Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Kyla, Oct 11, 2016.
Unfortunately uses Fukuda criteria, but it will be interesting to see how this matches up with Navieux , Hansen, other metabolomics research
Every group that has looked at energy production with a metabolomics approach has found problems. Is this correct or am I being misled by false hope?
Strongly significant results too!
How many people were in the study? A bit too foggy to find it myself. Thanks for posting.
Do we have any experts who can interpret this ?
What an exciting thing to wake up to. A Nature CFS paper!
Look forward to reading over this in detail. Looks very interesting at first skim.
Wow, another metabolomic study showing decreased ATP production, ie energy production. Looks promising.
Interesting that they suggest personalized diet or supplements might help.
And suggestions of biomarkers.
My biochemistry knowledge is not sufficient to tell whether it directly confirms Naviaux findings. Any experts here?
Wow the metabolic papers are pouring in in a significant fashion! Loving it!
It would be interesting to do the above with a set of patients meeting Oxford criteria, and simply depressed people.
To actually nail down in really simple words that yes CFS/ME is different from depression and anxiety disorders.
Indeed - this is an ideal 'big data' type project - once you have a list of proteins in patients serum, it should be trivial to take this data, and compare it against other datasets got for different conditions.
I note their earlier paper on the fatigue model in rats by the same lead author.
At least some of the same metabolites were changed in that model.
Admittedly a total layman in this area, but this observation by the authors caught my eye (from the paper):
So the authors identify two aspects to what appears to be underperforming cellular respiration: Krebs Cycle intermediates are abnormal (1), ATP production is impaired (2). Of course these are two sides of the same coin; the former problem leads to the latter, and since ATP is required to make ATP, feeds back on it. However, analytically separating these opens the door to the idea that organic acid abnormalities are a response to a central ATP production obstacle - and that we should look into it.
More broadly, both observations tie in nicely with Armstrong et al's earlier suggestion that ME/CFS energy metabolism leans heavily on glycolysis alone, i.e. the first step in cellular respiration, for ATP production. It's congruent with Shungu's elevated lactate findings. It also fits with Jamie's hypothesis on lipid rafts cutting short mitochondrial function (if I remember, and understood, it correctly).
If further studies confirm aberrant ME/CFS energy metabolism (which seems increasingly likely), I'm excited to find out how the dots will eventually connect to blood volume/circulation problems and potential autoimmunity. That is, if they connect, and are not subsets.
I'm sure there's lots more to this paper that's striking. I eagerly await the comments of someone with expertise.
There's already been hundreds of papers showing that ME/CFS is different from mood disorders. We certainly don't need more money wasted on such studies merely because some people aren't willing to read the existing ones.
There was a recent study n=20, looking at some immune cell I've forgotten that found exactly nothing.
Hmm - this is a gene expression study, not proteomics. I would be really interested to know what the proteome looked like in these cells at this time.
Perhaps they picked a cell population that is not particularly affected by PEM.
Or perhaps their patient population was poorly chosen.
The patients did report PEM.
I believe they used the same cell types (PBMCs) as Light et al., which that study failed to reproduce.
Does this paper allow any of you brainy science ppl to draw any conclusions as to what supplements may be useful in overcoming the deficiencies found in the study. I know grasping at straws again, but that's where life has lead me these days. Thanks to anyone who might have some ideas.
Not a brainy science person but listen in to Armstrong's webinar (is that the word) it's available now, he deals with issue of supplements late on in the talk. First things first, you need to know that you have the biochemical abnormality (crebbs cycle - glycolysis - whatever it's called).
Interestingly Armstrong used NMR for his recent work I.e a different technique from the other studies which used Mass Spectrometry. He reckons that his work, Naviau's recent paper, mitochondria proteomics paper from folks in Pisa and this paper are all on the same page. This may be complex but at least there is agreement re problem. Interestingly Armstrong looks at links to sepsis.
Re focus on patient selection criteria; we seem to be looking at a diagnostic blood test and leaving the collection of symptoms behind - good in my view.
We need to get to try to get these blood based diagnostic tests delivered.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.