acantholysis.Areas covered: Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) and indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) studies display the intercellular deposition of IgG/C3 throughout the epidermis and presence of circulating autoantibodies respectively, as a net-like pattern. However, the target antigen remains unknown using immunofluorescence techniques. Thanks to the development of Dsg ELISA, using recombinant technology, circulating antibodies against Dsg1 and 3 could be detected sensitively. It is possible to differentiate PV from pemphigus foliaceus (PF) using this assay. BIOCHIP mosaic and multivariant ELISA are two novel serologic methods with the added value of the ability to screen several AIBDs simultaneously.Non-Dsg1/3 antigens are also involved in the pathogenesis of PV and investigated more deeply thanks to the protein microarrays technique. Additionally, patients with high values of anti-Dsg1/3 may be lesion-free, suggesting the presence of nonpathogenic autoantibodies.Expert opinion: Newer diagnostic methods to replace traditional techniques should possess high sensitivity and specificity and be widely available, noninvasive, and relatively cheap. The newly developed methods need to be further evaluated before being recommended for routine use.

Monopathogenic vs multipathogenic explanations of pemphigus pathophysiology

This viewpoint highlights major, partly controversial concepts about the pathogenesis of pemphigus. The monopathogenic theory explains intra-epidermal blistering through the "desmoglein (Dsg) compensation" hypothesis, according to which an antibody-dependent disabling of Dsg 1- and/or Dsg 3-mediated cell-cell attachments of keratinocytes (KCs) is sufficient to disrupt epidermal integrity and cause blistering. The multipathogenic theory explains intra-epidermal blistering through the "multiple hit" hypothesis stating that a simultaneous and synchronized inactivation of the physiological mechanisms regulating and/or mediating intercellular adhesion of KCs is necessary to disrupt epidermal integrity. The major premise for a multipathogenic theory is that a single type of autoantibody induces only reversible changes, so that affected KCs can recover due to a self-repair. The damage, however, becomes irreversible when the salvage pathway and/or other cell functions are altered by a partnering autoantibody and/or other pathogenic factors. Future studies are needed to (i) corroborate these findings, (ii) characterize in detail patient populations with non-Dsg-specific autoantibodies, and (iii) determine the extent of the contribution of non-Dsg antibodies in disease pathophysiology.