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!
AVIVA Semi-Finals: National ME/FM Action Network is competing for $100,000
The National ME/FM Action Network in Canada is competing for $100,000 for biomedical research of ME and FM in the Aviva Community Fund contest. With thanks to all who helped, they made it through the first round of voting into the Semi-Finals.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

5th Invest in ME/CFS Conference - Programme May 24 2010

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by shrewsbury, May 23, 2010.

  1. Kate_UK

    Kate_UK Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Likes:
    228
    Thank you natasa778.

    From Dr Klimas talk I also have some notes that say No CD26 - no Neuro Peptide Y cleavage - sympathetic nervous system overactive. Do you have any more details on this part?
     
  2. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK
    that may not be sensitive enough according to xx, also many other details from that study are 'held back' ...
     
  3. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    any viral infection will activate a herv. any retrovirus will activate a herv

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9263409
     
  4. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    any viral infection will activate a herv. any retrovirus will activate a herv

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9263409
     
  5. omerbasket

    omerbasket Senior Member

    Messages:
    510
    Likes:
    13
    Doesn't Huber is the one who works with John Coffin? If SHE didn't find it, it's a bit sad. Didn't Dr. Coffin say that a positive XMRV study is just a matter of time (or something like that)?
    Anyway, I just don't buy it that in 228 samples of anyone, even if they were all healthy people, there is not one sample which is positive for XMRV. I mean, we now have, besides from the three studies of prostate cancer cells (which found XMRV in prostate cancer, and in some of them they also checked healthy people and found it to some degree), 2 studies that found XMRV in the blood of healthy people (the WPI study and the unpublished Japanese study which found XMRV in 1.7% of the healthy cohorts they checked) and another study that found it in respiratory secretions - also, in healthy people too. Was there contamination in all of these 3 studies? Was there contamination in all of the studies that found XMRV in prostate cells (I mean, the people who wrote the negative studies about XMRV in prostate cancer could say the same as the people who wrote negative studies about XMRV in ME/CFS... So we're up to 6 contaminated studies in 5 different places, not to mention things like confirmation by other labs that the WPI got before their study was published).
    Do you think its likely that Dr. Huber's tests could detect XMRV if it was there (at least most of the times that it is there)? Because to me it seems that the answer is simple: No.
     
  6. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK
    yes, she was very excited about that!!!

    could be huge. it could be a biomarker for CFS as levels correlate to severity of symptoms.

    basically CD26/DPPIV is impaired, its job is to cleave NPY. if no cleavage, levels high and affect autonomic nervous system.

    Nancy was presenting on 2 brand new papers, hot off the press, one of them actually out tomorrow :))
     
  7. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK
    CD26 is produced as normal BUT DOES NOT LEAVE THE CELL in CFS. strange but true.

    so no cleavage of NPY
     
  8. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK
    that view is shared with the top xmrv person I won't name names :)
     
  9. Robin

    Robin Guest

    is the BMJ lady there?

    ETA

    Those must be Levine's negative samples.
     
  10. _Kim_

    _Kim_ Guest

    Levine sent her at least one sample from a patient that tested positive by VIPdx
     
  11. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    I also think the test Huber used is wrong.
     
  12. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Well, at least she had a positive control!
     
  13. KnightofZERO

    KnightofZERO

    Messages:
    69
    Likes:
    1
    Thanks to everyone who went or had a friend who went and is filling us in. Very interesting stuff!
     
  14. omerbasket

    omerbasket Senior Member

    Messages:
    510
    Likes:
    13
    Do you know which journal(s) rejected that study? Is there a journal which is known to be about to publish it?

    Anyway, I'm getting really mad at this kind of scientists. I mean, even if their intentions are good - this kind of sceinece is very bad. Not because they didn't find XMRV, but because they didn't look for it as they should have. XMRV is a new kind of virus and the best method to find it was not yet determined. Therefore, a scientist MUST, when he comes to make a study that is trying to prove or disprove the claim that XMRV is associated with a disease, first use the method that was able to find it in the largest number (or at least in a large number) in previous studies, and use it correctly and in the exact same method that the previous positive study found it. Unless he does that, his study is useless because we don't know if his method of testing worth anything. I mean, if I look for flour with my eyes I'll see it - but it doesn't mean that if I look for a bacteria with my eyes and don't see it it's not there. Perhaps Huber's method is a method that is able to detect other viruses anytime that they are there - but it wasn't proven to be able to find XMRV even most of the times that it's there. That is why accurate replication studies are so so improtant.
    I'm arfraid that this crappy kind of science might harm us. I really hope it doesn't.
     
  15. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK

    Jackie he was great!
     
  16. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK
    Omerbasket, there is more: after qPCR was all negative, they decided to look for it "the way the original study did" - but only as far as PCR went.

    then something happened she said - I missed that part, hope someone can fill in !!! - but they had 100% positive on that repeat test (with another type PCR, I missed which one) and they then decided they had got contaminated somehow.... sorry no details here, she sort of rushed through that part
     
  17. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    1,362
    London UK
    no+ no sorry
     
  18. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    I lost it around that bit as well. Hope someone understood
     
  19. Rosemary

    Rosemary Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    Likes:
    0
    Natasa, Did you know that Dipeptidyl peptidase IV or DDP-IV, appears to be absent or reduced in autistic children.

    http://www.healing-arts.org/children/autism-overview.htm#Dipeptidyl Peptidase Deficiency
     
  20. omerbasket

    omerbasket Senior Member

    Messages:
    510
    Likes:
    13
    Did she say if after they got a 100% positives they tried to test again these positives with the qPCR test - to see if that qPCR would find even half of these samples to be positives (if it could be done in some way, because I don't know if it's possible to test it agian after the first 2 tests)? Because if she would have done it and find 100% positives, than it probably means that the second test was somehow contaminated - But it she would have done it and again found nothing - That would mean the qPCR worth nothing at all here. And if she would only find, let's say, 30% to be positive, that means something here is odd...
    I wonder how did they decide they have got contamination (I mean, they probably did something wrong there, because it would be very very very surprising if they had all 228 samples positive by PCR... The WPI found only 67% of the 98% positives by PCR), but yet again - after the supposed contamination, she said to herslef "What the hell, I'll just try to publish the first kind of test (qPCR) even though I myself wanted to test it by a way from the original study"?

    She may be a fine scientist and perhaps even more than that, but this study seems to me, again, crappy.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page