Recombinant origin, contamination, and de-discovery of XMRV

[Firestormm]

Recombinant origin, contamination, and de-discovery of XMRV: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879625712001046

• Krista Delviks-Frankenberry1,
• Oya Cingöz2,
• John M Coffin2,
• Vinay K Pathak1,

• 1 Viral Mutation Section, NCI, HIV DRP, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, United States
• 2 Program in Genetics, Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, Tufts University, Boston, MA, United States

Available online 18 July 2012.

Abstract

The discovery and de-discovery of the xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) has been a tumultuous roller-coaster ride for scientists and patients.

The initial associations of XMRV with chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer, while providing much hope and optimism, have now been discredited and/or retracted following overwhelming evidence that

(1) numerous patient cohorts from around the world are XMRV-negative,

(2) the initial reports of XMRV-positive patients were due to contamination with mouse DNA, XMRV plasmid DNA, or virus from the 22Rv1 cell line and

(3) XMRV is a laboratory-derived virus generated in the mid 1990s through recombination during passage of a prostate tumor xenograft in immuno-compromised mice.

While these developments are disappointing to scientists and patients, they provide a valuable road map of potential pitfalls to the would-be microbe hunters.

 

[biophile]

Classic XMRV is so 2009/2010, I can envision something similar in the future:

Methodological artifacts, ideological biases, and the de-discovery of psychological factors in CFS: the rise and fall of the cognitive behavioural model.

The discovery and de-discovery of cognitive behavioural factors in CFS has been a tumultuous roller-coaster ride for scientists and patients.

The initial associations of these factors with CFS as a primary cognitive behavioural illness, while providing much hope and optimism for mind over body ideologists and psychiatrists looking for a meal ticket, have now been discredited and/or retracted following overwhelming evidence that:

(1) effect sizes were small, generic to suffering disease and disability in a hostile environment, most patients are negative for claimed factors, and the overstated therapy improvements were subjective and refuted by objective data;

(2) the initial reports of cognitive behavioural factors in patients were due to contamination with improper cohorts, sloppily designed questionnares, other methodological artifacts, misinterpretation of the patients' reality, reactivity biases, and other cognitive biases ironically introduced during therapeutic targeting of the patients' beliefs and perceptions;

(3) the cognitive behavioural model was largely an ideologically-derived model generated during the 1990s by the recombination of previous status quo assumptions about medically unexplained physical symptoms, somatisation, and the rationale behind cognitive behavioural therapy in general, with short sighted political-economic interests.

While these developments are disappointing to psychobabblers, they provide a valuable road map of potential pitfalls to the would-be mind-body researchers.

 

[currer]

"XMRV" is not the sequence to look for. Firestormm you might want to look at this other thread
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-are-being-taken-seriously.18604/#post-282719

 

[Firestormm]

Classic XMRV is so 2009/2010, I can envision something similar in the future:

Methodological artifacts, ideological biases, and the de-discovery of psychological factors in CFS: the rise and fall of the cognitive behavioural model.

The discovery and de-discovery of cognitive behavioural factors in CFS has been a tumultuous roller-coaster ride for scientists and patients.

The initial associations of these factors with CFS as a primary cognitive behavioural illness, while providing much hope and optimism for mind over body ideologists and psychiatrists looking for a meal ticket, have now been discredited and/or retracted following overwhelming evidence that:

(1) effect sizes were small, generic to suffering disease and disability in a hostile environment, most patients are negative for claimed factors, and the overstated therapy improvements were subjective and refuted by objective data;

(2) the initial reports of cognitive behavioural factors in patients were due to contamination with improper cohorts, sloppily designed questionnares, other methodological artifacts, reactivity biases, and other cognitive biases ironically introduced during therapeutic targeting of the patients' beliefs and perceptions;

(3) the cognitive behavioural model was largely an ideologically-derived model generated during the 1990s by the recombination of previous status quo assumptions about medically unexplained physical symptoms, somatisation, and the rationale behind cognitive behavioural therapy in general, with short sighted political-economic interests.

While these developments are disappointing to psychobabblers, they provide a valuable road map of potential pitfalls to the would-be mind-body researchers.

What a great way to kick off the day! Thanks Biophile

 

[Firestormm]

Anyway, a nice clear, concise paper I thought. Read it through last evensong. Though the lack of comments suggests that not a lot of folk perhaps deem it worthy of their attention

 

[barbc56]

The following is interesting. Erv was referenced in this study.

In September 2011, Abbie Smith, a graduate student and virology blogger, (http://scienceblogs.com/erv/) revealed that Dr. Judy Mikovits, the corresponding author of the Lombardi et al. study, presented a figure at a meeting that turned out to be identical to one in the original paper, but with different patient numbers and experimental conditions (John Cohen, ScienceInsider, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/xmrv-researcher-fired.html). This revelation led the authors to concede that the patient-derived PBMCs in Lombardi et al. had been treated with 5-azacytidine, an agent used to demethylate DNA and induce transcription from latent genes and proviruses, but did not include this treatment in the paper because “it was not germane.” The omission of such critical information from the paper cast further doubt on the validity of the entire study.

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2012/07/31/erv-referenced-in-current-opinion-in-virology/

 

[Firestormm]

I did wonder if this is the first time that a blog and blogger has been credited in a published paper - albeit a review - in this manner or ever. Interesting.

 

[Firestormm]

Word's out. Well ERV has the word anyway: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2012/07/31/erv-referenced-in-current-opinion-in-virology/