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!
AVIVA Semi-Finals: National ME/FM Action Network is competing for $100,000
The National ME/FM Action Network in Canada is competing for $100,000 for biomedical research of ME and FM in the Aviva Community Fund contest. With thanks to all who helped, they made it through the first round of voting into the Semi-Finals.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

XMRV, VIPDx Labs and CFS: the 36% Solution

Discussion in 'XMRV Testing, Treatment and Transmission' started by Cort, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. Megan

    Megan Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes:
    13
    Australia
    Why say culture test shows latent virus or refers to white blood cells?

    Maybe I have missed something along the line (very possible!), but I dont undestand why we keep referring to the culture test as detecting 'latent' vs. PCR showing 'active' virus? Or that the culture test shows it is confined to white blood cells? I think this is very misleading on several counts:

    1) In Dan Peterson's presentation he referred to the 33 people who tested negative on PCR and said "and 30 of 33 had transmissible virus in plasma" (taken from the transcript on this site). To my knowledge plasma does not contain white blood cells. This would indicate the virus was present outside white blood cells in this culture test. I have looked at the VIPdx site and there is nothing there to indicate that the culture test is using only white blood cells. If anyone knows more about exactly what the culture test is culturing then I would appreciate if you could post the information or link explaining this. There seems to be much confusion about this issue on this site. If they are culturing from plasma, then I would have thought the most important question is why are they finding it by culture and not by PCR from the same sample?

    2) Even if the culture test did show that the virus was confined to white blood cells at the time of the test, my understanding is that we can't assume this does not mean active disease as we do not yet know enough about this virus. The use of the term latent is therefore very confusing as it implies no active symptoms.

    3) As someone else pointed out above, we don't know if a negative PCR on one day could subsequently be followed up by a positive one on another occasion. I wonder about the suggested slow replication rate of XMRV suggested by John Coffin in the CFSAC meeting, postulated on the low level of XMRV genetic variation between patients. Could this mean that the virus only replicates intermittently and could thus only be at high enough levels to be detected by PCR at those times?

    4) Though most of us dont want to acknowledge it, it has not yet been proven that the virus is 'active' in terms of causing symptoms in anyone, even in the WPI study. They have merly officially confirmed an association.

    As others have suggested on other threads, I think it would be better if we simply talked in terms of Culture+, PCR- and let go of the 'active' vs 'latent' tags.

    Regards,

    Megan.
     
  2. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes:
    1,355
    London UK
    Hi Megan,

    I posted this last night in another thread, just reposting here as fits with what you are saying:

     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page