Your daily negative XMRV study: XMRV is PCR contamination

[kurt]

I remain open-but-sceptical o the idea of XMRV being "a human pathogen", and possibly the cause of CFS.

Do the authors of the study quoted above have any REASONING to back up the last two sentences?
I.E. - "We propose that the patient-derived sites are the result of PCR contamination. This observation further undermines the notion that XMRV is a genuine human pathogen."

I agree, they did make a strong statement at the end, maybe stronger than was warranted, but it was a valid scientific proposition, what they believe is the logical conclusion of their research. Yes, I think they presented reasoning to back that up, in the paper. They found two identical binding (integration) sites in two different cell types, which historically has only ever happened in contamination events. If true, this would seem to undermine XMRV in the human population, but a single study like this is not proof. Further research would have to confirm and extend their finding. They should have added a sentence at the end to state that fact. So they left a false impression with readers, overstated their conclusion, IMO. This is a very early finding. But if it turns out to be correct, that might shake things up a bit.

 

[SOC]

I'm confused by this 'paid to print' thing.

I've seen it claimed elsewhere that most journals charge those publishing. From what I've seen on-line, academics don't seem to respond well to CFS patients making a thing out of certain studies being paid-to-print, so regardless of it's merit as a point, it might not be politically beneficial to make a thing of it.

Which academics would those be, Esther?

It is certainly true that some very good research is published in some paid-to-print resources, although most of it is very limited in scope. Maybe these academics you speak of are objecting to a blanket dismissal of paid-to-print. Most academics (and the funders of their work) prefer to be published in high impact journals when possible.

 

[alex3619]

They found two identical binding (integration) sites in two different cell types, which historically has only ever happened in contamination events. If true, this would seem to undermine XMRV in the human population, but a single study like this is not proof.

Hi Kurt, two identical binding sites is normal and expected for MLVs, as pointed out by Gerwyn. Bye, Alex

 

[kurt]

Hi Kurt, two identical binding sites is normal and expected for MLVs, as pointed out by Gerwyn. Bye, Alex

Do you have a research reference for that?

 

[cigana]

Do you have a research reference for that?

Hi Kurt, It's in the Reader's Comments section of the Retrovirology website:

http://www.retrovirology.com/content/8/1/13/comments