Longitudinal analysis of immune abnormalities in varying severities of CFS/ME patients

[Bob]

Full text available.

Longitudinal analysis of immune abnormalities in varying severities of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis patients
Sharni Lee Hardcastle, Ekua Weba Brenu, Samantha Johnston, Thao Nguyen, Teilah Huth,Sandra Ramos, Donald Staines and Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik
National Centre for Neuroimmunology and Emerging Diseases, Griffith University.
Journal of Translational Medicine 2015, 13:299
Published: 14 September 2015
doi:10.1186/s12967-015-0653-3
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/13/1/299?fmt_view=classic

Abstract
Background
Research has identified immunological abnormalities in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), a heterogeneous illness with an unknown cause and absence of diagnostic test. There have been no CFS/ME studies examining innate and adaptive immune cells longitudinally in patients with varying severities. This is the first study to investigate immune cells over 6 months while also examining CFS/ME patients of varying symptom severity.

Methods
Participants were grouped into 18 healthy controls, 12 moderate and 12 severe CFS/ME patients and flow cytometry was used to examine cell parameters at 0 and 6 months.

Results
Over time, iNKT CD62L expression significantly increased in moderate CFS/ME patients and CD56bright NK receptors differed in severe CFS/ME. Naïve CD8 + T cells, CD8 − CD4 − and CD56 − CD16 −iNKT phenotypes, γδ2T cells and effector memory subsets were significantly increased in severe CFS/ME patients at 6 months. Severe CFS/ME patients were significantly reduced in CD56 bright CD16dim NKG2D, CD56 dim CD16 − KIR2DL2/DL3, CD94 − CD11a − γδ1T cells and CD62L + CD11a − γδ1T cells at 6 months.

Conclusions
Severe CFS/ME patients differed from controls and moderate CFS/ME patients over time and expressed significant alterations in iNKT cell phenotypes, CD8 + T cell markers, NK cell receptors and γδT cells at 6 months. This highlights the importance of further assessing these potential immune biomarkers longitudinally in both moderate and severe CFS/ME patients.

 

[Marky90]

Seems like the immunological research is coming in on a steady rate nowadays. Great!

 

[A.B.]

Seems like the immunological research is coming in on a steady rate nowadays. Great!

Unfortunately it appears that we still don't know what any of these abnormalities really mean.

 

[Marky90]

Unfortunately it appears that we still don't know what any of these abnormalities really mean.

True.. At least the abnormalities makes for hypophesises, that sometimes can be tested, and sometimes from what ive gathered of JE, thats not even possible

 

[SOC]

Unfortunately it appears that we still don't know what any of these abnormalities really mean.

True, but these are big steps towards sorting out what is wrong and what could be done about it.

 

[Sean]

Unfortunately it appears that we still don't know what any of these abnormalities really mean.

True, but it is data, and data generates and tests hypotheses.

Plus, anything that comes out of Staines' team is worth paying attention to. I have it on very good authority that he is openly dismissive of the CBT/GET model, as both causal explanation and treatment, and is also very confident that we will have a biomarker test within two years, and good treatments within five.

Yay team!

 

[Sean]

and is also very confident that we will have a biomarker test within two years, and good treatments within five.

Perhaps that should read:

and is also very confident that we will have a biomarker test in about two years, and good treatments in about five.

 

[Marky90]

Perhaps that should read:

and is also very confident that we will have a biomarker test in about two years, and good treatments in about five.

Let`s hope phase 3 of the rtx-studies come back positive. Then we may demand to try immunosuppressive treatment. we`ll actually have some treatment options!

 

[Gijs]

True, but it is data, and data generates and tests hypotheses.

Plus, anything that comes out of Staines' team is worth paying attention to. I have it on very good authority that he is openly dismissive of the CBT/GET model, as both causal explanation and treatment, and is also very confident that we will have a biomarker test within two years, and good treatments within five.

Yay team!

I don't believe there will be a test within 2 years. They will find no biomarker in the immune system. I hear that about 20 years now.

 

[heapsreal]

I don't believe there will be a test within 2 years. They will find no biomarker in the immune system. I hear that about 20 years now.

Natural killer cd56 bright cells could be used with the CCC and possibly use some other type of biomarker/cytokine pattern.

 

[Bob]

I don't believe there will be a test within 2 years. They will find no biomarker in the immune system. I hear that about 20 years now.

Yes, progress has been frustratingly slow, but I think things are starting to change now... We have some of the world's highest status scientists on the case now, embarking on multi-million dollar projects, using the most cutting-edge technology. And scientific technology is evolving at an unprecedented pace; I think I recently read a quote by Ron Davis in which he said that many layers of scientific technology are now changing at a transformational pace, and that the public would see the benefits of this in the coming years. (Or words to that effect.) And we have quite a number of research groups looking for biomarkers; e.g. I think the Norwegian ontology group are looking for biomarkers, and a number of other groups are collaborating with them. Hemispherx is about to publish results from a large trial investigating NK cell function in relation to treatment with Ampligen. They seem to be indicating that they have completed an expensive study and that they have some positive results. (It might not be a biomarker for ME - but it might help distinguish potential Ampligen responders from non-responders.) So I think things are finally moving forwards, even if at a frustratingly slow pace.

 

[Sean]

Yes, progress has been frustratingly slow, but I think things are starting to change now...

No question about that. Furthermore, the rate of change can crank up (or down) very quickly in the right circumstances, and it is cranking up pretty quickly at the moment, after decades of barely measurable progress.