Could this be an early XMRV? The JHK virus
- Thread starter currer
- Start date
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Good question. I haven't seen a sequence comparison yet. Has anyone else run a BLAST or seen any other research info about this?
Bob, RedRuth - This article by the IMEA seems to suggest JHK is a variant of XMRV: http://www.imeassoc.com/The_JHK_virus.html.
I think I remember reading somewhere (probably on these forums) that the blood samples used were taken from before those used for XMRV research - though I could be mistaken, and I suppose this doesn't prove which retrovirus is the oldest - anyboby else know?
Currer - Whilst I post (I have very little energy), thanks for clearing up my confusion over cell lines - it was one of those questions I always wanted to ask but never got around to. Does anyone know of a primer about cell lines - it would make my novice understanding of the research a lot easier to follow.
Laurence :In bed:
Addition:
Sorry Bob - I've just noticed you posted the same link in post #7.
What did you want to know about cell lines? BTW, the scientist who discovered JHK doesn't seem to think it's a variant of XMRV cDNA libraries produced by reverse transcription of JHK viral RNA have been constructed and are being analyzed; the sequences determined of the many clones produced have so far revealed no significant homology with known viruses.
A quick BLAST of the sequence pulls out Mouse Chromosomal hits and MLVs, it's a gag gene though so maybe not the best for sequence comparisons. However the bio on Porf. Grossberg says: cDNA libraries produced by reverse transcription of JHK viral RNA have been constructed and are being analyzed; the sequences determined of the many clones produced have so far revealed no significant homology with known viruses.
I have a feeling the "no sequence homology with known viruses " bit may not be up to date.
(Or is it just to do with the fight to patent a new virus?)
According to the other forum the sequence homology is 83% to VP62. So it is an MLV.
The early attempts at replication of Grossbergs studies looked at several viruses but did not look at MLVs at all.
(Or is it just to do with the fight to patent a new virus?)
According to the other forum the sequence homology is 83% to VP62. So it is an MLV.
The early attempts at replication of Grossbergs studies looked at several viruses but did not look at MLVs at all.
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Thanks Laurence & currer... I'm catching up with my reading... I've got a load of webpages and research papers that I'm trying to get round to read.
Why? What it says to me is they've got sequences they haven't published.
How do you reach that conclusion? It has 99% sequence homology to Mouse chromosomal elements. It's also only 750ish bp.
why so? Any easy laymans term explanation possible?
Doesn't seem like he's reaching that conclusin but other people on another forum. At least that's how I read currers post.
It's my understanding that the env gene codes for glycoproteins that bind cell receptors (think HIV gp120 and gp41 that bind the T cells CD4 receptor) which are crucial for infection of that cell. The sequence of the env gene determines the viral tropism (which cells and which species the virus infects) so variation (or not) of this gene is a good indication of species specificity of the virus and therefore the 'species' of the virus. Though I stand to be corrected as I'm not a retrovirologist but that's how it was explained to me.
It is very interesting to me that the JHK virus was first discovered in blood drawn in 1989 and a cell line was subsequently created from the infected ME patients cells.
This cell line demonstrated two different viral particles; the JHK virion and one which looked like EBV.
Read the patent
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5827750/description.html
What is so good about this research is that it relies on classical virology techniques to demonstrate the presence and infectivity of the retrovirus and appears to be a good solid thoughtful piece of work.
They found the JHK virus in two other ME patients.
PCR is not mentioned,thank goodness.
So why was this never followed up?
Too many people keen to jump to disprove before they have given the new ideas a chance.
This cell line demonstrated two different viral particles; the JHK virion and one which looked like EBV.
Read the patent
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5827750/description.html
What is so good about this research is that it relies on classical virology techniques to demonstrate the presence and infectivity of the retrovirus and appears to be a good solid thoughtful piece of work.
They found the JHK virus in two other ME patients.
PCR is not mentioned,thank goodness.
So why was this never followed up?
Too many people keen to jump to disprove before they have given the new ideas a chance.
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Just bumping this thread, as there's some very interesting info about the JHK virus.
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
It's a conspiracy!!
The JHK Virus theory was shot down by the Grassy Gnoll, who was working for J Edgar Weasel!
*cough*
er, sorry, couldn't resist a "gag" (non-protein!), hehe!
The JHK Virus theory was shot down by the Grassy Gnoll, who was working for J Edgar Weasel!
*cough*
er, sorry, couldn't resist a "gag" (non-protein!), hehe!
Right on Silverblade! :victory:
And there was never any ALV contamination in MMR. That stupid theory was shot down by... Oh WAIT, no, there WAS contamination. Lots of ALV got into humans through MMR. But it didn't do anything bad there, and we know it 'cos CDC guys looked once. Found no replication in blood. Means ALV is harmless in humans. Must be that devil little APOBEC, bless it.
:victory:And there was never any ALV contamination in MMR. That stupid theory was shot down by... Oh WAIT, no, there WAS contamination. Lots of ALV got into humans through MMR. But it didn't do anything bad there, and we know it 'cos CDC guys looked once. Found no replication in blood. Means ALV is harmless in humans. Must be that devil little APOBEC, bless it.
Ecoclimber
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,011
I don't know why this thread got resurrected as the JHK virus was extensively dealt with in another thread: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...XMRV-sequences-in-genbank&p=233216#post233216. See my post#108 and the JHK Blast report.
Grossberg corrected his entry and a previous association with XMRV. Note: The other databases downstream from GenBank may not have reflected these current changes to date.
Partial molecular cloning with novel consensus PCR primers of the murine JHK retrovirus of human origin, is NOT, repeat NOT a variant of the Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV.) Its closest relative is the retrovirus isolated from VCaP cells as shown in the Blast report as mentioned in my post 108 in the other thread. It will updated by Grossberg to reflect this change. Just look at the Blast report.
Sidney Grossberg updated GenBank by removing XMRV from the name on the JHK retrovirus file. The title is now:JHK retrovirus isolate JHK-3 5' LTR, partial sequence; and gag protein (gag) gene, partial cds
GenBank: HM119591.1
No conspiracy but a mislabeling by Grossberg. It does a disservice to the patient community to imply that the JHK virus is an early variant of XMRV as the title of this thread suggests.
Whether Grossberg is continuing his research with JHK virus or its association with EBV virus can only be answered by him.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9201810
Grossberg corrected his entry and a previous association with XMRV. Note: The other databases downstream from GenBank may not have reflected these current changes to date.
Partial molecular cloning with novel consensus PCR primers of the murine JHK retrovirus of human origin, is NOT, repeat NOT a variant of the Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV.) Its closest relative is the retrovirus isolated from VCaP cells as shown in the Blast report as mentioned in my post 108 in the other thread. It will updated by Grossberg to reflect this change. Just look at the Blast report.
Sidney Grossberg updated GenBank by removing XMRV from the name on the JHK retrovirus file. The title is now:JHK retrovirus isolate JHK-3 5' LTR, partial sequence; and gag protein (gag) gene, partial cds
GenBank: HM119591.1
No conspiracy but a mislabeling by Grossberg. It does a disservice to the patient community to imply that the JHK virus is an early variant of XMRV as the title of this thread suggests.
Whether Grossberg is continuing his research with JHK virus or its association with EBV virus can only be answered by him.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9201810
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Hi Ecoclimber, I refer you to my earlier post:
Personally, I'm not particularly interested in whether or not JHK is the same virus as XMRV. They are related viruses.
Retroviruses are a very interesting subject for me to explore, and I'm not trying to forcefully promote any theories about XMRV or JHK in relation to ME, so I hope you won't mind if I discuss the subject freely, Eco?
Weiss is a very interesting character indeed. He keeps popping up in jolly rejoicing mood whenever a retrovirus is 'disproven' in humans, and whenever a vaccine retroviral contaminant is cleared of links to human disease. He rejoiced, in a form of a long celebratory article, when CDC's Switzer,Heinene&Co used a quick PCR round to look at blood monocytes of 30-something recipients of ALV-contaminated MMR and pronounced them completely clean of ALV, and so concluded that avian retrovirus contaminants are incapable of infecting humans (sounds familiar?). He rejoiced again publicly and loudly when early polio vaccine was cleared of its link to HIV. And he stated that SV40 vaccine-contaminant findings in human tumours, including by his own lab, were "probably" due to lab contamination.
He was also the first person to come out and say that XMRV link to human disease would be disproven, adding (slip of the tongue or a 'warning') just like MMR link to autism was disproven in a public statement via Science Media Centre. This was early 2010. I cant help but wonder if there is much more to this guy and his words.
RustyJ
Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'
- Messages
- 1,201
- Location
- Mackay, Aust
JHK is an X-MRV! As is XMRV. They are related and as such bear great significance for the me/cfs community, unlike the misdirecting post above.
Ecoclimber
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,011
"JHK is an X-MRV! As is XMRV. They are related and as such bear great significance for the me/cfs community, unlike the misdirecting post above."
Nope, This sequence file is listed as "Xenotropic MuLV-related virus 5' LTR, partial sequence; and gag protein (gag) gene, partial cds", but the reported JHK-3 retrovirus sequence shows only distant similarity to Xenotropic MuLV-related virus (XMRV) (see attached BLAST result generated by using the HM119591.1 DNA sequence). In addition, there is no data that suggest that the JHK-3 virus is derived from XMRV. Therefore, the JHK-3 virus is not a variant of XMRV as claimed. This sequence should be listed as "JHK-3 retrovirus 5' LTR, partial sequence; and gag protein (gag) gene, partial cds". The reported JHK-3 retrovirus sequence shows highest similarity to a retrovirus produced by VCaP prostate cancer cells, a virus that was likely acquired from mice during xenotransplantation of the cells in nude mice.
If you read a blast report you can see that XMRV is further down the list in 22rv1 cell line and XMRV VP62, VP35, VP42 complete genome etc. Stay with the science, understand retrovirology and not your own confirmation bias.
That is why Grossberg removed it as a variant of XMRV in GenBank!
Nope, This sequence file is listed as "Xenotropic MuLV-related virus 5' LTR, partial sequence; and gag protein (gag) gene, partial cds", but the reported JHK-3 retrovirus sequence shows only distant similarity to Xenotropic MuLV-related virus (XMRV) (see attached BLAST result generated by using the HM119591.1 DNA sequence). In addition, there is no data that suggest that the JHK-3 virus is derived from XMRV. Therefore, the JHK-3 virus is not a variant of XMRV as claimed. This sequence should be listed as "JHK-3 retrovirus 5' LTR, partial sequence; and gag protein (gag) gene, partial cds". The reported JHK-3 retrovirus sequence shows highest similarity to a retrovirus produced by VCaP prostate cancer cells, a virus that was likely acquired from mice during xenotransplantation of the cells in nude mice.
If you read a blast report you can see that XMRV is further down the list in 22rv1 cell line and XMRV VP62, VP35, VP42 complete genome etc. Stay with the science, understand retrovirology and not your own confirmation bias.
That is why Grossberg removed it as a variant of XMRV in GenBank!