Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by V99, Jun 4, 2010.
Don't they also say that no mouse or xmrv infected cells had been in the lab?
We used Switzer's assay because he was very vocal that we were not detecting XMRV, but mouse DNA. His assay is a real time PCR that has not one but two fluorescent probes that is specific to mouse mitochondrial DNA.
Is that Max Pfost - wpi researcher, *waves* good to see you!
How delightful, then, that you found no mouse DNA contamination using the assay so "kindly" provided by Mr Switzer. I'm sure he was very pleased with the successful application of his extremely sensitive assay.
Yes, perhaps he began to doubt his own test.
@madmax, feel free to pop in anytime, your insights are surely appreciated!
Amazing how confident these numpties are before they have even tested anything. Me thinks Mr Switzer is trying to imitate Reeves?
Psst! I have it on good authority this trait runs in their family.
So nice of the CDC to help **grin**
BTW, did the use of his "extremely sensitive assay" specific to mouse mitochondrial DNA finally shut him up? About contamination, at least?
I would say they were satisfied that we conducted their assay, and presented them with the data.
I would say that it was a good political and scientific move on the part of the researchers. (grins)
Madmax, are there 8 patients missing from the addendum?
I believe what they are saying is that Single Round PCR on DNA from PBMC's was a test of such low sensitivity for XMRV that, in order to get any results, they had to employ it on a subset of patients who were "highly viremic," which I assume means that those patients showed a high level of co-infection with other viruses, such as EBV, cytomegalovirus, HHV-6, etc...
I would also assume that if you were "highly viremic," you would have been automatically excluded from the CDC study.
I don't know Forbin, I don't see the correlation between co-infection viriemia and XMRV viriemia.
The way I read it, was that they needed to show it was unlikely to be contamination, so they used normal PCR to test for xmrv. To make sure this would show positive samples, they guessed that those who display signs of high viremia, would be more likely to be identified as having xmrv using this basic method.
That's not what you were asking was it. Do they mean severe symptoms that suggest a virus?
Actually V, I think that's exactly it. I think they had to sort of guess who would be the most likely to come up positive in the PCR. Everybody's got to start somewhere. (grins) Thanks V.
So they created a subgroup for the basic PCR test. He he he.
Yeah I noticed that, also noticed that they put the wrong version up. Should be changed soon.
The addendum actually says:
Although "highly viremic" might be interpreted as "showing symptoms of viral infection," the phrase "persistent viremia" indicates (to me, at least) the detection of a known virus or viruses.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.