Bold opening: A sea of tiny genetic changes could be steering multiple sclerosis, and scientists are finally learning how to read the map. And this is where the breakthrough matters most: researchers are now able to study more than 100 genetic risk factors for MS together in human immune cells, shedding light on how these factors interact to drive the disease and how we might improve lives for people with MS.
Overview
Australian researchers, led by Dr Hamish King at WEHI and funded by MS Australia’s latest 2.8 million AUD research grant round, tackle a long-standing gap in MS genetics. Over the past twenty years, large genetic studies have identified hundreds of small DNA variations tied to increased MS risk. Most of these variations don’t directly change gene sequences. Instead, they influence when, where, and how genes are turned on or off within immune cells, making it hard to pinpoint exactly how they contribute to MS.
New approach
Dr. King’s team will introduce and test these risk factors in human immune cells, measuring how each factor alters gene activity and immune behavior both on its own and in combination. By mapping how networks of risk genes operate together, the researchers aim to pave the way for more precise treatments and, ultimately, better long-term outcomes for people living with MS.
Why this matters
For more than two decades, scientists have known there are many genetic markers linked to MS risk, yet they haven’t fully explained how these markers change immune cell behavior. MS can arise from many small genetic differences acting in concert, and this platform will let researchers study those changes collectively and connect them to the exact genes and pathways involved.
About MS and impact
MS is an immune-mediated condition in which the body mistakenly attacks the brain and spinal cord, damaging myelin—the protective coating around nerve fibers. This can affect mobility, vision, cognition, and energy levels. In 2025, more than 37,700 Australians lived with MS, a rise of about 77% since 2010. The total economic burden reached 3 billion AUD in 2024. As the number of people with MS grows, accelerating research across the full spectrum of the disease becomes increasingly urgent.
Quotes from leadership
MS Australia’s Head of Research, Dr. Tennille Luker, notes that studies like Dr. King’s help close a critical gap between genetic discovery and real-world impact. “Identifying risk was only the beginning. Understanding how those genetic changes actually drive disease is what enables us to change its trajectory.” She adds that alongside this work, MS Australia is investing in research that slows progression, manages symptoms, and improves quality of life, thereby strengthening our response today while laying the groundwork for prevention and cures.
Support and momentum
Beyond core funding, generous support from the Browne Family funds a Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to Dr. James Hilton of the University of Melbourne to develop new compounds that protect nerve cells in progressive MS. Over more than two decades, MS Australia has invested more than 60 million AUD in MS research. CEO Rohan Greenland emphasizes that sustained national investment is essential to delivering real progress, describing research as hope that keeps people with MS optimistic about better treatments and prevention becoming reality. He also acknowledges the vital contributions of state and territory Member Organisations, donors, and the wider MS community in accelerating discoveries toward a world without MS.
Event and featured projects
MS Australia will formally launch these research grants at Parliament House in Canberra on March 4 during the Advancing MS Research in Australia event, where speakers including Dr Monique Ryan MP and Ms Renee Coffey MP will underscore the importance of ongoing national commitment to MS research.
Featured projects include:
- Sensory shoe insoles to improve balance in MS, led by Associate Professor Anna Hatton (The University of Queensland). The project tests vibrotexture insoles designed to boost the foot’s sensory signals to the brain, aiming to improve upright stability, reduce fall risk, and support mobility and independence. The goal is to produce a clinically ready insole usable worldwide that enhances daily safety and informs future foot-sensation–focused treatments.
- Protecting brain blood flow to slow MS progression, led by Professor Kaylene Young (Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania). Using stem cell models, the team will explore how genetic differences affect brain blood flow, inflammation, and nerve cell survival, seeking drug targets that protect myelin and slow disability.
- Investigating how common viruses may trigger MS, led by Mr. Alex Eisner (The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne). The project examines how Epstein-Barr virus and other herpesviruses might influence MS through antibody responses and epigenetic changes, aiming to clarify molecular mechanisms linking viral infections to MS risk and progression.
- Investigating whether copper disruption links key MS risk factors, led by Dr. Brittney Lins (Curtin University). The study looks at whether brain copper imbalance connects major risk factors such as EBV infection, vitamin D deficiency, and gut health, and whether copper disruption may contribute to myelin damage, with the goal of identifying new prevention and treatment strategies.
Why this approach resonates
This multi-faceted effort blends genetic insights with functional experiments in human cells and tissues, increasing the chances that discoveries translate into real-world therapies. By highlighting potential disruptors like blood flow and copper balance, the project also spotlights tangible angles for intervention beyond traditional drug discovery.
Controversy and questions for readers
Some may question whether focusing on dozens of genetic risk factors simultaneously is the best path or whether these factors represent mere markers rather than drivers. Do you think this network-focused approach will yield clearer, actionable targets, or would a deeper dive into a smaller subset of high-impact genes be more effective? And given the involvement of public funding and high costs, how should advocacy groups balance ambitious big-tent research with targeted, practical studies? Share your thoughts in the comments.
