You can view the page at http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?283-Of-Mice-and-Men-The-X-MLV-s-and-XMRV
Article: Of Mice and Men: The X-MLV's and XMRV
- Thread starter Phoenix Rising Team
- Start date
Did you mean "house mice in the US typically carry few carry XMLVs " ? Or am I just too tired to be trying to comprehend this information packed article tonight? Unbelievably great job as usual.
I don't know how you do it, Cort!!!
Whoops.....
Thanks!
There's that word, "deleterious".
I tried to read the study. Clearly I don't have the scientific perception Cort has. But, I did learn a new word. deleterious- injurious to health
Cort, two of us were looking at this study at the same time. Tell me, did you understand the part about tetherin?
Tina
Great summary Cort, thank you.
Re Transmission - I know this has been discussed before and some don't like the idea, but surely if some species of lab mouse carry retroviruses which can be transmitted a) as a whole to other species, or b) in part of a virus which then has the potential to marry up with endogenous retrovirus sequences already inside a human cell, then we really DO have to look at how we use tissue from lab mice in relation to human vaccine preparation and other pharmaceuticals esp I/V.
I don't see that there can be any doubt about this.
Re Transmission - I know this has been discussed before and some don't like the idea, but surely if some species of lab mouse carry retroviruses which can be transmitted a) as a whole to other species, or b) in part of a virus which then has the potential to marry up with endogenous retrovirus sequences already inside a human cell, then we really DO have to look at how we use tissue from lab mice in relation to human vaccine preparation and other pharmaceuticals esp I/V.
I don't see that there can be any doubt about this.
Well, you seemed to get a lot more out of this than I did.
I got the overall points from it. But the part about the tetherin confused me. I would read the sentence and think it is saying one thing and then I would read it again and think it is saying the opposite.
It used the term "antagonize the tetherin" Does that mean it causes a tetherin reaction or does it mean it prevents the tetherin reaction?
Tina
I got the overall points from it. But the part about the tetherin confused me. I would read the sentence and think it is saying one thing and then I would read it again and think it is saying the opposite.
It used the term "antagonize the tetherin" Does that mean it causes a tetherin reaction or does it mean it prevents the tetherin reaction?
Tina
Mizakawa recently wrote a paper that examined this problem. He noted that many vaccines are produced using cell lines from cats, mice, pigs and chickens, all of which carry ERV's. Vaccine producers used to just worry whether the cell lines they used contain live viruses...he is arguing that they should worry more about whether those cell lines contain ERV's that can produce live viruses or proteins from them.
That sounds like a real can of worms.
I think this is good news. Tetherin is a factor that cells produce that appears to stop viral particles from being released thereby rendering them inoperative, if I got that right. HIV has the ability to block tetherin activity but XMRV, a much simpler virus, is unable to do that ('antagonize' tetherin action is a weird way of putting it). She notes that studies have shown that Tetherin can block XMRV activity; at least two antivral cellular factors, then, tetherin and the APOBEC3 G appear to be able to inhibit XMRV in humans.
This could be a little problematic, though. If XMRV is causing damage in CFS then it has to able evade the major antiviral factors... I don't know how many of them there are or where they are but what we really might want to see is XMRV being immune to a big antiviral factor. We know that the APOBEC 3 enzyme knocks XMRV in the PBMC's tested thus far in the blood - on it's butt. How is a virus that is knocked on its butt going to cause CFS? Either XMRV is flourishing elsewhere in the body in cells that do not have that enzyme or it's doing it's damage without replicating...which I guess is possible ???
HTLV also exists in low numbers and cause damage - so that does happen but it does it by turning cancerous and the research does not yet suggest that XMRV is a cancer causing agent (and of course CFS is not cancer). Still there's alot to learn. Could XMRV be altering the function of immune cells simply by being present in them? I think that's one possibility...
This term is a scientific relic of a time when scientists were expected to know Latin and Greek. Promoting a reaction makes something an agonist, while hindering it makes it an antagonist. As my spell checker reminds me, you don't see both words used this way in common speech.
On the subject of cancer, I would go beyond the cautious position Cort gets from quoting scientists as a reporter. There is enough data on association with a number of cancers, including rare forms like mantle cell lymphomas, to "suggest" a causative role. This is far less than proof, but it is quite enough to provoke the traditional "further study".
Mizakawa recently wrote a paper that examined this problem. He noted that many vaccines are produced using cell lines from cats, mice, pigs and chickens, all of which carry ERV's. Vaccine producers used to just worry whether the cell lines they used contain live viruses...he is arguing that they should worry more about whether those cell lines contain ERV's that can produce live viruses or proteins from them.
That sounds like a real can of worms.
It is isn't it?! How about the unintentional spread of a Biosafety Level 2 Recombinant Retrovirus (a synthetic virus) engineered in the 1980's with similarities to XMRV? Paper published in Germany in Sept 2009.
Read on!!
http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showth...of-a-Biosafety-Level-2-Recombinant-Retrovirus
The ultimate compliment...Woof! Woof!
(we could really use a couple of dog smiley's......hmmm)
(we could really use a couple of dog smiley's......hmmm)