link that shows XMRV is basically identical to man-made virus from the 80's?

[Bob]

From Judy's letter to the Science editors:

They cannot have any data to support the
conclusion "that laboratory contamination with XMRV produced by a cell line (22Rv1)
derived from these early xenograft experiments is the most likely explanation for
detection of the virus in patient samples. In fact, the authors of this paper know full
well that this explanation cannot explain XMRV integration in human tissue, in situ
hybridization, or antibodies reported in prostate cancer or CFS patients. Furthermore,
all strains of wild rodents have not been examined and other examples of ancestral
XMRV can be found.

 

[Jemal]

From Judy's letter to the Science editors:

They cannot have any data to support the
conclusion "that laboratory contamination with XMRV produced by a cell line (22Rv1)
derived from these early xenograft experiments is the most likely explanation for
detection of the virus in patient samples. In fact, the authors of this paper know full
well that this explanation cannot explain XMRV integration in human tissue, in situ
hybridization, or antibodies reported in prostate cancer or CFS patients. Furthermore,
all strains of wild rodents have not been examined and other examples of ancestral
XMRV can be found.

That's very nice, I missed that bit in her reply.

 

[alex3619]

Hi Alex
Were the compensation details in this article Alex? I would really like to read it. If you find the link to the article could you please post it?

In the 1930s, they were using mice that were capable of creating XMRV as I understood it.

Hi insearchof,

I am trying to reconstruct my old search on mouse encephalitis and the 1934 ME outbreak. Lets see how it goes. However, the comments by you effectively cover the same information I was looking at last year, its just the details of the compensation claims that are missing.

1934 and later, polio related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Armstrong_(physician)

1935:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759926/pdf/calwestmed00405-0069c.pdf

1937:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2133518/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1753720/pdf/calwestmed00378-0019.pdf
This particular article has a lot of details, but there is excessive speculation about female hormone dysfunction.

1978:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2425322/pdf/postmedj00263-0008.pdf

Here is a bit from one relevant thread:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...-can-infect-many-mammals-and-also-(wild)-mice

Mark said (post 22):
"The Los Angeles Outbreak (1934) occurred at Los Angeles General Hospital and was the 1st ME/CFS/CFIDS outbreak ever officially recorded. 200 members of the hospital staff contracted the disease and over 50% of them remained unable to work 6 months later."
76 years ago.

I discuss the two hit hypothesis in post 47 in this thread.

Here is a blog from George on this:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/entry.php?467-My-Old-Mouse-Theory


I am still looking, but while I am fairly sure I saved the newspaper scan, I have still not found it. It might take a while, presuming that I didn't accidentally delete it and did actually save it.

Bye
Alex

 

[markmc20001]

Mi mark,

Yes, one of the theories is that XMRV was originally created in a lab, in a prostate cancer cell line. The study says that when the cell line was passaged through mice, the MLV recombination event took place which created XMRV. This is the study you were refering to, and like you say, they have worked out a year for when they think XMRV was created.

This study is a theory about how and when XMRV was created, and it doesn't prove that there is any contamination anywhere. The authors suggested that their investigation shows that XMRV is not a wild human virus and that the WPI research was due to contamination, based on their findings, but they don't have proof for that.

The authors of that study are saying that all the XMRV that has been found to date is due to contamination from cell lines.

They say this for two reasons:
1. That there isn't enough variety in the XMRV gene sequences found so far for it to be a wild human virus. (They say we would expect more mutations in a wild human virus.)
2. That the recombination event is such a rare occurrence that it is highly unlikely to have happened at any other time, and so XMRV can only be a lab virus, and not a human virus.

There's a couple of weaknesses with this argument:
1. There have now been further genetic variety of XMRV discovered by various researchers including the WPI, who have now published the gene sequences.
2. Even if there wasn't much variety, there may be other reasons that this is the case, such as: the virus could be spread by another method other than person to person infection (e.g. vaccines); or the virus might just have very different behaviour to other known human retroviruses.

Like you said, the date issue is also very important, but I can't remember any of the details...
I'll post them here when i come across them.

Great Bob. Your answer jogs my vague memory of what I read, but better yet, it lays it all out in an easy to read answer.

Is it correct to say the WPI and Coffin are not disagreeing as to whether XMRV was created in a lab, but essentially the main point of disagreement lies in if XMRV is in people? Coffin alleges XMRV creation during lab testing. The WPI doesn't try and prove any actual method of XMRV creation, but WPI shows XMRV exists in patients given immune response and other testing?

 

[Jemal]

Great Bob. Your answer jogs my vague memory of what I read, but better yet, it lays it all out in an easy to read answer.

Is it correct to say the WPI and Coffin are not disagreeing as to whether XMRV was created in a lab, but essentially the main point of disagreement lies in if XMRV is in people? Coffin alleges XMRV creation during lab testing. The WPI doesn't try and prove any actual method of XMRV creation, but WPI shows XMRV exists in patients given immune response and other testing?

I am not sure the WPI believe XMRV was created in a lab, I think they also leave open the possibility that it was formed naturally. Man-made or natural, the WPI do think they can find it in patients.

 

[markmc20001]

I am not sure the WPI believe XMRV was created in a lab, I think they also leave open the possibility that it was formed naturally. Man-made or natural, the WPI do think they can find it in patients.

Thanks for the clarification Jemal. WPI left the door open to how it was created.

thanks
Mark

 

[Bob]

Alter and Lo took samples from the mid 1990's:

"In the mid-1990s, we obtained serum and whole-blood samples from CFS patients for the investigation of possible mycoplasmal infections"
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/36/15874.long

I'm not sure how far back the WPI have tested blood samples.

 

[currer]

My understanding is that retroviruses recombine readily, so the Coffin argument always seemed absurd to me.
Recombination is not a one-off event
MLV fragments can link up with other fragments in a cell and create a viable virus. They do this easily because RNA copies itself with out much fidelity so adapts itself to substitutions and deletions it comes across..
A DNA based virus cannot do this as readily but is more limited to copying itself exactly.

Recombination is mutation, but a more rapid form You would get large changes, where retroviruses that meet other retroviruses swap halves leading to a quite new virus with unknown pathogenic potential.

It is not the mutation of one nucleotide at a time..

 

[currer]

According to the pnas commentary on Lo and Alter, XMRV glycogag leader is 100% similar to the polytropic endogenous sequence of the 129x1/SvJ lab mouse.

It must have come from lab mice or be a contaminant. It has not come from a wild mouse. Dr Coffins abstract at the first XMRV conference last year showed that he had looked in vain for a wild progenitor for XMRV.

 

[currer]

As far as variability goes, my memory of JM at the IiME conference was that she said the true parallel to XMRV would be a virus like HTLV1 not HIV, which has astronomical replication rates.
HTLV1 is often found in cells, basically the same as it was forty years before.
Remember these retroviruses insert themselves into cellular DNA and then can remain latent. They would not necessarily go through many replication cycles if the cell they are in is not copying itself much.
In this form they will be more stable so they do not get much chance to mutate.

Please note about the last three posts that all this is what I remember from following the XMRV news. I am open to correction.

 

[Jemal]

Also HTLV causes disease in "only" 5 tot 8% of people. While HIV causes disease in almost everyone. So HIV attracts a lot more notice from the medical community and we have a far better understanding of that virus. Our knowledge of HTLV is lacking... let alone XMRV.

 

[chris123]

Xmrv

hi I was wonderIng if xmrv is the new HIV like virus and is transmitted the same way because I had all HIV symptoms and test negative

 

[boomer]

cbc web site - Human, animal DNA mixing needs oversight

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/

The first article is called Human, animal DNA mixing needs oversight

 

[tonydewitt]

Chris, you could be infected with HTLV - it certainly makes you think that you have HIV symptoms.