Do I understand their method correctly?: Blood samples had been frozen and thawed, monocyte cells separated (and washed?), and incubated for almost 3 days before (further preparations for making) measurements and/or imagining.
So the measured ATP produced by these cells was produced well outside of the context of patient's bodies? Couldn't this be problematic? From
Cort's blog a couple days ago (sorry, not sure of the original references):
.., reports indicate that the natural killer cell problems in ME/CFS apparently disappear when NK cells from ME/CFS patients are put into a healthy person's blood. Conversely, healthy NK cells poop out when put into ME/CFS patient's blood. Fluge and Mella are finding that healthy muscle cells act strangely when cultured with ME/CFS patient's blood.
So could it be that after blood borne factors that usually inhibit mitochondrial ATP synthesis (in CFS/ME patients) are removed, it allowed a return to the normal levels of production that were measured? (And having been weighed down, some compensatory configuration(s) then caused ATP overproduction.) Or would 3 days not be enough time to adapt to new environment? Or should the "
5% CO2" block metabolic changes? Or am I totally failing to grasp vital aspects of the methodology? (Very likely! I hope I'm not spouting entirely misleading nonsense...?)
Also,
in my previous post, on the Naviaux study, I mentioned that Aubrey de Grey pointed out that mitochondria are continuously being broken down and reconstituted within cells, and my research stemming from that insight indicated that they may last less than 2 days before being recycled (in certain tissues, of mice).
-----
This new study apparently contradicts the 2015 Australian metabolomics study (
abstract only with
full paper here) which claimed to see that:
Blood glucose was elevated while blood lactate, urine pyruvate, and urine alanine were reduced indicating an inhibition of glycolysis...
[My emphasis.] With increased amino acid use to fuel the citric acid cycle in place of burning carbohydrates (is that synonymous with glucose?). I personally latched on to this study as it showed a raised aspartic acid signature that I'd seen in my own serum amino acids test.
-----
Regarding Naviaux, could it be that there is increased ATP production, but it's is being consumed by (purinergic) signalling, as in his cell danger response (CDR)? I've no idea of the relative quantities of ATP for energy metabolism verses signalling, of any type.
-----
There is more
recent Myhill research that supports it I believe, at least in a percentage of patients.
Thanks for linking me to the
2012 Doctor Myhill, Booth, McLaren-Howard study. So that found increased glycolosis in one patient sub-group, the other also having
compensatory extra-mitrocondrial ATP production via some different, unknown route:
The main features that we find from the new Cohort 2 data and a re-analysis of the Cohort 1 data are that there is partial blocking of the standard scenario for ATP production and that the patients divide into two main groups. For one group the poor performance of the standard metabolic scenario is partly offset by increased glycolysis. For the second group we find that there is an alternative process which supplies additional compensatory ATP.
But seemingly contradicts the new paper:
We find that all patients tested have measurable mitochondrial dysfunction which correlates with the severity of the illness.
The Dr Myhill paper seemed more involved (on the molecular side), certainly longer and more explanatory. It talks about causes:
A major factor in the dysfunction is partial blocking of the translocator protein TL, and this has not been investigated in any other study of ME/CFS or in most other studies of illnesses with mitochondrial dysfunctions of various types [9].
We also find that lack of substrate or essential co-factors contributes to the mitochondrial dysfunction of some patients, particularly those with super-normal values of TL IN (sub-group A2).
It seems to have looked at neutrophils, as opposed "
mononuclear cells" (i.e.
lymphocytes and monocytes) in this new study. Would that make a significant difference? I'm not sure about the statistical tools, or how different the practical methods were; I didn't spot the 2012 paper going into as much explicit detail about the Acumen Lab's process, or if their "
ability to accurately measure such small concentrations of ATP" should be more/less reliable. (Bu then I didn't manage to read it entirely, let alone hold everything in mind.)
Both papers evidence increased ATP production in the cell cytosol, which makes for a lot more oxidative damage/stress, of course.
Thanks and well done if you managed to read this long, undirected post.