SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

No Metagenomic Evidence of Causative Viral Pathogens in Postencephalitic Parkinsonism Following Encephalitis Lethargica.

Microorganisms · 2021-08-12

DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9081716PMID: 34442795

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Postencephalitic parkinsonism (PEP) is a disease of unknown etiology and pathophysiology following encephalitis lethargica (EL), an acute-onset polioencephalitis of cryptic cause in the 1920s. PEP is a tauopathy with multisystem neuronal loss and gliosis, clinically characterized by bradykinesia, rigidity, rest tremor, and oculogyric crises. Though a viral cause of EL is likely, past polymerase chain reaction-based investigations in the etiology of both PEP and EL were negative. PEP might be caused directly by an unknown viral pathogen or the consequence of a post-infectious immunopathology. The development of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in conjunction with bioinformatic techniques has generated a broad-range tool for the detection of unknown pathogens in the recent past. Retrospective identification and characterization of pathogens responsible for past infectious diseases can be successfully performed with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples. In this study, we analyzed 24 FFPE brain samples from six patients with PEP by unbiased metagenomic next-generation sequencing. Our results show that no evidence for the presence of a specific or putative (novel) viral pathogen was found, suggesting a likely post-infectious immune-mediated etiology of PEP.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.