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!
Nitric oxide and its possible implication in ME/CFS (Part 1 of 2)
Andrew Gladman explores the current and historic hypotheses relating to nitric oxide problems in ME/CFS. Part 1 of a 2-part series puts nitric oxide under the microscope and explores what it is, what it does and why it is so frequently discussed in the world of ME/CFS. Part 1 focuses...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

XMRV is dead, but what about the antibodies?

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by FancyMyBlood, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. FancyMyBlood

    FancyMyBlood Senior Member

    Messages:
    175
    Likes:
    68
    I made this post in another topic, but because of the importance I think this deserves an own topic to increase exposure and the chance for answers.

     
  2. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    As far as I understand it, the antibody evidence stands good.

    It seems Silverman constructed the "XMRV" clone incorrectly from the viral fragments available to him.

    In fact the HGRVs infecting people with ME are not the XMRV strain which explains why no-one could find XMRV in the negative papers.

    Mikovits always stated that she was finding a wide range of MLVs in her patients, as did LO and Alter, but this was ignored and research focused on the XMRV construct only.

    Patients have antibodies to infecting HGRVs which still have not been sequenced (the original attempt at sequencing by Silverman which resulted in XMRV being a mistake)

    Patient antibodies show that they are infected by a HGRV.
    This has now got to be sequenced so we have a complete genetic sequence to use in PCR research. If the sequence is wrong, as the sequence called XMRV was, the PCR cannot find it.


    Thye antibody results in Lombardi et al show that ME patients have antibodies to a HGRV/MLV like virus

    This shows the importance of classical retrovirological techniques in research, which use several mutually reinforcing methods of revealing viral infection in host cells. PCR alone is useless if the primers are set to mistaken or false sequences.
    Unfortunately, because PCR takes less skill to do, it has become the preferred option for recently trained virologists.
    The last year has amply displayed the pitfalls of this disregard for earlier basic virological skills.
     
    Guido den Broeder and Bob like this.
  3. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,591
    Likes:
    11,517
    South of England
    Thanks currer. That's very interesting.

    Basically, it looks like they have to start all the research from scratch.

    Some of the results are clearly demonstrating something, aren't they, even if we don't know exactly what yet.

    The antibody results in themselves could be used as a biomarker, so they are very important.

    But the whole thing is an unfortunate mess.

    I hope the WPI, and others, can get the funding that they need to fully explore their research.
     
  4. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    And you call that interesting? ;)

    But I agree, the WPI and others need to do a lot more research.
     
  5. VillageLife

    VillageLife Senior Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes:
    36
    United Kingdom
    So are the monkey studies all invalid !? I guess yes. But if these new XMRVs act similar to the old XMRV I guess they are valid.

    We will need a lot of work on these new XMRVs to see if they act the same as the old XMRV - do they turn on with hormones and stress are they in prostate cancer?
     
  6. VillageLife

    VillageLife Senior Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes:
    36
    United Kingdom
    So the old XMRV was discovered 5 years ago.

    It's going to take a few years for the new ones then.
     
  7. omerbasket

    omerbasket Senior Member

    Messages:
    510
    Likes:
    13
    The way I see it, the problem is that the WPI and the NCI found those antibodies in many of the controls, and there was no statistically significant difference between the number of controls that were found to be positive by serology and the number of patients that were found to be positive by this method (meaning that whatever virus it is, it seems that it's not unique to patients).

    However, I already saw in the other forum that Gerwyn wrote something which I guess might explain, or at least patrially explain, why the serology results came back as they did (and wouldn't have if things were done as they were in the Lombardi et al. 2009 study):
     
  8. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    Hi Omer,

    Yes Ive just noticed the lack of consistency in the serology results.

    So this isnt just a PCR problem. I cant really edit my previous post because it has been quoted, so Im just adding this post to acknowledge this problem
     
  9. soulfeast

    soulfeast Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes:
    44
    Virginia, US
    I have not been in the loop for a while.. what's going on? I tested pos PCR but neg antibody.
     
  10. magnetronnie

    magnetronnie

    Messages:
    5
    Likes:
    0
    Don't quote me on this one, but I believe the antibodies discovered by Lombardi et al. were against SFFV virus envelop and not specifically for XMRV or HGRVs in general. So a lot of mouse viruses (or contamination by mouse viruses) are candidates to explain these findings.

    Maybe another possibilty is that antibodies formed in vitro. I always assumed they couldn't, but I recently found some studies that show antibody formation continues even in vitro. So I was thinking, maybe the blood samples got contaminated by XMRV and the white blood cells produced antibodies against XMRV. That would explain the results from the BWG I guess?
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page