• 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 (FM), 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.

ME/CFS Grand Challenge (MEGA)

Comet

I'm Not Imaginary
Messages
693
I imagine they believe in their theories. So really, to them you could find something in a blood test in M.E and they'll STILL be arguing that there's also a psychosomatic element and asking why people are stigmatising those with mental illnesses by arguing so vociferously against that.

Yes, but the impression that I am getting from the BPSers is not that they are asking why there is a stigma associated with mental illness, but that we are not willing to roll over and accept the stigma of mental illness. Although I may be misreading your post.
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
More on the researchers

A pretty impressive bunch, in my book. I can't wait to see what they can find out.

Prof George Davey Smith (Genomics, epidemiology and more - Bristol)

He's a bit of a science superstar: Read my snappy little blogs about GDS and the whole of the omics field, including how it might apply to MEGA.
The Power and Pitfalls of Omics: George Davey Smith’s storming talk at ME/CFS conference (Pt 1 of 2)
> The power and pitfalls of omics part 2: epigenomics, transcriptomics and ME/CFS

Prof Caroline Relton (Epigenetics, Bristol)
Not much in her profile, but she was the lead author (GDS was senior author) on some of the most interesting epigenetics papers that are mentioned in the blogs above. I was impressed.
She wrote this blog
Epidemiology and epigenetics – a marriage made in heaven? | OUPblog
Which apart from anything has a great cartoon about over-hyping epigeneticcs


Prof Chris Ponting, MRC Human Genetics Unit (Genomics ++, Edinburgh)
Our research uses cutting-edge technologies and analytical approaches in genomics, transcriptomics, and cell biology to trace the causal links from DNA change to physiological outcome
So although Chris Ponting is listed under genomics - whose main role has been to link gene variants to disease - his work focuses on trying to move from an association to a causal mechanism, using neat stuff like single-cell transcriptomics (looking at what a single cell does).

His group also investigate the molecular mechanisms of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) [regulatory RNAs] in modulating mitochondrial function.

This is his speciality too, which seem more than a little relevant.
Computational and Disease Genomics

Summary
Multi-omics is the study of multiple genome-scale, often population-based, data sets and it lies at the heart of modern biomedical science. We are interested in carefully linking DNA variants to changes in molecules, processes, cells, organs and individuals. To do so we analyse high-throughput DNA, RNA transcript abundance, DNA-binding (ChIP-Seq), and phenotype (both human and model organism) data from primary tissues as well as cell lines and single cells

Prof Colin Smith, Genomics (Brighton)
Not much in his bio (above) but he's a professor of functional genomics so probably similarish to Chris Ponting.

Dr Warwick Dunn - Metaabolomics -School of Biosciences - University of Birmingham
Seems to have been one of the driving force behind the £8m Phenome Centre Birmingham. "Phenome" is phenotyping omics, using metabolomics (small molecules produced by cells during normal metabolic processes) to create chemical fingerprints of the body. Nb phenotype covers current status and so varies eg with diseases, as opposed to genotype, which is what you are born with.

He has some interest in inflammatory disorders
study global and muscle-specific metabolism in relation to healthy ageing and inflammatory diseases; this will be driven through his role as theme lead for systems biology and metabolomics in the MRC-ARUK Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research

Tony Bartlett, Somalogics (Proteomics)
Proteomics is all about measuring proteins, all the 'doing' molecues in the body, from enzymes to receptors to signalling molecules - the building blocks of life. So measuring proteins can provide a lot of clues about what might be going wrong in disease - but it's hard to do, and phenomenally expensive. I think there was an interesting presentation from a Scandanavianat IiME last year (insert details in reply) re mecfs, but again cost was an issue

SomaLogic's key claim is they make it much more affordable, which means you can do it on much bigger samples and get more reliable info (there are zillions of proteins so you really need big samples to distinguish meaningful differences from a whole load of noise ie random variation).
SomaLogic | A breakthrough proteomic technology platform

That'll do for now. I need to eat.
 
Last edited:

Comet

I'm Not Imaginary
Messages
693

Comet

I'm Not Imaginary
Messages
693
Good stuff:
https://www.actionforme.org.uk/news/ceo-blog-prof-george-davey-smith-on-the-grand-challenge/

https://www.actionforme.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/cmrc-2015-report-george-davey-smith.pdf

Prof George Davey Smith (Genomics, epidemiology and more - Bristol)
He's a bit of a science superstar: Read my snappy little blogs about GDS and the whole of the omics field, including how it might apply to MEGA.
The Power and Pitfalls of Omics: George Davey Smith’s storming talk at ME/CFS conference (Pt 1 of 2)
> The power and pitfalls of omics part 2: epigenomics, transcriptomics and ME/CFS
I remember reading your blogs about GDS and being very impressed, @Simon.
Hopefully my concerns prove irrelevant.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
There's not a whole load of detail, but we know we are talking about huge cohorts: 10k adult and 2k child cohorts, plus controls (which are likely to exist already for most of the omics, as we are late to this party). There's nothing like this anywhere in the world.

Plus a lot of new researchers are coming to play. Profs Paul Moss (infection), Maria Fitzgerald (pain), Jim Horne (sleep) and Paul Little have certainly shown an interest before but I'm not sure they've done any mecfs-specific research. Profs Chris Ponting, Colin Smith and George Davey Smith (Genomics, which increasingly includes transcriptomics (RNA) and a load of other stuff); Dr Rick Dunn (metabolomics), Prof Caroline Relton (Epigenetics), Somalogic (proteomics/serologics) are all new AFAIK.
[SomaLogic | Unlocking protein biomarkers to transform healthcare]

My main take out from this is that a whole load of talent from other areas is taking a keen interest in mecfs for the first time, ready to apply some smart technology - widely used in other, less-neglected illnesses - to our illness. And doing so on a huge sample. Finally, some serious, large-scale biomedical research in the UK (though this would also be the biggest cohort by far anywhere in the world).

It's not going to be fast though, sadly. Big science isn't quick.

And this
Good! The NIH showed how essential it is that this is done well. Apart from better relations, proper patient involvement makes for better science, in my view.

I'm wondering how this approach compares to Ron Davis's big data approach - both seem to be measuring a lot of stuff. I know Ron is just looking at severe ME rather than the huge numbers talked about here. There is also the NIH project which I have not read much about which I assume is doing a lot of measurements. @Simon Do you have any ideas how the different approaches compare, overlap and complement each other?
 

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,408
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
So really, to them you could find something in a blood test in M.E and they'll STILL be arguing that there's also a psychosomatic element

...as commented before, that's the beauty of the psychosomatic idea: nothing, literally nothing can disprove it.

(...or PROVE it, but that part is often left unmentioned and unexamined.)

If a scientist finds a biological marker, it's still also psychosomatic. 'Psychological' illness is caused by 'physical / chemical / genetic' problems, except when it comes to the attitude of the practitioner to the patient (and treatment options!)

In that case, talk therapy is enough, because the words the practitioner has mastered have such power that they can cure illness due to profound neurological and endocrinological abnormalities.

I can't think of it as anything more than ancient shamanism dressed up in scientific-seeming language: it's the casting of a spell to cure disease.
 
Messages
15,786
If a scientist finds a biological marker, it's still also psychosomatic. 'Psychological' illness is caused by 'physical / chemical / genetic' problems, except when it comes to the attitude of the practitioner to the patient (and treatment options!)
Indeed, the latest trend is to claim those are not biomarkers for the symptoms themselves, but are rather the biomarkers for thinking you have symptoms which you don't have :rolleyes:
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
I'm wondering how this approach compares to Ron Davis's big data approach - both seem to be measuring a lot of stuff. I know Ron is just looking at severe ME rather than the huge numbers talked about here. There is also the NIH project which I have not read much about which I assume is doing a lot of measurements. @Simon Do you have any ideas how the different approaches compare, overlap and complement each other?
Interesting Q, and I'm not sure how well I can answer, but broadly they have some similarities but complement rather than overlap.

All three studies: MEGA, NIH intramural and the Ron Davis study, are big data approaches that use new technologies to measure a lot of things simultaneously eg gene expression for thousands of genes, thousands of cytokines or whatever.

The main difference is that MEGA is vast, with plans for 10,000 adult patients, compared with 40 in the NIH study (well-enough to make it to the test centre/hospital) and 20 severely-affected patients in the Davis study. On the other hand, the NIH/Davis studies will measure a lot more factors than MEGA, going for depth rather than breadth, particularly focusing on the immune system.

The NIH study is also built around an exercise challenge (before/after data), which adds another dimension, as well as having far more broader measures eg brain scans and metabolic chambers.

My guess is that the MEGA study will be the most expensive by far, and the cohort it will use should provide samples for use beyond the immediate study. Given it's size it should produce more robust findings than the NIH/Davis studies, and is able to apply genomics, looking for genetic links to mecfs across the whole genome, that simply can't be done in smaller studies. There again, the NIH/Davis studies, by using more in-depth approaches, could find things MEGA isn't looking at.

And even though the NIH/Davis studies are both looking at the immune system in a lot of detail, they are apparently using very few of the same techniques.
 

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,408
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Indeed, the latest trend is to claim those are not biomarkers for the symptoms themselves, but are rather the biomarkers for thinking you have symptoms which you don't have :rolleyes:

Wow, that's especially elegant! You have to admire that kind of f^@kery.

[Edit: @Valentijn , I'd love to write a farcical piece on that. If you remember where you saw such a study/studies, feel free to PM me.]
 
Last edited:

Aurator

Senior Member
Messages
625
The awesome people seem to be on the list of experts and the considerably less awesome ones on the list of observers.
"Observers"? I can see no good that can come out of the attendance of certain "observers" in that list, who have views on ME/CFS that are hardly the product of authentic scientific enquiry.
The BPS crowd are going to be so far out of their depth in this study that they'll need a submarine. They're going to be completely and utterly irrelevant, IMO.
I'm puzzled why they were even there then. Their irrelevance to the study is plain even before it gets off the ground. Was somebody humouring them by letting them tag along, or are they actually pulling the strings - some strings, at any rate?
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
"Observers"? I can see no good that can come out of the attendance of certain "observers" in that list, who have views on ME/CFS that are hardly the product of authentic scientific enquiry.

Perhaps no good but perhaps not much harm either - I don't see them as having that much influence when the study is a biomedical one being run by biomedical heavyweights.

I'm puzzled why they were even there then. Their irrelevance to the study is plain even before it gets off the ground. Was somebody humouring them by letting them tag along, or are they actually pulling the strings - some strings, at any rate?

Maybe they're just interested - maybe they're hoping to have some influence. But I think we need to get away from the assumption that when there are 12 biomedical scientists pus 3 BPS people on the sidelines, the BPS people will be "pulling the strings". I know we're used to seeing them in positions of influence but I think we can trust the biomedical people to see any attempts to manipulate or subvert the study coming a mile off - and it's clear that GDS and the biomedical people are in charge.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
The BPS crowd are going to be so far out of their depth in this study that they'll need a submarine.
I'm not sure they'd be happy with a submarine, or a steamroller. Maybe they're looking for a nice shiney new ship to jump onto when the good ship PACE sinks to the bottom?
 

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,482
The main difference is that MEGA is vast, with plans for 10,000 adult patients
Has there been any discussion of how they plan to recruit and verify these patients? The misdiagnosis rate in the UK is circa 40% so I hope they're not relying on initial diagnosis for recruitment. I feel like finding 10,000 genuine ME patients to recruit would be pretty difficult.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
AfME on FB said:
M.E. was highlighted as a field that could benefit from world-class facilities as the University of Birmingham’s new £8million Phenome Centre at its official launch today.

Clare Ogden, Head of Communications and Policy, Action for M.E., attended the launch event, where scientists including Prof Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, gathered to hear how the new centre is fully equipped to provide expertise in metabolomics, bioinformatics and biochemistry.

Giving an overview of its capabilities and capacity, Phenome Centre Director Prof Mark Viant used the recently announced MEGA project as an example of work already under development, and highlighted how M.E. is described by many to be one the greatest scientific challenges yet to be solved, using a slide provided by Action for M.E.

Molecular phenotyping could be key in unlocking the biology of M.E., said Prof Viant.

https://www.facebook.com/actionform...72990583208/10154173687788209/?type=3&theater
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
, Phenome Centre Director Prof Mark Viant used the recently announced MEGA project as an example of work already under development, and highlighted how M.E. is described by many to be one the greatest scientific challenges yet to be solved
Like that.

And I hope the phenome centre can help. Dr Rick Dunn is the member of MEGA who does metabolomics.