2010 Cold Spring Harbor Retrovirus Conference Program...

[subtr4ct]

...can be found here. Several XMRV-related talks and posters in this conference to be held May 24-29:


Aloia, A.L.: Failure to detect XMRV in human prostate tumors

Bagni, R.K.: Development of a multiplex serological assay to detect XMRV antibodies

Bhosle, S.M.: Characterization of cellular determinants required for infection of XMRV, a novel retrovirus associated with human familial prostate cancer

Cingoz, O.: Screening mouse genomes For XMRV-Like Elements

Das Gupta, J.: Development of highly sensitive assays for the detection of XMRV nucleic acids in clinical samples

Gorzynski, J.E.: Compounds that inhibit replication of XMRV, a virus implicated in prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome

Gray, E.: Investigation of XMRV as a human pathogen

Hanna, Z.: XMRV is not detected in Quebec patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Ikeda, Y.: Wild-derived mouse strain (Mus pahari) as a small animal model for XMRV infection

Jensen, S.M.: XMRV tropism in hematopoietic cells

Jones, K.S.: Evidence for sequence variation in XMRV

Metzger, M.J.: The human retrovirus XMRV produces rare transformation events in cell culture but does not have direct transforming activity

Paprotka, T.: The XMRV is inhibited by APOBEC3 proteins and anti-HIV-1 drugs

Qiu, X.: Immune responses in XMRV-infected rhesus macaquesSerological markers of XMRV infecti

Rodriguez, J.J.: XMRV Is inhibited by interferon independently of RNase L or Tetherin

Silverman, R.H.: Comparison of XMRV infections in humans and rhesus macaques

Smith, R.A.: Susceptibility of XMRV to antiretroviral inhibitors

Von Schwedler, U.K.: Integration site analysis in XMRV-positive prostate cancers

Xu, W.: Xpr1 is necessary but not sufficient for XMRV entry

Zhang, A.: Effects of interferon regulated proteins, RNase L and APOBEC3G, on XMRV replication

 

[Cort]

An amazing amount of study on XMRV plus at least one negative study and it looks like one positive one - the Silverman study comparing XMRV in humans and primates.

It amazing to see how this topic has taken off in the research world.

Nice catch! THanks for taking them out of that mass of information.

 

[Cort]

Hanna, Z.: XMRV is not detected in Quebec patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Unfortunately this is the Joliceur study. I wonder what methodology she used.

Hanna Z appears to be a retrovirologist in Canada. She publishes every now and then - nothing on the level of a Silverman - who's publishing constantly. Obviously competent but not a heavy hitter. Some of her last papers:

1. Adult AIDS-like disease in a novel inducible human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Nef transgenic mouse model: CD4+ T-cell activation is Nef dependent and can occur in the absence of lymphophenia.
   Rahim MM, Chrobak P, Hu C, Hanna Z, Jolicoeur P.
   Virol. 2009 Nov;83(22):11830-46. Epub 2009 Sep 9.
   
2. 2.
   Selective expression of human immunodeficiency virus Nef in specific immune cell populations of transgenic mice is associated with distinct AIDS-like phenotypes.
   Hanna Z, Priceputu E, Chrobak P, Hu C, Dugas V, Goupil M, Marquis M, de Repentigny L, Jolicoeur P.J Virol. 2009 Oct;83(19):9743-58. Epub 2009 Jul 15.
   
3. 3.
   Macrophage-mediated responses to Candida albicans in mice expressing the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transgene.
   Goupil M, Trudelle EB, Dugas V, Racicot-Bergeron C, Aumont F, Snchal S, Hanna Z, Jolicoeur P, de Repentigny L. Infect Immun. 2009 Sep;77(9):4136-49. Epub 2009 Jun 29.
   

4.
Oral mucosal cell respon

 

[Cort]

I wonder what's buried under this rather broad title

Gray, E.: Investigation of XMRV as a human pathogen

Silverman is comparing what happens to humans and primates when they are infected. That should be a fascinating paper

Silverman, R.H.: Comparison of XMRV infections in humans and rhesus macaques

Nothing from Singh and oddly enough nothing from the WPI; since Dr. Mikovits reported that one of the four papers submitted had been given the green light to publish. Why not do a talk on that and help boost the cause? Maybe its happening elsewhere. There are apparently lots of viral conferences.

(we have our ONE conference every two years )

 

[V99]

Well Mikovits, Whittemore & Peterson will all be at the Invest in ME conference in London on the 24th.

 

[gu3vara]

Hanna, Z.: XMRV is not detected in Quebec patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Unfortunately this is the Joliceur study. I wonder what methodology she used.

I'm from Quebec, I haven't been tested nor did I know there was an XMRV study done here. Another one who doesn't know how to find the virus perhaps? I can't believe XMRV would be inexistent in Quebec and present in the USA, we are sharing a border for god sake.

Gosh it seems most researchers are totally clueless on this one...:Retro mad:

 

[Robin]

Hanna, Z.: XMRV is not detected in Quebec patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Unfortunately this is the Joliceur study. I wonder what methodology she used.

This is unpublished?

 

[Cort]

All we have is the title of the abstract from the conference - we're know she's going to present her findings there - but there's no indication when it will be published. We have very, very little information on that study - all I could find was that it contained 50 CFS patients. My recollection was that it was advertised only very briefly. Neither researchers have done any work on CFS that I know of. Maybe someone knows more.

 

[Kati]

XMRV not detected in Quebec, how disappointing for Canada. I was certain it would turn out a positive study. Jolicoeur was also pointing that way. Maybe this damn virus has a passport after all?

 

[Cort]

It may very well be that this is not a replication study. She's not a major researcher; if you look at the conference proceedings she's providing a poster not a talk - which is the position that often falls to more 'minor' researchers. I imagine that this is a 'small home-grown' effort. If it was the CDC it would have been a presentation. It certainly won't help but I can't imagine that this is a big paper or a big study. It may very well be like the other ones. It' ll interesting to see if she cultured the virus first.

 

[fred]

Can't see the 'leaked' Japanese abstract here (the one about XMRV in prostate cancer which identified c. 2% prevalence in the control group). It was supposedly prepared for the Cold Spring Harbor meeting. Does anyone know any more about this?

 

[jimbob]

me thinks she's going to look a little out of place at this conference!!!!!!!!!

 

[subtr4ct]

Can't see the 'leaked' Japanese abstract here (the one about XMRV in prostate cancer which identified c. 2% prevalence in the control group). It was supposedly prepared for the Cold Spring Harbor meeting. Does anyone know any more about this?

Perhaps you are referring to the study of the prevalence of XMRV in Japanese blood donors (~1.7%; discussed here)? It was presented at last year's version of this conference.

 

[fred]

Perhaps you are referring to the study of the prevalence of XMRV in Japanese blood donors (~1.7%; discussed here)? It was presented at last year's version of this conference.

Yes, I am. Thank you.

 

[Gerwyn]

dr. paul joliceour is very respected and has spent most of his career studying the mouse retrovirus i think. but i bet he used only PCR

perhaps i am mistaken but his name is not attached to the poster presentation any ideas

 

[Kati]

perhaps i am mistaken but his name is not attached to the poster presentation any ideas

In this quote Dr Hanna and Jolicoeur are associated together.

 

[CBS]

perhaps i am mistaken but his name is not attached to the poster presentation any ideas

Beginning in 1984, Hanna has been a co-author on 36 articles listed in PubMed. P. Jolicoeur has co-authored 33 of Hanna's last 34 articles beginning in 1987. Their most recent published article was:

Adult AIDS-like disease in a novel inducible human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Nef transgenic mouse model: CD4+ T-cell activation is Nef dependent and can occur in the absence of lymphophenia.
Rahim MM, Chrobak P, Hu C, Hanna Z, Jolicoeur P.
J Virol. 2009 Nov;83(22):11830-46. Epub 2009 Sep 9.

 

[ixchelkali]

But, but, but if the study was done in Quebec patients they would have used the Canadian Concensus Criteria to characterize their patient cohort, wouldn't they? So this could provide good information. In the European studies the patient cohort was suspect. If this one had a well defined patient cohort and still came up negative, that would mean that the problem is that either these patients didn't have XMRV, or the fault was with the methodology. This helps us narrow down the descrepancy.

Even negative studies can be helpful. For instance, if other researchers using the WPI methods are able to find XMRV in CFS patients, and researchers using other methods are not, that teaches us things about what works and what doesn't, which can help in developing a standardized test. And who knows, Z Hanna may be a real scientist who's interested in getting at the truth, and will be willing to work honestly with the WPI to find out what the difference is.

I think that negative studies aren't necessarily bad news, if they're good science. And as long as they don't cause funding to dry up.

 

[Kati]

But, but, but if the study was done in Quebec patients they would have used the Canadian Concensus Criteria to characterize their patient cohort, wouldn't they? So this could provide good information. In the European studies the patient cohort was suspect. If this one had a well defined patient cohort and still came up negative, that would mean that the problem is that either these patients didn't have XMRV, or the fault was with the methodology. This helps us narrow down the descrepancy.

You can't assume at all that Dr Jolicoeur used the Canadian consensus criteria. Other than the word Canadian on it, very few doctors in Canada are aware of the document or aware of CFS. The majority of doctors here go check out the CDC website for resources (eeeek)


Even negative studies can be helpful. For instance, if other researchers using the WPI methods are able to find XMRV in CFS patients, and researchers using other methods are not, that teaches us things about what works and what doesn't, which can help in developing a standardized test. And who knows, Z Hanna may be a real scientist who's interested in getting at the truth, and will be willing to work honestly with the WPI to find out what the difference is.

I think that negative studies aren't necessarily bad news, if they're good science. And as long as they don't cause funding to dry up.

I certainly hope so too. We need canadian interest in Me/CFS more than ever. Dr Jolicoeur has a great reputation and knowledge on MuLV and HIV. Both would certainly help us PWME to advance knowledge and science.

 

[leelaplay]

But, but, but if the study was done in Quebec patients they would have used the Canadian Concensus Criteria to characterize their patient cohort, wouldn't they? So this could provide good information. In the European studies the patient cohort was suspect. If this one had a well defined patient cohort and still came up negative, that would mean that the problem is that either these patients didn't have XMRV, or the fault was with the methodology. This helps us narrow down the descrepancy.

Even negative studies can be helpful. For instance, if other researchers using the WPI methods are able to find XMRV in CFS patients, and researchers using other methods are not, that teaches us things about what works and what doesn't, which can help in developing a standardized test. And who knows, Z Hanna may be a real scientist who's interested in getting at the truth, and will be willing to work honestly with the WPI to find out what the difference is.

I think that negative studies aren't necessarily bad news, if they're good science. And as long as they don't cause funding to dry up.

Hi ixchelkali,

I completely agree that whatever good science produces will only lead to future good results for us all, honest negative results being as important as honest positive results. And keeping funding options open is always a good idea.

However, assuming that any research in Canada, as much as I wish it were true, is based on using the Canadian Consensus Criteria to characterize their patient cohort is just that, an assumption. I wish we were a country that is up-to-date- in terms of research definitions, GP and public awareness, and basic diagnosis, and just using, the world gold standard, the Canadian Consensus Criteria, to characterize their patient cohort, but it ain't so. It's as dire here as elsewhere.

So - please don't build any constructs based on - researched in Canada = using CCCD, as much as I would wish that true for all of us.


Hanna, Z.: XMRV is not detected in Quebec patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

I'm into language, and to me, this choice of title indicates to me, that rather than say, our method of testing by xxxxxx method, does not reveal XMRV in CFS patients diagnosed by xxxxxx clear criteria (preferably of course the cccd), they instead choose to imply that CFS is not in Quebec. I am not impressed, nor lead to believe that their results are good science or worthy of the title they gave the results ( and of course this being Canada, they have the out of cross-cultural inadequacy and not translating adequately from french to english).

Show me clearly explicated science, from cohort definition to sample definition to testing methodology, and whatever the results are, I am behind them 100% and believe they will lead to causality and treatment.

For me, right now, I need more from this to give the title and study any credence.