Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Jemal, Jul 29, 2011.
This is weird? If I understand correctly they did find XMRV, but when they couldn't find it again they just gave up? Shouldn't they be worried about their detection methods?
Or contamination. But then please find it.
This is all they said in the FT about the one 'positive':
They cannot confirm or rule out... so basically they have no idea what they found. Could be XMRV, could be contamination, yet they assume it was contamination I guess. Why haven't they done more research? I know I would like to find out what was going on, if I found something like this.
They assume it's contamination. The fact that they couldn't sequence is odd.
Why is it odd? What could this imply? (total layman)
What could we conclude from this?
Does this mean it was XMRV or could it also have been mouse material?
The integrase is part of the Pol gene and codes for the integrase enzyme. It means the positive probably wasn't the result of non specific priming but doesn't rule out contamination.
Well sequencing can fail for a number of reasons and they don't say how many times it failed but it could mean a mixed PCR product (non specific plus specific priming). These days sequencing is really reliable and I've only had problems when I've had contamination or non specific priming.
What i would like to know is if in the case of contamination it would have to be contamination with XMRV or wheter it could be contamination with mouse material that contains mouse endogenous retroviruses or anything else that could give a false positive.
That depends on the specificity of the primers and the annealing temp but I guess the most obvious answer is that it's contamination by their positive control.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.