Huber said her method detects 1 cell in 500,000 cells.
Among all retroviruses analyzed, XMRV has the strongest preference for transcription start sites, CpG islands, DNase-hypersensitive sites, and gene-dense regions; all are features frequently associated with structurally open transcription regulatory regions of a chromosome.
Integration Site Preference of Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus, a New Human Retrovirus Associated with Prostate Cancer
Link
Re: Huber failed XMRV.
From a Blog on the net.........
''It is also possible that XMRV may be able to induce transcription of an endogenous virus according to Brigette Huber,a professor of pathology at Tufts University’s Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences in Boston.She has been studying the presence of an ancient retrovirus,HERV-K18,which is dormant in most people but active in patients with CFS and multiple sclerosis.(29)Epstein Barr virus has already demonstarted that it can do this.(29,30)''
(29): Scientific American article,Retrovirus linked to chronic fatigue syndrom could aid diagnosis,available:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chronic-fatigue-syndrome-retrovirus [accessed 30 Nov 2009]
(30): Francis C. Hsiao, Miao Lin, Albert Tai, Gang Chen and Brigitte T. Hube ‘ (2006)Cutting Edge: Epstein-Barr Virus Transactivates the HERV-K18 Superantigen by Docking to the Human Complement Receptor 2 (CD21) on Primary B Cells‘http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4/2056 [accessed 30 Nov 2009]
Among all retroviruses analyzed, XMRV has the strongest preference for transcription start sites, CpG islands, DNase-hypersensitive sites, and gene-dense regions; all are features frequently associated with structurally open transcription regulatory regions of a chromosome.
Integration Site Preference of Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus, a New Human Retrovirus Associated with Prostate Cancer
Link
Re: Huber failed XMRV.
From a Blog on the net.........
''It is also possible that XMRV may be able to induce transcription of an endogenous virus according to Brigette Huber,a professor of pathology at Tufts Universitys Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences in Boston.She has been studying the presence of an ancient retrovirus,HERV-K18,which is dormant in most people but active in patients with CFS and multiple sclerosis.(29)Epstein Barr virus has already demonstarted that it can do this.(29,30)''
(29): Scientific American article,Retrovirus linked to chronic fatigue syndrom could aid diagnosis,available:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chronic-fatigue-syndrome-retrovirus [accessed 30 Nov 2009]
(30): Francis C. Hsiao, Miao Lin, Albert Tai, Gang Chen and Brigitte T. Hube (2006)Cutting Edge: Epstein-Barr Virus Transactivates the HERV-K18 Superantigen by Docking to the Human Complement Receptor 2 (CD21) on Primary B Cellshttp://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4/2056 [accessed 30 Nov 2009]
Doesn't Huber is the one who works with John Coffin? If SHE didn't find it, it's a bit sad. Didn't Dr. Coffin say that a positive XMRV study is just a matter of time (or something like that)?A sort of big thing from the conference was Brigette Huber. She found no XMRV in 228 samples.
112 samples from Levine New York
105 from Taylor
11 from HHV6 Foundation
All negative. No idea about controls, I don't think she mentioned them. Again she mentioned contamination. However, I don't think she used the same method as Science paper. Mikovits again said they checked contamination, and there was none. This is still to be published I think
So this must be the negative paper. Also Klimas is still positive about XMRV, and so am I.
From Dr Klimas talk I also have some notes that say No CD26 - no Neuro Peptide Y cleavage - sympathetic nervous system overactive. Do you have any more details on this part?
Do you think its likely that Dr. Huber's tests could detect XMRV if it was there (at least most of the times that it is there)? Because to me it seems that the answer is simple: No.
112 samples from Levine New York
is the BMJ lady there?
ETA
Those must be Levine's negative samples.
Levine sent her at least one sample from a patient that tested positive by VIPdx
Do you know which journal(s) rejected that study? Is there a journal which is known to be about to publish it?Tufts study used qPCR !! same old same old
judy brushed it off in her talk, without naming names. nancy laughed about negative studies, saying they make life more interesting for them. said it took loooong time for HIV consensus, this all can be expected....
oh and btw that tufts study has been rejected for publication TWICE so far.
I wish I could be there in person to tell the audience how much his compassion, perseverence and methods of treatment have helped me improve...to the point that I can read and write on these forums - changing my life for the better!
In over ten years he has never wavered in his dogged determination to help those of us with me/cfs. Every symptom (no matter how small or insignificant) is a "clue" to the bigger picture for him!..and I trust him so much, that I am a willing "guinea pig" for any research he wants to do. Unconditionally.
I am indebted to him...for trying so hard to put an end to our suffering (and so lucky to be his patient!)
He will be in his element and I wish him success! (and all the others who make it there)
He's Dr. John Chia
Do you know which journal(s) rejected that study? Is there a journal which is known to be about to publish it?
yes, she was very excited about that!!!
could be huge. it could be a biomarker for CFS as levels correlate to severity of symptoms.
basically CD26/DPPIV is impaired, its job is to cleave NPY. if no cleavage, levels high and affect autonomic nervous system.
Nancy was presenting on 2 brand new papers, hot off the press, one of them actually out tomorrow )
Did she say if after they got a 100% positives they tried to test again these positives with the qPCR test - to see if that qPCR would find even half of these samples to be positives (if it could be done in some way, because I don't know if it's possible to test it agian after the first 2 tests)? Because if she would have done it and find 100% positives, than it probably means that the second test was somehow contaminated - But it she would have done it and again found nothing - That would mean the qPCR worth nothing at all here. And if she would only find, let's say, 30% to be positive, that means something here is odd...Omerbasket, there is more: after qPCR was all negative, they decided to look for it "the way the original study did" - but only as far as PCR went.
then something happened she said - I missed that part, hope someone can fill in !!! - but they had 100% positive on that repeat test (with another type PCR, I missed which one) and they then decided they had got contaminated somehow.... sorry no details here, she sort of rushed through that part