• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Naviaux et. al.: Metabolic features of chronic fatigue syndrome

wdb

Senior Member
Messages
1,392
Location
London
For anyone else who has been checking/waiting for the data deposition, it seems to now be available on metabolomicsworkbench.org

Thanks. I've only glanced over it but not sure it is all there. Seems to be fewer than the 612 metabolites mentioned, and I don't see any Karnofsky performance scores or any key to which metabolites belong to which pathways.
 

M Paine

Senior Member
Messages
341
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Seems to be fewer than the 612 metabolites mentioned

Yes, this confused me also.

I counted 226 Positive ION, and 223 Negative ION entries.


We targeted 612 metabolites in plasma from 63 biochemical pathways by hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography, electrospray ionization, and tandem mass spectrometry in a single-injection method.

They mention in the methods:

Over 420 metabolites were detectable in all plasma samples

So perhaps they truncated the data to exclude metabolites for which sampling was not sensitive enough to measure in all test subjects
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
"Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve analysis showed diagnostic accuracies of 94% [95% confidence interval (CI), 84–100%] in males using eight metabolites and 96% (95% CI, 86–100%) in females using 13 metabolites."

Well ... I understand most of the words ... it's just the way they go together I need to work on :D
 

FMMM1

Senior Member
Messages
513
I should know better than to reply (semi) seriously to this but 1 in 20 (95% confidence) looks pretty good, consider how this compares to the position patients currently find themselves in re diagnosis.
I wonder whether this is simply one laboratory test or the result of a number of tests for metabolites (techie point), one laboratory test is cheaper possibly $300 ish.
I'm wondering if the accuracy will decrease in the larger study, but maybe with more laboratories running this test (Mass spectrometry) then alternative (better) biomarkers may be found (e.g. by Maureen Hanson).
Haven't had a look at the raw data yet.
 

FMMM1

Senior Member
Messages
513
I've looked very briefly at the method used.

They seem to have provided sufficient information for others to replicate this - good.

Viability - In terms of working this up into a diagnostic test if/once they confirm the target metabolites in a larger study then theoretically they may simply look for these which may speed up the time taken for each test (40 minutes in the current method). Even if each test takes 40 minutes and 20% are reference standards and 20% of potential output is lost for maintenance; this still looks viable at $300 per patient [price of statutory (i.e. Government) Mass Spectrometry test] since it would return possibly $2.5 million a year gross (check the sums). I think they said the instrument cost $1 million.
Excuse the back of the fag box approach but currently this seems to stack up as a possible diagnostic test; what we need now is the larger study looking at conditions which are clinically similar e.g. Lyme's disease, Gulf War veterans (and depression?). The fact that there may be a benefit for those with other diseases may help to get this funded by NIH etc.

Please try to get the larger study supported by your Government particularly the bigger players USA/Europe etc. E.g. by contacting your local elected representative/elected health representative. Also, consider trying to get those with an interest in Lyme's disease etc to push for the larger study.

Also, maybe the folks at the Open Medicine Foundation would consider a spin off company to carry out testing on a cost recovery basis.
 

Jill

Senior Member
Messages
209
Location
Auckland, NZ
Regarding use of growth hormone. I'm not going to add much to the sum total of knowledge here but the Naviaux study should help in assessing potential treatments. Also, I'd be surprised if the folks at the Open Medicine Foundation (Ron Davis, Naviaux ---) were unaware of the research you refer to re use of growth hormone. Why not drop the folks at the Open Medicine Foundation an email and ask if they are aware of this/this warrants further investigation?

Also, while you've missed the formal period for submitting suggestion to Vicky Whittemore, you should check the responses received (I was notified that the responses were posted online some time ago) to see if anyone else highlighted this research; if they didn't then consider sending an email to Vicky Whittemore re this research.

It may be difficult to measure the level of this hormone directly in blood (i.e. an easily available sample type) but try online (sorry if I have not read/understood above emails). I keep saying this, here in Northern Ireland Government laboratories get £200 ($270) to measure various things in food (including hormones) using mass spectrometry i.e. technique used in Naviaux study (your Government has a similar program re food safety monitoring). These laboratories also use (from distant memory -- and therefore not up to date) various immune assays to measure hormones.

Diagnosing a problem re receptor for growth hormone is interesting; how do they do that? E.g. in diabetes I think they give you glucose and see how long it takes for your blood glucose levels to return to normal. Presumably if you have normal levels of insulin in your blood (chemical messenger) and you give glucose then if the blood glucose levels do not return to normal in the normal time then the insulin receptor is faulty. To check out your growth hormone you'd need to give -- and check the level of ---.

All been done before I'm guessing so look online.
The scientific challenge of assessing how effective growth hormone is, is one thing; getting your Government to put the systems in place is a whole different challenge!
Cheney reviewed the naviaux paper. He will hv told them I expect
 

FMMM1

Senior Member
Messages
513
Cheney reviewed the naviaux paper. He will hv told them I expect

Thanks Jill, references to hormones is beginning to ring a bell.

The Naviaux paper used Mass Spectrometry to look at blood metabolites. The Naviaux paper seems to point the way forward i.e. find biomarkers in blood (accessible sample); this will enable you to test whether a treatment such as growth hormone works.

In terms of hormones in ME/CFS was this a research area that Jonas Bergquist was interested in i.e. looking at hormones using Mass Spectrometry?

The problem is how to get these studies funded; e.g. the UK Government funded PACE rather than the type of biochemical studies demonstrated to work by Naviaux, Hanson and Bergquist etc.

I suggested that possibly a not for profit company could be established to deliver ME/CFS biochemical diagnostic testing, using Naviaux's method (my previous post), e.g. by the folks in the Open Medicine Foundation. If it generated profits then these could e.g. be used to evaluate possible treatments.

In the meantime I'd suggest that folks try to influence their elected representatives, and public funding bodies, to support Naviaus's etc biochemical research (I recall my failed attempts but others may have more success).
 

ZeroGravitas

Senior Member
Messages
141
Location
UK
Man, I'd really love to know Naviaux's thoughts on this newly published study!: "Elevated Energy Production in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients" - http://www.jnsci.org/files/html/2016/e221.htm

Yes, elevated... They report finding 250% more ATP in blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), with all of that coming from synthesis outside of the mitochondria. Also finding normal looking mitochondria, other than a slight (but significant) increase in number and density of their cristae (strongly indicative of raised energy requirement).
image001.png
Result seems utterly counter-intuitive. Is it a trustworthy and meaningful result? Or even expected for someone in the know, like Naviaux? If true, does it mean that we're using, loosing or just sitting on that extra energy store? (Could extracellular ATP signaling, or something related, be draining this additional production, I wondered? Probably nonsensically.)

Discussion already in this thread - http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...n-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients.47443/
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
If true, does it mean that we're using, loosing or just sitting on that extra energy store?

It cannot really be extra energy, else people with ME/CFS would be eating like horses and/or skinny as rakes. Tentatively suggests the 'extra energy', might be energy diverted from somewhere else? Which sort of fits.
 

PennyIA

Senior Member
Messages
728
Location
Iowa
Man, I'd really love to know Naviaux's thoughts on this newly published study!: "Elevated Energy Production in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients" - http://www.jnsci.org/files/html/2016/e221.htm

Yes, elevated... They report finding 250% more ATP in blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), with all of that coming from synthesis outside of the mitochondria. Also finding normal looking mitochondria, other than a slight (but significant) increase in number and density of their cristae (strongly indicative of raised energy requirement).
View attachment 17801
Result seems utterly counter-intuitive. Is it a trustworthy and meaningful result? Or even expected for someone in the know, like Naviaux? If true, does it mean that we're using, loosing or just sitting on that extra energy store? (Could extracellular ATP signaling, or something related, be draining this additional production, I wondered? Probably nonsensically.)

Discussion already in this thread - http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...n-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients.47443/

Actually, I seem to remember that in answer to a question that it was identified that some of the metabolomic readings were downregulated and still others upregulated. So, having some extreme value (either low or high) seems similar to what was reported in the Naviaux study.

I have been reading the other thread, but don't have any ability to follow it well enough to offer any improvement to the discussion. I do, however, have some background in another medical process (blood clotting factors) enough to know that the body tends to have a lot of checks, counter checks, counter actions involved in anything that would be considered a complex process. In the blood clotting process if one process is blocked, there are other processes that attempt to correct the issue (sometimes to a benefit, sometimes in blood clotting to a detriment causing blood clotting issues).

And while I have no 'worthy' information ... it does make one wonder that if the metabolics are attempting to 'adapt' or 'handle' either a block or whatever it is that's causing the issue.... is basically self adjusting now to a state we don't really want as opposed to self adjusting to a state that is more towards what we expect when we feel healthy. I know in this thread, it was suggested that the 'self adjusting' might account for why some treatments seem to provide benefit, but only for a short time period...and then they help less over time.

If, in fact, our body is tired and it does have the right signals going... it may up regulate the production of certain types of energy factors. Whether those are usable (or blocked) or viable (which seems like studies have found they are ok in and of themselves).... or otherwise not being directed to where we need it.... well, that's the puzzle.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
It sounds like Lawson et al. published in parallell with Naviaux et al. without one another knowing about the other's publication, because there is no mention or reference of each other's work.

I would also be very curious to know what they have to say about each other's work, and comments from our experts interested in that area of work.
 
Last edited:

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
691
When the ANS is in 'overdrive' energy production is also. It is like driving in a car to fast the gastank will be very quick out of fuel. This can explain both studies. ME is like an abnormal (stress) reaction to a normal stimulus. Such as firing a nuclear bomb on a mosquito. The moment of blooddraw is very importent.
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
The fact that the crista number is increased in CFS patients suggests that their energy demands might be unusually high, which triggers condensation of mitochondrial crista membranes.

Could this mean that rather than ME/CFS suffers being unable to process the available energy fast enough, there may instead be some 'parasitic' mechanism stealing the available energy away from where it is needed, and self regulation mechanisms strive to make up the shortfall, with limited success?

Maybe akin to driving a car with the brakes stuck partly on.
 

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
691
Could this mean that rather than ME/CFS suffers being unable to process the available energy fast enough, there may instead be some 'parasitic' mechanism stealing the available energy away from where it is needed, and self regulation mechanisms strive to make up the shortfall, with limited success?

Maybe akin to driving a car with the brakes stuck partly on.

Yes, indeed the parasympathetic nervous system (brakes) is broken.
 

FMMM1

Senior Member
Messages
513
Doing this on my phone so limited opportunity to lift text etc.
There's a great electron microscope image showing the altered "cystis" or whatever they're called (possiby Figure 1(d)). Can this be used to diagnose patients? Also, can it be used along with the Naviaux metabolic study to improve confidence in diagnosis? We understand that there is to be a bigger metabolmics study, so possibly testing electron microscopy (as well as metabolmics) would be useful.
In terms of what this study reveals, it's confusing and interesting. Possibly the body using a workaround (comments above re blood clotting) possibly interesting insight re signalling (comment above re parasympathetic nervous system). Fluga and Myla (Norweigan retuximab group) findings may help to understand this (see other blog on this new paper).
Excuse cryptic comments.
We need to see this translated into benefit for patients I.e. a diagnostic test; even if it has to be self funded in the short term.
 

Leopardtail

Senior Member
Messages
1,151
Location
England
I have to slowly go through it first. That might take days. However I started my journey into ME and CFS biochemistry looking at metabolites, my only "published" piece was about metabolites, and during the 90s there was a lot of metabolic research going on here in Australia, and I talked to a few of those researchers.

I hope to say more soon.
The most obvious thing jumping out at me as that most PWME I know have elevated Cholesterol where this study shows low. That seems surprising.

The purine stuff seems entirely constant with previous studies on ATP synthesis and Ribose levels but inconsistent with Myhill et Al's work showing elevated Adenosine.

Some expected results, some puzzling. I had low Cholesterol with mild ME high once it became severe.
 

Leopardtail

Senior Member
Messages
1,151
Location
England
Hi @Ben Howell

"Eighty subjects were from California". Can we find out if there is a relationship to where the subjects lived/worked (number of months) and known government reported toxic areas?

Here is a map, that can be used to identify sources of toxic waste. The data is derived from US Gov't sources. If we were able to get a data feed from Terradex and reference it with subject self reports (geographic locations) then we could see if the toxic chemical exposures had any impact on the study participants. If there was a relationship, then we could look at specific chemicals that are detailed about each site.

http://whatsdown.terradex.com/

Maybe Ron is already doing this research? It might be a conflict of interest, since one of the offending sites was formerly occupied by Hewlett Packard (OptoElectronic Division) located in Palo Alto, on Page Mill Road; the land is owned (maybe still is owned?) by Stanford University.

http://www.toxicsites.us/site.php?epa_id=CAD980884209


Thanks!!

GD
I noticed that too 80 of 84 from CA.