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!
Knitting Equals Pleasure, Despite ME/CFS
Jody Smith loves knitting. Again. She thought her days of knitting and purling were long over but ... she's back ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Restricted Replication of XMRV in Pigtailed Macaques

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Jemal, Jan 12, 2012.

  1. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    Cornwall England
    Natasa - you are of course correct. Perhaps I should not have bolded certain parts but that was my decision and rather than post just those sections, I did post a lot more to give greater context.

    I do not understand the minutiae of science papers - I tend to rely on scientists to interpret them for me if I feel a need to understand more - and indeed I do refer to scientists when I feel a need for more general interpretation of a paper including the authors themselves (though not in this case I should add).

    I certainly don't feel I was 'cherry picking'. I mean that is a fairly extensive couple of posts there and most of it is from the 'Discussion' part of the paper. Meaning simply that - it was a discussion by the authors about their results in the greater context of previous and future studies.

    There was an awful lot that is I think relevant but was not bolded so I think your comment is unfair. This paper also refers back to the original paper on Macaques that appeared to raise a number of 'concerns' not least the 'fear' that XMRV 'disappeared' from blood and 'hid' in tissue - most recently Lymph Nodes if I remember correctly.

    It also provides greater information about XMRV replication in general I felt. Again though, this thread was about this paper and of course - as even the authors would and have pointed out - it does leave questions unanswered.

    But science is a process towards greater understanding and the focus - if you like - is now on trying to understand more about this novel gammaretrovirus.

    XMRV has not been found in humans and the next best thing in terms of trying to understand how this retrovirus works is apparently to inject MASSIVE amounts of the virus into primates.

    The exact reasons for doing so in this study are laid out above. It will I am sure lead to further research but it will take another paper like (but better than) Lombardi et al. for anyone to look again at XMRV and human infection and especially XMRV and CFS patients.

    Nobody has ever said XMRV was not a retrovirus. Nobody. It will continue to be studied and this paper implies that in the absence of confirmed human infection - primates are the next best thing.

    What did you make of this out of interest - I thought it important (then I am not a scientist of course):

    'Because gammaretroviruses lack the accessory genes possessed by other retroviruses, such as HIV and SIV, they are ill-equipped to counteract intrinsic host restriction factors like the APOBEC3 proteins.'

    I hadn't seen this mentioned before - at least not on the forums - though I confess I may well have missed it, but it does seem to get to the nub of the matter perhaps, no?
  2. RustyJ

    RustyJ Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'

    Messages:
    957
    Likes:
    414
    Brisbane, Aust

    As stated previously, A3G is at lower levels in some tissue. So irrespective of how effective it is (and it is not), it is not in high levels in all tissue. Please note, the referenced study is more recent than others being referenced by the Coffin macaque study.

    http://www.virologyj.com/content/8/1/531/abstract


    And lest you say that's just one paper (Paprotka et al, no less):

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20335265


    There are others, of course, but I'll leave some work for you:D
  3. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    Cornwall England
    Thanks Rusty.

    Perhaps then subsequent studies will take this further. The paper I was reading (above) did indeed look at prostate and lymph nodes with a more sensitive device than Omnimoon I believe. Did you see their findings and what would you say about their interpretations?

    My interest in XMRV was obviously as a result of the Lombardi paper. Prior to that I didn't have any inkling about XMRV being discovered or the associations with human prostate cells.

    Until such time as (and I hope it never happens) XMRV can be 'found' in humans then the study of XMRV is confined to primates, extracted human blood and cell work I suppose.

    We never have gotten as far as research linking XMRV or indeed any gammaretrovirus to disease, but had Lombardi been upheld, and the association replicated, that would presumably have been the next step.

    So in the meantime so to speak they will continue to study this retrovirus but no research has indicated yet that there is a disease causation association and certainly not in humans - until that happens we are talking about XMRV for what it is - a novel gammaretrovirus.

    Science hasn't closed the door on XMRV - far from it. However, the paper from Lombardi and the associations it claimed - along with those papers that also purported to 'find' XMRV in human blood - has not been upheld.

    I also don't think Science has closed the door on the possibility of a retrovirus being associated per se with my condition or any other. If they can find something then it will be published - assuming the paper is worth publication.

    But it was interesting to read this paper (above) and to continue to follow XMRV as a subject. I am still though rather bemused by the repeated claims that MLVs are somehow associated with my condition and so will continue to follow it all I suppose (but perhaps will less enthusiasm).

    Lipkin should prove interesting. Not because of the results so much but to see how they put it all together and what will come after this effort.

    Thanks again.
  4. RustyJ

    RustyJ Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'

    Messages:
    957
    Likes:
    414
    Brisbane, Aust
    Firestormm, thanks for that. For someone who says they aren't on top of the science and need help getting it explained, you seem to have a good grasp of the technical details of the research, well above my pay grade I'm afraid. I could never have read the above paper in such a short time and made a qualified criticism as you have, especially with me/cfs.

    Not sure why you keep hammering away at Lombardi. Maybe ease off there, makes you sound like you are doing PR for the HGRV denialists.:D
  5. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes:
    1,208
    London UK
    That to me sounds like you are spinning it. Something may well be turned down for political reasons - one of the MulV researchers has recently commented on that on her blog. They ARE finding something and that something sounds very interesting but are thinking twice about even submitting or talking about it in this climate. Nothing whatsoever to do with Science, everything to do with Politics.
  6. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes:
    1,208
    London UK
    re means by which MuLVs evade the action of APOBEC3, in the absence of Vif

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950561/?tool=pubmed

    Firestormm, if you have so many scientist friends to tell you how to interpret papers and what to think, why are you on here discussing with laics? What are you hoping to learn from patients here that you cannot learn from scientists directly?
  7. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes:
    1,208
    London UK
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435275/?tool=pubmed
  8. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,445
    Likes:
    863
    Maybe I have misinterpreted what you are saying and if I have I apologize, but what's wrong with someone saying that they don't believe HGRVs are connected with me/cfs, especially when someone is backing up their statements with science and asking appropriate questions related to the discussion. Aren't we allowed to have different opinions?


    I can only speak for myself but I'm trying to learn as much as I can with my limited expertise and appreciate people, whatever their take, not only citing their work but also explaining how they come up with conclusions.

    If there is misinformation, it needs to be countered.

    Different opinions are not inherently negative but name calling and put downs are.

    I do think on the whole we are seeing more appropriate debate and that's great. I don't want to sound entirely negative here.
  9. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,445
    Likes:
    863
  10. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    839
    Likes:
    168
    Wyoming
    I could be wrong, but aren't these the same people who, after XMRV was discovered, wanted to use it for Gene Therapy? So, are they doing these experiments so they can try to prove it is harmless in order to get the go ahead to use XMRV in gene therapy or is there some other reason? Are they worried that there may be a slight chance that Lipkin could find the virus so they are already moving on to the next step-attempting to prove it does not make people sick? Why even do this?

    Doesn't HTLV, for example, sometimes take 20 to 30 years to make a person sick? I guess am not understanding how this short study proves much of anything.
  11. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    I object to the dogmatism of some of the negative posters.

    Little is known about MLVs as a human pathogen. We need much more research before any assumptions can be made about their susceptibility to APOBEC in HUMAN infection.

    Given the importance of this research to not only people with ME but people with some cancers which also could be connected to these viruses, I am shocked at the willingness of some people to jump in with a facile negative and try to close the debate.

    There are good reasons for thinking that there could be links between MLVs, lymphoma, (rate doubled in thirty years) breast cancer (up by 50%) prostate cancer (tripled in all age groups).
    Health agencies are concerned about this rise in cancer rates, for which no explanation exists.

    And autism. A new disease. Unknown before the 1940s.
    Boys (not girls) have a hormone surge in the womb and in the first six months of life - if there is a link between androgens and the activation of MLVs via an immune challenge, there could be the reason for the link between boys and autism. (boys have a ten to one chance of getting autism vs. girls)
    You do not want to switch on an MLV in the early stages of the growth of the brain as it will be developmentally much more vulnerable.

    MLVs and human disease - the implications are very worrying. I doubt the theory will be welcomed but it must be investigated. Quick and easy negative reactions do not do the matter justice.
  12. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    Cornwall England
    You are most welcome. Of course I don't consider myself a 'denialist' though I have been called that often enough. And it does take a lot of effort to read such papers which is why my 'in-tray' is overflowing and I have to pick and choose to some extent and this study - following up on Onlamoon was I felt important. It also provided a (what I considered) useful resume of XMRV to date.

    In my own little world I think there are three parts to this if you like:

    1. The main one having been established by Lombardi and that related directly to my condition. It was about XMRV being found in the blood of patients to a startlingly high amount. And so as I see it this whole 2 year tale thus far has been about Lombardi and trying to replicate that association.

    And then from that we had the whole 'commentary' from scientists and those associated with that study, all the conferences, the interviews, the media-storm, etc. and all the analysis and interpretation and 'spin' of what was said as well as the paper itself and those that resulted from it.

    I mean it has been a mammoth undertaking and for a patient especially one hell of a lot to even try to keep on top of and I think too much has been speculated upon by those key players that has led to frustration and hurt among patients even to 'fallings out'. But this was for me the most important part about XMRV/MLVs and now (as in at this moment) that association has not been upheld.

    When it comes to the 'Lipkin Study' those that have been quoted as calling it definitive are I believe referring to the associations proposed by Lombardi (and Lo) to my condition. As this is the only fully funded (and pretty much now spent) research looking at XMRV/MLVs and my condition - then I also regard it as being the 'final' word on Lombardi (and Lo) and indeed all those other papers that appeared to support that association.

    However, and as I have said, I am very much interested in learning about how this study was put together and what will happen as a result - probably more so that what if anything it 'finds' in relation to XMRV/MLVs to be honest - because I don't think it will find anything significant.

    2. XMRV in it's own right as a novel gammaretrovirus. Novel meaning 'new' obviously but also not understood. And so that gets my interest too. But to a lesser extent and unless future research again attempts to link it to my condition - my own interest will wane. I understand that in science the research is only as good as the last and that science marches on and so am perfectly aware that someone could demonstrate that XMRV does indeed play a role in the causation of human disease and who knows? It could one day be linked to my condition but until that happens I don't think I will be all that interested.

    3. MLVs in general. I do 'get' people's interest in this broader topic really I do (or maybe I think I do?). However, we are again talking about the subject in isolation of my condition and so for me I can't get into it until and unless it does get linked.

    I do trust science and I know it might sound lame to some but there we go. There are some things - especially now - I acknowledge I haven't a hope of understanding or indeed learning about. But what bugs me is spurous links to my condition. So I'll leave it to science I think and when a paper is published whose conclusions appear to link in with ME in a more readily identifiable way - then I will push aside other things and take a closer look.

    Hi Natasa,

    Whatever. If a paper links MLVs to my condition I will take a look. That scientists are experiencing difficulty with funding - well what's new?

    Do you know how many papers are quoted from on forums like this and blogs? How many patients cherry pick and seem to think 'so and so' is majorly important to the study of my condition? If I asked my 'scientist friends' to help me understand all of them - I wouldn't have any friends left.

    They help with the complex stuff - you know that gets posted as 'evidence' - or if they themselves have posted a paper and I don't understand a part of it (not always relating to 'CFS') then they will help me also.

    In the main though I plod. I am a plodder. I select a paper that seems interesting after a read of the extract and I try to obtain the full version (and yes this does sometimes come from those 'friends').

    Then I plod. I have an 'in-tray' full of such papers - that appear 'interesting' but those that are more interesting that others I read and try to understand.

    Then I start a thread to see if others think they are interesting - or join an already established thread - and posit opinion in an attempt to understand more.

    It is 'interesting'. It helps break the monotony of my existence. It stimulates my addled brain. I hope for a debate on the subject of the thread.

    Remember what a debate is? :rolleyes:
  13. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    Cornwall England
    The extracts posted by Rusty are being debated on the thread to which that paper relates Natasa where Miller has provided further information in the Journal to which it was published.

    As I keep saying, until I am able to read a paper I don't really tend to comment upon it except in general terms. I did find 'his' comments 'interesting' as I said.

    My opinion about XMRV's involvement in my condition is not altered by that paper and the one this thread is all about reinforces my opinion.

    Prove XMRV is in humans and not a contaminant and then this further research into XMRV that we are discussing will provide a greater understanding.

    Here's the thread discussing how APOBEC MIGHT be side-stepped by some part of XMRV and the observations from Miller: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...-of-APOBEC3G-by-XMRV-in-Prostate-Cancer-Cells
    Glynis Steele and Sam Carter like this.
  14. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,510
    Likes:
    4,035
    Ontario, Canada
    Moderator -- Could we please stop the personal attacks (which have now been removed) and go back to debating the topic at hand.

    Kina.
    Firestormm, Jemal and Glynis Steele like this.
  15. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,445
    Likes:
    863
    Thanks, firestorm. It looks like my question belongs on the other thread.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page