1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Join the National PR Campaign for ME: Power to the Patient (P2tP)
Have you had enough of all the neglect and abuse of ME/CFS patients? Gabby Klein says now is the time for a National PR Campaign for ME/CFS to impress a change. Join the Patient Revolution to restore power to ME patients ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

2 more studies that found, you guessed it, zero XMRV

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by mojoey, Oct 12, 2010.

  1. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Messages:
    867
    Likes:
    22
    Hi Hope,

    However, to date (unless something happened within the last year) no one has proven that any HERV is capable of producing infectious particles. Yet the WPI/NCI study showed that XMRV could infect previously uninfected cells. Some replication-deficient/incomplete HERV particles can bud, but that doesn't explain the infectivity of the WPI samples, nor a number of other findings of that study.

    Technically an ultrastructural EM study of the particles in question should be able to make clearer whether they are complete virions or incomplete particles that could be from HERVs. But the stronger argument against contamination stems from a series of findings in the Lombardi study, which relegate the contamination argument to extreme improbability, and for which there has been no explanation offered by those who raise contamination as an issue.
     
  2. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    We are using 'independent' in different ways. They are not 'independent' with regards XMRV unless they use their own samples, their own reagants, etc. Independent basically means having no physical contact with the lab in question.

    Its been really clear, anyway, for 8 months that the Research Community does not consider those to be validated studies, hasn't it? The WPI expected other labs to verify their findings - they didn't believe the question was closed because the NCI and Cleveland validated their efforts. They always knew other labs would need to verify their results.

    This is why Dr. McClure was wrong about the CDC's three part validation. Yes it was good for both the WPI and the CDC to get backup verification but if the those labs are using the same samples then they aren't completely verifying their results. If the CDC stored the blood wrong then BSRI and the German aren't going to find the virus no matter how hard they look. Ditto in the opposite direction with the labs in the WPI study.
     
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,412
    Likes:
    2,064
    Australia
    Here is part of the discussion in the related editorial:
    "Current Status of Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus–Related Retrovirus in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Prostate Cancer: Reach for a Scorecard, Not a Prescription Pad"

    Mary Kearney and Frank Maldarelli
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/657169

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some groups however are clearly putting more effort into finding it than others - and there are a lot of reasons for this, from funding limitations, researcher biases (eg their PCR is sufficient) etc. The Kimata paper has some interesting discussion with regards to their own difficulties finding the virus.
     
  4. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Does anyone have the full Tsibris paper? I was struck by this comment in an LA Times article

     
  5. garcia

    garcia Aristocrat Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    936
    Likes:
    104
    London, UK
    Yes. They used PCR like the other failed studies before them. Nothing new here.
     
  6. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,412
    Likes:
    2,064
    Australia
    The first author is Heinrich and it is now in the library.

    Seems to have taken a long time from being accepted to being published:
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed
     
  7. guest

    guest Guest

    Messages:
    320
    Likes:
    5
    No association between XMRV and autism/prostate cancer (2 studies)

    If we already have threads about these two studies please delete.


    Mol Autism. 2010 Oct 14
    PCR and serology find no association between xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and autism.
    Satterfield BC, Garcia RA, Gurrieri F, Schwartz CE.

    Cooperative Diagnostics, LLC, Greenwood, SC 29646, USA. brent@codiagnostics.com.
    Abstract
    ABSTRACT: Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is a retrovirus implicated in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Press releases have suggested that it could contribute to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In this study we used two PCR assays and one antibody assay to screen 25 blood samples from autistic children born to mothers with CFS and from 20 mixed controls including family members of the children assayed, people with fibromyalgia and people with chronic Lyme disease. Using a real-time PCR assay, we screened an additional 48 South Carolina autism disorder samples, 96 Italian ASD samples, 61 South Carolina ASD samples and 184 healthy controls. Despite having the ability to detect low copy number XMRV DNA in a large background of cellular DNA, none of the PCR assays found any evidence of XMRV infection in blood cells from patients or controls. Further, no anti-XMRV antibodies were detected, ruling out possible low level or abortive infections in blood or in other reservoirs. These results imply that XMRV is not associated with autism.

    PMID: 20946639 [PubMed - in process]

    __________________________________________________


    XMRV: A New Virus in Prostate Cancer?
    Aloia AL, Sfanos KS, Isaacs WB, Zheng Q, Maldarelli F, De Marzo AM, Rein A.

    HIV Drug Resistance Program, National Cancer Institute.
    Abstract
    Several recent papers have reported the presence of a gammaretrovirus, termed "XMRV" (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus) in prostate cancers (PCa). If confirmed, this could have enormous implications for the detection, prevention, and treatment of PCa. However, other papers report failure to detect XMRV in PCa. We tested nearly 800 PCa samples, using a combination of real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The PCR reactions were simultaneously monitored for amplification of a single-copy human gene, in order to confirm the quality of the sample DNA and its suitability for PCR. Controls demonstrated that the PCR assay could detect the XMRV in a single infected cell, even in the presence of a 10,000-fold excess of uninfected human cells. The IHC used two rabbit polyclonal antisera, each prepared against a purified MLV protein. Both antisera always stained XMRV-infected or -transfected cells, but never stained control cells. No evidence for XMRV in PCa was obtained in these experiments. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancies in the results from different laboratories. It is possible that XMRV is not actually circulating in the human population; even if it is, the data do not seem to support a causal role for this virus in PCa.

    PMID: 20966126 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
     
  8. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,840
    Likes:
    12,362
    South of England
    Thanks for posting these studies Diesel...
    It's interesting to note that they are both zero/zero studies...
    I tend to ignore any zero/zero studies these days,
    and I think the autism study is especially worthy to be ignored, as Judy Mikovits has already detected XMRV in people with autism, in families with ME.

    Or maybe it only isn't circulating in your assays due to an ineffectual methodology for reasons soon to be determined by the Blood Working Group!
     
  9. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    I'm pretty sure both of these studies have been posted and discussed before. The Co-operative Diagnostics one certainly has.

    Like Bob says, 0/0 studies that fail to mention the possibility that their methodology just can't detect XMRV in blood, do nothing for me except undermine my trust in science and scientists in general. If they can't be honest and accurate in their own conclusions about their own study, and leap straight into wild speculation that is logically unfeasible given other researchers' findings, why should I trust anything else about what they say?
     
  10. redo

    redo Senior Member

    Messages:
    830
    Likes:
    89
    I find it strange that they don't even mention the possibility that their tests doesn't work. I mean, with all which is known about various methods and various results they should at least sqeeze in a sentance about it.
     
  11. garcia

    garcia Aristocrat Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    936
    Likes:
    104
    London, UK
    That would be the honest scientific approach. To consider the very real possibility (some would say extreme likelihood) that their test is dud. Hopefully people are intelligent enough around here to realize that zero/zero means zero.
     
  12. redo

    redo Senior Member

    Messages:
    830
    Likes:
    89
    I am disappointed by that. Mildly put. Before I got ill, I had a great deal of trust into the medical community. But that's gone.

    With this publication there are two places where it has gone wrong. First the authors ought to know that there were a possibility (even if they think it's small), and second the medical journal's reviewers should (in decency) point that out to the authors, giving them a chance to include it if they want.

    I am not saying that it's impossible that they are right. That their test is showing of the infected ones. Perhaps it is. I am willing to leave that open. But I think it's unscientific for them to leave out the possibility that their tests aren't up to speed. And I think it shows lack of commitment to the case that they don't even bother to send some samples to labs where they have been able to separate healthy from ill (NIH, Harvey Alter or to the WPI). I mean, if they seek the truth, and believe that NIH/WPI are wrong, then why not send them blinded samples. That would clear up a lot of the controversy. But it seems to me that they aren't all that committed to the cause. If they were that should be an obvious and easy thing to do...
     
  13. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,840
    Likes:
    12,362
    South of England
    Yes, it leaves us wondering if they are seeking the truth, or serving their own prejudices or their own careers.

    I suppose it would look pretty stupid though, if they write on their own paper that they aren't very clever scientists and don't know how to detect the virus because they haven't developed or tested their methodology adequately!
     
  14. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    That's true but some papers do note areas they have not covered or leave the possibility open that some other test might find otherwise - they basically state the reasons their paper could be wrong. I really think that's considered smart science and good protocol. Not everybody engages in it obviously.

    There is a wide variety of styles of writing. Some authors just press their points and ignore conflicting results from other groups. Others do a more professional job and try to sum up the state of the field on their topic - noting conflicting results. I'm surprised that doesn't happen more often actually.

    Some papers are almost like press releases for their findings - which is dismaying really.
     
  15. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,306
    Likes:
    2,330
    As Richard Feynman said, in science you have to bend over backwards to make sure you have covered all the possibilities. The fact that many papers do not do this is very damning.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page