Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Dainty, Sep 3, 2010.
Quotes from this page:
I bolded the part that seems particularly relevant. Wow!
Wow, indeed! Nice find, Dainty! Another thing to look forward to from the XMRV conference.
I wonder if it was really XMRV, or PMRV's. Or maybe even both.
I can't wait for that conference.
XMRV is a form of MULV. They are both found in ME/CFS and people can be tested both in USA (VIPdx) and in Europe (REDLABS).
When the denialists like the UK's Myra McClure boasted Alter/Lo hadn't found XMRV in CFS, she failed to understand from her 5th grade science class to know XMRV is an MULV. The FDA found the same class of vir as Lombardi did back in 2009, it had just mutated as retroviruses do 4 more papers soon that shows XMRV/MULV in CFS.
Wow! indeed - the Washington Conference should be the most exciting yet. Looking forward to hearing about.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between xenotropic (XMRV) and polytropic MULV like Alter found, can a mutation allow the retrovirus to not be a xenotropic virus anymore?
That part confuses me...!
This is very confusing to me to and I hope the conference this week will shed some light on all of this. I believe it will!!
Yes, it could, but that is not the most likely possibility. It is possible PMLVs jumped to humans, then some, found in association with prostate cancer, changed until they could no longer infect mice. That seems to be a good guess, based on very little data.
All these names are based on the degree to which the sequences found resemble other known sequences. One guess, based on limited information, is that XMRV and PMLVs have different origins. At this point, we don't have the information needed to make a reasonable deduction about how these viruses have evolved. The phylogenetic trees in the Lo/Alter paper are based on best matches with known sequences proposed by computer programs which attempt to 'edit' one sequence into another with a minimum of changes. The real world need not always obey this 'principle of parsimony'. With more data, it is very likely these trees will change.
One point to remember is that viruses do not have to obey Mendelian genetics. They regularly pick up sequences by horizontal transmission, and the MuLV family is well-known for doing this.
Best to remain open-minded and flexible.
This is from Cheneys newsletter
"... Given that the CFS-related strain reported in PNAS is not related to XMRV, a mouse virus, but rather to another mouse virus (PMRV) from the same family of mouse viruses suggests that a name change is in order to describe this family of novel human retroviruses. .."
if thats any help
Whatever the virus' pedigree, this is one more piece of good news. I'm eager for the conference!
I'm guessing here, but it does look possible that multiple strains/variants of MLV's have crossed over into humans (Both xenotropic and polytropic types of MLV's.)
And it also looks possible that the multiple XMRVs and PMRVs, that they have found, are 'pic-n-mixing' genetic sequences, sharing them with each other.
The reason I say this is because XMRV has a mix of both xenotropic MLV and polytropic MLV gene sequences in it...
The 'commentary' in PNAS says:
So it looks like the polytropic/xenotropic distinction is not so clear-cut and is not particularly significant... Basically they are all MLV-related viruses.
I think they should just get rid of the 'X' from XMRV and just call them all MRV's... That seems quite simple to me! Is it too simple for all of those virologists to agree on?!
And hence we have HGRV, as suggested earlier by the group of researchers who met at WPI.
Get rid of the whole murine-associated thing. They are human retroviruses after all. The broader name covers all the variations, so as they find more they won't have to rename everything.
A large majority of ME/CFS patients have multiple HGRVs, period. If they find reason to split the groupings later, they can use HGRV-1 and HGRV-2.
Or do I have this all wrong?
This sounds weird. CFS Patients clearly don't have an immunological status comparable to AIDS, e.g. no low T-Cell counts. Does anybody know more about how to interpretate this statement?
Sounds right to me, more from Cheneys newsletter
"Given that the CFS-related strain reported in PNAS is not related to XMRV, a mouse virus, but rather to another mouse virus (PMRV) from the same family of mouse viruses suggests that a name change is in order to describe this family of novel human retroviruses. We propose the name Human Gammaretovirus or GRVs for short with some agreement from my colleagues around the world. "
Sounds about right to me too!
The only thing that I was wondering is whether the term 'Human Gamma Retrovirus' was specific enough to describe MLV-related viruses. XMRV is too specific to cover all of these viruses, and I thought that maybe HGRV or GRV might not be specific enough. In other words, are Gamma Retroviruses a small group of viruses, in animals, or are they a wide range of various different viruses? If they ever start finding completely different types of GRVs in humans then it could get confusing.
Anyway, it's not an issue that I'm losing any sleep over! :Retro smile:
It seems, from Cheney's newsletter, that he's confirming that they will use HGRV or GRV, like we'd already heard.
Who said that there is no low T cell count? I wish that this were true. The NK cells have proven to be abnormal but this is not to the exclusion of abnormalities in T cells and B cells.
The reason I brought u p the XMRV/PMLV question is because Demerlier was presumably looking for XMRV specifically. After all, he started his study before the Lo paper was published and probably had no idea about this new information.
So it will be very interesting to see what actually showed up, and what methods he used to find it.
Good points. So how is possible that CFS patients actually *do* share an AIDS like syndrome yet we are told we are hysterical and to home?
Well reading from the CDC cook book I found.........
CFS doesn't mean anything as it has no diagnostic test and is a diagnosis of exclusion.
CFS becomes anything and anyone. No specific symptoms are required.
No research will ever find common ground on this basis, in CFS patients ,unless you find something huge.....like MULV's & XMRV....
MULV's are found in *85% of CFS patients by the FDA, but just 7% of the healthy population and 10% of immune supressed in Germany by others.
*This figure is potentially much higher, as the virus reservoir is not known. FDA only looked in the blood and not brain tissue, or CSF via lumbar puncture.
XMRV/MULV+ CFS patients certainly do have an AIDS like syndrome if, (en mass) they share an impaired T cell dysfunction (NKC) and/or B cell, CD3 etc...
Naturally, no one is claiming CFS is AIDS (through HIV), but it is another Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome causing a completely different disease state.
Which we weren't meant to know about.......because our doctors are brainwashed to believe CFS is our fault and we need to rehabilitate our minds with CBT and do more exercise.
You can go all the way back to an account published in 1996 in "Osler's Web". One radiologist who saw MRI scans from Cheney's sickest patients showed him comparable scans from patients with AIDS. A colleague who saw this dubbed the disease "AIDS minor".
By the time people in Europe started diagnosing AIDS regularly, there were a few cases of "non-HIV AIDS". These were anomalies not explained at that time. Some may have been cases of HIV-2 infection, although that should also have been detected. Cheney remarked at that time that he had several patients who met all diagnostic criteria for AIDS except HIV.
Immune function in this illness is highly variable. There are times when patients show little immune response and times with strong response. Patients tend to pick up multiple infections and have reactivated latent infections. When the immune system tries to combat all of these, it can produce autoimmune problems. When it can't distinguish the source of the problem, it may virtually shut down.
Patients with this severity of immune problem appear to be fairly rare compared to patients with the most common symptoms. There is a continuum of illness.
As for sounding weird, there is scarcely any aspect of this illness that doesn't become weird in some context. The distinction between ordinary fatigue after exercise and Post Exertional Malaise is a good example.
So, 10% in the immune suppressed but 67-98% in the CFS patients. Isn't that a blow to the speculation of XMRV/MLV only taking hold because our immune systems are allegedly compromised due to other causes (eg psychological stress)?
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.