• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

In Brief: Viruses and ME

View the Post on the Blog

The first in a new series of short articles attempting to explain the science behind fairly common topics and exploring how they relate to ME. This time we delve into the complex and somewhat controversial world of viruses - by Andrew Gladman.

Computer generated image of Rhinovirus 3 capsid comprised of hundreds of copies of 3 proteins. Within this shell there is the viral genome and several functional enzymes to allow for replication of the genome and to aid the hijacking process.

I think it safe to say that no topic is quite as disputed as the role that viruses might play in the pathology of ME. Scientists, doctors, and patients all have their own opinions about how viruses could be connected to our illness: some consider viruses to be crucial elements to our disease mechanism; others consider them irrelevant to the true causation but agree they appear to act in many cases as triggers or precipitating factors; and there are those who believe the role that viruses play has yet to be adequately determined and that the evidence remains, at best, only suggestive. But let's take a look at some of the basic concepts and consider why viruses attract so much attention in our world...

What is a virus?

A virus is generally regarded as an infectious agent, they are not thought of as living organisms as they have no means through which to reproduce by themselves, for this reason they are often classed as pseudo-living. They reproduce by invading the cells of other organisms and hijacking the cell machinery in order to produce copies of their genetic material, proteins and other structural components before assembling them into new virus particles and exiting the cell in search of new cells to hijack and further propagate themselves, this represents the sole purpose of the virus.

Video explaining how viruses infect cells and hijack the cellular machinery for viral replication.

There are millions of differing viruses in the world, with nearly every species of organism having unique viruses targeting them - there are even certain viruses that are themselves the target of viral infection! Under the broad heading of 'virus' there exist thousands of separate groups or viruses which are classified as taxonomically similar to all other organisms. Fundamentally all viruses are comprised of a strand of genetic material and a few small enzymes to replicate the viral genetic material to aid in the viral takeover of the cell, all of this is encased in a small protein shell known as a capsid. Each virus has unique additions to this basic structure but these thing are common to all viruses.

The groups thought most relevant to ME however are perhaps the enterovirus genus and the slightly more complex and controversial retrovirus. The fundamental difference between them lies in the route they take from first entering the cell to the initiation of viral protein production. Many viruses, like most organisms, use DNA (either a double or single strand) as their genetic material, this is generally integrated into the genetic material of the host cell by a protein and at this point the cell serves to unknowingly produce all the components required for viral replication. However, these two types - the enterovirus and retrovirus both use RNA as their genetic material.
BBC Secret Universe: The Hidden Life of the Cell episode exploring how viruses enter the cell, hijack it and the immune systems response to such an invasion.

Retroviruses have a single strand of RNA as their genetic material. Within their retroviral capsid there exists an enzyme known as reverse transcriptase, the function of this enzyme is to make a copy of the RNA genome in the form of DNA. This DNA then shares the same fate as the DNA in standard viruses, being integrated into the host cell genome. The important point to make here is that this enzyme is incredibly error prone. It makes mistakes very often when copying the RNA and this means that the retroviruses mutate and evolve at a much faster rate than standard viruses and are therefore much more difficult to treat due to this. This fact is the reason why HIV is so difficult to treat. The other major difference between retroviruses and standard viruses is that retroviruses have what is known as an envelope surrounding their capsid. This is a lipid membrane stolen from the host cells membrane of the cell from with the virus originates and allows retroviruses to more easily infiltrate and hijack other cells without arousing suspicion from the immune system.

Enteroviruses are also commonly discussed in ME and some researchers believe they play an important role in the pathophysiology of our disease. Interestingly however, despite the name of this genus of virus, often they only initially reproduce within the Gastrointestinal tract before migrating to other organs or tissues such as the nervous system. They also use RNA as their genetic material, however they do not use a reverse transcriptase enzyme to convert this into DNA; therefore the viral genome is never combined with the host cell's genome. Instead the RNA is replicated in the cell cytoplasm by an enzyme also injected into the cell by the virus particle known as RNA polymerase. The RNA has a molecule attached to one end which signals the cell machinery in the cell to initiate the start of protein synthesis, hence creating the viral proteins. It is unusual for enteroviruses to become chronic but researchers such as Dr. John Chia believe this to be the case in ME.

Why are viruses important in ME?

It is well documented that viruses are the most common triggering factor associated with acute onset ME - both in the form of infections and through vaccinations. It is therefore easy to understand why they have perhaps attracted most research, and yet despite this they have never been conclusively shown to be the cause of the perpetuation of ME symptoms. It appears, like most areas in ME, that research is somewhat conflicted over the extent of viral involvement.

There is some anecdotal evidence from patients and doctors who have seen improvement in health and well-being while taking or prescribing antiviral treatments such as Valcyte; however more formal research on these drugs through clinical trials has yielded something of a disappointing result. Similarly researchers such as Professor Lipkin, despite their own personal view that pathogens lie at the heart of ME, struggle to find evidence of the commonly held suspects in ME; these being viruses such as EBV, CMV and HHV6 among many others.

Attention is now turning to the possibility of a viral presence within tissue, which would allow the virus to remain undetectable by analysis of plasma and CSF samples; an example of this being the recently proposed hypothesis that viruses infected the vagus nerve. Professor Lipkin also is keen to explore the gut microbiome as this could be another location where viruses or pathogens may be lurking and adversely effecting the gut micobiota.

As time goes on it appears that research into the association of viruses and ME is evolving and moving away from the idea that viruses are the sole causative agent. Now we are seeing increasing efforts to look more at their role in either acting as a triggering mechanism, a co-morbid problem or perhaps acting as a source of dysregulation in other areas such as the gut microbiome. One can hardly discuss viruses and ME without giving a fleeting mention to XMRV. Heralded for some time as the sole agent at the heart of the disease, the story of XMRV acts as something of a fitting metaphor for the history and state of viruses and their relation to our disease as a whole. Whilst considered at the time as a momentous breakthrough, XMRV lost it's momentum over time as the evidence to support the hypothesis became dwarfed by the evidence against it.

Perhaps the idea of viruses as the cause of ME became so popular because it gave a simple explanation for a complex disease, but so often it is the simple explanations that are the wrong ones in medicine - with complex diseases requiring devious explanations. Certainly for some, viruses may be still be considered the true causative factor, but as time goes by and the research mounts, viruses seem to be something of a sirens song - promising answers but delivering little in return for the effort put in.

If anyone has any requests or suggestions of topics for future installments be sure to let me know in the comments below.

Next time we delve into the up and coming hypothesis for ME - the complex topic of autoimmunity.

Further videos:

Video exploring how the genetic material of viruses itself can be recreated artificially (viriods)


Phoenix Rising is a registered 501 c.(3) non profit. We support ME/CFS and NEID patients through rigorous reporting, reliable information, effective advocacy and the provision of online services which empower patients and help them to cope with their isolation.

There are many ways you can help Phoenix Rising to continue its work. If you feel able to offer your time and talent, we could really use some more authors, proof-readers, fundraisers, technicians etc. and we'd love to expand our Board of Directors. So, if you think you can help then please contact Mark through the Forum.

And don't forget: you can always support our efforts at no cost to yourself as you shop online! To find out more, visit Phoenix Rising’s Donate page by clicking the button below.


View the Post on the Blog
 
Great article, thank you.

My two cents. Viruses seem to be implicated in many chronic diseases e.g. asthma and Crohn's. The big problem we face is that we lack antivirals. I could get angry at this point because we have to wonder what medicine has been doing the last 50 years except suppressing symptoms but I won't. As long as we don't have working antivirals or better diagnostics, we are not able to identify the role, which viruses might play for diseases.

Now the important part. I'm quite sure, that the viruses are not the causative problem because of a very simple reason. If a virus causes disease, a lot more people should be ill by now because these viruses are masters for spreading in the right environment. In my eyes, most PWCs have a genetic defect, that causes a dysfunctional immune system, which makes them prone to pretty normal viral infections. This is a pure hypothesis but many studies point towards genetic similarities between chronic diseases and genes, which are implicated in viral infections. Unfortunately mainstream medicine is very reluctant to actually look into things, which haven't been discovered already. HIV is a perfect example. If these patients weren't demonstrating back then, nobody would have done anything and no treatment would have been developed for many years to come.

I do agree with you on your hypothesis, as a scientist and researcher based on what I know, the research and literature I've read, and my own disease I think viruses are not the root cause.

Just wanted to tell you there are two upcoming antivirals in late stage clinical trials which when approved by FDA for their indications will be able to be used off-label by doctors for CFS treatment. They are an improvement on the current arsenal.

CMX001 (Brincidofovir), Chimerix, Inc.

Lipid conjugate version of powerful and broad spectrum antiviral cidofovir. Unlike cidofovir it can be taken orally, has very good bioavailablity, much higher intracellular concentrations, and far reduced renal toxicity (due to the fact that the conjugate is cleaved releasing active cidofovir drug only inside cells, thus cidofovir isn't flowing around in the blood stream where it can get to kidneys and cause damage) http://www.chimerix.com/therapeutic-programs/category/cmx001

Valomaciclovir (EPB-348), Epiphany Biosciences, Inc.

Strong antiviral against many herpesviruses, looks like it might replace the much more toxic Valganciclovir for CFS treatment because it is effective against not only HSV, EBV, but also CMV and HHV-6. http://www.epiphanybio.com/

I believe these two drugs will be approved in 2015 or so and afterwards will be used off-label for CFS treatment.
 
That is great news, leokitten! I didn't realize that there were 3 new antivirals which should be available in 2015. That should make a big difference for some PWME.

It might be next to impossible for most ME/CFS patients to get access to those antivirals, though, because off-label use is frequently not covered by insurance and new antivirals are very pricey. Just look at the consumer cost of Valcyte. Very few of us can afford that and the new antivirals will be even more costly, I'll bet.

One thing we need is better testing and test interpretation for viruses so that more doctors properly identify chronic infections. Then the antiviral use will be for the chronic infection, for which the meds would be "on-label" and therefore covered by insurance, rather than for ME/CFS, for which antivirals are considered very much off-label and not covered by insurance.
 
That is great news, leokitten! I didn't realize that there were 3 new antivirals which should be available in 2015. That should make a big difference for some PWME.

It might be next to impossible for most ME/CFS patients to get access to those antivirals, though, because off-label use is frequently not covered by insurance and new antivirals are very pricey. Just look at the consumer cost of Valcyte. Very few of us can afford that and the new antivirals will be even more costly, I'll bet.

One thing we need is better testing and test interpretation for viruses so that more doctors properly identify chronic infections. Then the antiviral use will be for the chronic infection, for which the meds would be "on-label" and therefore covered by insurance, rather than for ME/CFS, for which antivirals are considered very much off-label and not covered by insurance.

My apologies I should have been more clear... these upcoming drugs, just like Valcyte, Famvir, Valtrex, could be used by doctors off-label for chronic viral infections commonly found in CFS patients. Unless your doctor determines that your are suffering from a chronic/reactivated viral infection you should not take these medications.

"On-label" use like use say is only for the specific indications that are FDA approved.

Off-label use is any use that is not the specific indication(s) the FDA approved for the drug. For example if you have a chronic CMV and HHV-6 infection, Valcyte treatment is off-label because it is only FDA approved for AIDS-related CMV retinitis and transplant associated CMV organ disease. Insurance will still cover it because it is a "reasonable" use of the drug since your doctor believes, based on examination, symptoms, and antibody tests, that you have a chronic infection of viruses that will respond to Valcyte treatment.
 
I do agree with you on your hypothesis, as a scientist and researcher based on what I know, the research and literature I've read, and my own disease I think viruses are not the root cause.

Just wanted to tell you there are two upcoming antivirals in late stage clinical trials which when approved by FDA for their indications will be able to be used off-label by doctors for CFS treatment. They are an improvement on the current arsenal.

CMX001 (Brincidofovir), Chimerix, Inc.

Lipid conjugate version of powerful and broad spectrum antiviral cidofovir. Unlike cidofovir it can be taken orally, has very good bioavailablity, much higher intracellular concentrations, and far reduced renal toxicity (due to the fact that the conjugate is cleaved releasing active cidofovir drug only inside cells, thus cidofovir isn't flowing around in the blood stream where it can get to kidneys and cause damage) http://www.chimerix.com/therapeutic-programs/category/cmx001....

Thanks leokitten,

Earlier this year we were told that CMX001 was being "fast-tracked" and might even be available late this year. Do you have a way to check on this and let us know if 2015 is still the projected date on this drug?

Thanks,
Sushi
 
Im guessing that they will be more expensive then valcyte is right now but these drugs could drop the price of already available drugs?? That could be good for those who want to use valcyte.
I know valcyte is generic in India as they didnt obey the patent laws but anyone know when valcyte goes generic in the rest of the world?;)
 
Thanks leokitten,

Earlier this year we were told that CMX001 was being "fast-tracked" and might even be available late this year. Do you have a way to check on this and let us know if 2015 is still the projected date on this drug?

No 2015 is the earliest date it can be approved, here's why:

FDA fast tracking means that after all the clinical trials are completed and results are in which show efficacy and safety then after this does an accelerated "fast track" process occur within the FDA to get the drug approved.

Chimerix just announced the study design for their CMX001 SUPPRESS Phase III clinical trial which I believe will be the last one. Results from this trial won't be in until 2015 and only after this if everything is good will the FDA fast track drug approval.

Please read more here: http://ir.chimerix.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=789441

Data from SUPPRESS are anticipated in 2015 and, if positive, may support Accelerated Approval of brincidofovir for the prevention of CMV infection.
 
Im guessing that they will be more expensive then valcyte is right now but these drugs could drop the price of already available drugs?? That could be good for those who want to use valcyte.
I know valcyte is generic in India as they didnt obey the patent laws but anyone know when valcyte goes generic in the rest of the world?;)

I don't think you will have to wait until 2015 for cheaper Valcyte.

Technically Roche's patent for Valcyte expires in 2015, but there have already been lawsuits filed by generic firms Ranbaxy and Sandoz challenging this. I believe Roche settled out of court with Ranbaxy and Ranbaxy will get FDA approval to start making a generic version this year in 2013. But I remember reading in the news that Ranbaxy is delayed in launching the drug so lets say 2014?

As you might know since Ranbaxy was the "first to file" for generic approval they will be given 180 day marketing exclusivity for the generic version, read more here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...nciclovir-hydrochloride-tablets-57542227.html

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-boost-likely-for-ranbaxy-113032500013_1.html
 
I don't think you will have to wait until 2015 for cheaper Valcyte.

Technically Roche's patent for Valcyte expires in 2015, but there have already been lawsuits filed by generic firms Ranbaxy and Sandoz challenging this. I believe Roche settled out of court with Ranbaxy and Ranbaxy will get FDA approval to start making a generic version this year in 2013. But I remember reading in the news that Ranbaxy is delayed in launching the drug so lets say 2014?

As you might know since Ranbaxy was the "first to file" for generic approval they will be given 180 day marketing exclusivity for the generic version, read more here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...nciclovir-hydrochloride-tablets-57542227.html

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-boost-likely-for-ranbaxy-113032500013_1.html


Thanks for your comments, Leokitten. May I ask what you think about the cause of CFS? For me it seems, that CFS is a highly heterogeneous disease. Patients get labeled as PWCs very easily. CFS may be an outflow of a lack of diagnostics and a lack of molecular understanding of disease. Only a few years ago it was found out, that breast cancer is not one disease, but at least ten different diseases with distinct genetic and molecular differences. Could it be, that CFS is not one disease but hundreds of diseases? Or do you think, that CFS mostly has the same cause?
 
Im guessing that they will be more expensive then valcyte is right now but these drugs could drop the price of already available drugs?? That could be good for those who want to use valcyte.
I know valcyte is generic in India as they didnt obey the patent laws but anyone know when valcyte goes generic in the rest of the world?;)
hey heaps! hope you are doing well. I'm in Canada and my insurance plan wants me to switch to the generic which became available here last month by Apotex (Canadian company)