Frank Ruscetti and Rachel Bagni isolated virus from the Lo/Alter patients (I believe it was those that had a fresh blood draw - the 8 of 9 that retested positive) and what they found was XMRV. THIS IS HUGE!!!
Lo/Alter ran the WPI UK samples through their probes and picked up a couple more positives than the WPI found.
The WPI family studies were elaborated on. Judy showed family trees of a few generations - some have CFS, some Fibro, some lymphomas, ASD, one heart attack (11 yr old boy), some are not infected, some are infected but asymptomatic. Overall, it demonstrated a strong familial link.
Emphasis on the German study that found XMRV via nasal swabs in immunocompromised patients suggests transmission through respiratory secretions is highly likely. She also mentioned blood, urine, and feces again as probable reservoirs.
Over 70 species of mice were tested by Coffin and none of them contained XMRV. This is clearly a new human retrovirus.
the Patient Advocate has been busy. He was at the Research section of the CFSAC meeting, then it was over to New Jersey for the New Jersey conference. If you've seen Dr. Mikovits talk you know that when she talks she can really talk - she's almost like a force of nature when she gets going...and she really talked at this conference.
You'll have to read Chris's blog to get the complete picture but some key points stuck out.
Dr. Sandra Ruscetti, a co-author of the original Science paper, has generally been in the background but she is a key, key figure because of her long experience with the murine leukemia viruses (MLV's)- of which XMRV is one. The point is that she's tangled with these viruses (and the contamination problems they pose) for a long time and Dr. Mikovits reportedly referred several times to the key role she played in isolating the virus.
"Sequence Diversity is Our Friend" - Dr LeGrice referred to the genetic homogeneity of the virus in the Science paper - a red flag because contaminants don't mutate but viruses do but this has always been a weak point because it was founded, as I remember, on the sequencing of only two and half strains. Dr. Mikovits pointed out that as XMRV is studied more the WPI is finding more and more sequence variation - a very good sign.
Reservoirs - XMRV is found in very low amounts in the cells studied thus far - perhaps too low to cause alot of damage (although there is some disagreement here)- so it would behoove researchers to find a tissue it is replicating in. Apparently Dr. Mikovits has some ideas (or results) about that but what exactly they we didn't get. She at least has enough information to speculate on them.
"Sample processing is everything" - The Blood Working Group is going back to the drawing board and looking at very basic aspects of sample processing in their search to explain the disparate results. At the XMRV Workshop Dr. Mikovits intimated there was some big news here. Dr. LeGrice wasn't willing to go so far in his talk but now our PA reports that Dr. Mikovits stated 'sample processing is everything'. Hopefully so; several candidates to explain the results have popped up over time; there was culturing (or the lack of it),and there was APOBEC3 editing and/or the use of the prostate clone. Perhaps they all play a role in the funky results gotten thus far.
The X Variant and P-Variants are not Variants at all But Separate Species -Alter/Lo are reportedly fleshing out the full genetic sequences of their 'pMLV she's" but the WPI has their samples as well (hundreds of them reportedly) and they have apparently fleshed out their sequences as well found that CFS patients contain a bevy of closely related but different viruses - not variants - which is what both LeGrice and Coffin suggested.
The evidence for several different types of MLV's in CFS is - the pMLV's from Alter and Hansen study, XMRV from the WPI study and, now confirmation of the pMLV's from the WPI. Presumably the WPI found the pMLV's in the original study but because they only sequenced 2 1/2 viruses - which looked like XMRV - the pMLV's did not make it into the original paper. Now that they've sequenced more of the several hundred isolates they have - the pMLV's are showing up; they were there from the beginning but were hidden from view.
But why did Alter/Lo only pick up the pMLV's in their samples? We don't know but Dr. Mikovits reported that when Dr. Ruscetti cultured Alter's samples he found XMRV as well - which, of course, is great news The WPI/NCI findings, if they hold up, will destroy the attempt to present the Alter/Hansen studies as 'unrelated' to the WPI's XMRV finding.
XMRV and its variants are not mouse virus's - It will be interesting learning what this means; if not a mouse then what, a uniquely human virus?
There's much more than that. It was clearly a whirlwind presentation and one wonders if only Dr. Mikovits could have gotten so much information in in under an hour.
The dichotomy between the two XMRV 'camps' at the moment is astonishing. Just a few days after Dr. LeGrice warned about the 'very real' possibility of contamination Dr. Mikovits blew the wheels off the XMRV story with her report of how the WPI and Dr. Ruscetti continue to deepen their understanding of this virus. Dr. Mikovits was clearly very confident at the New Jersey Conference, and that in itself is good news for XMRV.
*edit* also XMRV isn't a mouse virus anymore? That confuses me... does that mean it was never a mouse virus or that it can no longer infect its original host?
What a talk that was! This was my take on the PA's blog and I look forward to reading the other takes on the meeting. Very encouraging stuff.
*edit* also XMRV isn't a mouse virus anymore? That confuses me... does that mean it was never a mouse virus or that it can no longer infect its original host?
Did she indicate when any of this wonderful information will be PUBLISHED???
" Sequence Diversity is Our Friend" - Dr LeGrice referred to the genetic homogeneity of the virus in the Science paper - a red flag because contaminants don't mutate but viruses do but this has always been a weak point because it was founded, as I remember, on the sequencing of only two and half strains. Dr. Mikovits pointed out that as XMRV is studied more the WPI is finding more and more sequence variation - a very good sign.
I for one would be happy if the next wave of news reports doesn't include pictures of mice, making the whole thing seem benign to the general public.
Given that MLVs are used to create a murine model for AIDS, and that most mice are now immune to XMRV, and that env appears to be much more detectable than pol or gag genes, my guess is that XMRV is highly pathogenic, at least in mice. I doubt it is any less pathogenic in us. I currently think the primary cause of pathogenicity is the protein envelope, but we need much more research to be sure. I would be looking for levels of protein envelope in ME and CFS patients compared to asymptomatic XMRV carriers if I were a researcher.
Bye
Alex
Ha! Well I would rather have the mice then all the images of people sleeping! I am afraid it's suggesting we are lazy or something...
Yes, that means these kind of images:
This one is used in this article:
http://www.seedol.com/20102935-study-says-xmrv-not-connected-with-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.html
It's horrible! I am fed up with these images. It's like we are all relaxing in our cozy beds. Give me the mice any time any day!
At this point I will include a picture, because our search engine optimisation experts have determined that humans are incapable of reading more than 400 words without one.
Ha! Well I would rather have the mice then all the images of people sleeping! I am afraid it's suggesting we are lazy or something...
Yes, that means these kind of images:
This one is used in this article:
http://www.seedol.com/20102935-study-says-xmrv-not-connected-with-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.html
It's horrible! I am fed up with these images. It's like we are all relaxing in our cozy beds. Give me the mice any time any day!
We need to see more sequences published to put this to bed. At that point we could hand those stubbornly carrying the contamination flag and tell them to put that in their pipes and smoke it. I fully believe Mikovits, the Ruscettis, etc. but for some the proof is what's published so hopefully well get a paper soon with significantly more sequences and put this contamination nonsense to bed permanently.
I don't think Cooperative Diagnostics is the enemy per se. They're a diagnostic lab - they use proprietary techniques they developed that they think are better than anyone else's. They seem to be doing fine in a competitive marketplace. They saw a good thing with XMRV when it came out and they jumped on it. Then they couldn't find it in CFS which surprised them. They dug deeper and they still couldn't find it. Now they don't think it's there and feel strongly enough about it to publish it with their name on it. That's it for me.They've been trying to get that thing published since last fall and only after the WPI presented their autism poster at the XMRV Workshop did they finally published this 'crap' study. Her words, not mine.
I'm curious about you statement about the env gene being more easily detected. At one point Frank Ruscetti was saying it was quite variable (or perhaps just a certain region is) and could account for some studies missing XMRV. You've probably kept up on the studies better than I. Can you point me to a thread or other info on this? I'm very interested in these details.
Also, I've heard Judy Mikovits state that the env was a neuro-toxin and oncogene, which is not a pretty picture. Is that the basis of your belief in the role on the env in pathogenicity or do you have another idea?