Lipkin XMRV study to be released June 30th

[Firestormm]

Well there was an insignificant comment in the NYT article about Reeves that I noticed this morning referring to the study being reported in the next few months. But personally I'm sticking with my (albeit tongue in cheek but proving very auspicious) estimate of 2013

 

[snowathlete]

Here is a theory.
If xmrv is not found but you think you are close (let's say within six months) of finding something else as a likely cause, why not hold back the xmrv paper so that you can release them both about the same time?

 

[FancyMyBlood]

Here is a theory.
If xmrv is not found but you think you are close (let's say within six months) of finding something else as a likely cause, why not hold back the xmrv paper so that you can release them both about the same time?

Hi snowathlete, I was thinking/hoping the exact same thing! Cort was talking in february about a big splash to be published the coming months. Prof. Racaniello said in a TwiV episode around march that ME/CFS might be caused by two things (two virusses?) and hinted 'to keep your eyes open'.

This is probably wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if there would be a ME/CFS 'special' in a major journal?

 

[heapsreal]

I hope its not a cover up??

 

[currer]

Two things? Like one inside the other - Pseudotyping?

 

[Mark]

Here is a theory.
If xmrv is not found but you think you are close (let's say within six months) of finding something else as a likely cause, why not hold back the xmrv paper so that you can release them both about the same time?

Holding back papers to bunch them, or time the publication in accordance with whatever else is being published, to get maximum impact - that's all normal. The way that a group of negative XMRV papers were all published together at the same time is similarly quite normal behaviour in the journal system - like having an edition of a magazine focusing on some particular subject and some of the articles waiting until they're all ready. So yes, it's a possible reason for delay. And it's possible that media timing to gain desired impact now means "after the summer holiday"...

However, as regards "Lipkin's other study", the "pathogen study", I'm afraid the indications are that there won't be anything reported from that until next year at least. The recent announcement of recruitment of patients for a Stanford study is consistent with what Dr Peterson suggested about the timescale for that work at the last IiME conference: maybe there'll be something to report from that next May...

But I've heard a couple of positive hints that there are some promising/exciting-sounding research findings in the pipeline to be published at some point. I think most of our top researchers are working away, and many of them are likely to have been following up on the other promising findings and continuing to make progress. I'm really looking forward to Prof Baraniuk's next paper in particular.

But I doubt any of that's the reason for the delay of the 'Lipkin XMRV' study. It's more likely to be something more mundane IMO; details emerging during peer review; delays from publishing schedules; delays on one of the labs completing their results; delays finalising details and approving wording amongst the various labs, etc. Though I must admit that Dr Peterson's premature announcement of June 30th seems odd and seems to suggest that it was thought to be nearly ready at some point.

I once read that the Lipkin XMRV study would be published by the end of 2011. Well that's not going to happen...this is not a study to hold your breath waiting for...

It's painstaking work and these things do take time - and there are a lot of steps in the research lifecycle; the following is very much a trimmed-down view and I can think of a lot of activities that are not detailed in this diagram:
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/I2S2/documents/I2S2-ResearchActivityLifecycleModel-110407.pdf

After all, it took the PACE authors 18 months to work out a way to analyse their existing data that let them say "CBT and GET are cost-effective", and even though a lot of that time was likely spent on the beach, if it takes that long to put together a publication that isn't even science...

 

[alex3619]

Hi, I have heard of other cases of surprise discoveries about to be released (one in September supposedly) - all unsubstantiated, and because of confidentiality I can't talk about them. Is this all hype? Misunderstanding comments? Desperation? Or has the accumulation of data and the recent increase in interesting studies finally resulted in multiple breakthroughs? Anything is possible, but we have to wait for publication and some time to study the results to be sure. Bye, Alex

 

[Mark]

You're right on that Alex. Even apart from rumours of surprise discoveries, there is quite a lot of interesting ongoing research which should be reporting something some time this year anyway - I am hopeful about the work at Bond, and Baraniuk's work, for example, as reported in preliminary form at IiME. Despite the woeful underfunding, I actually think there is a fair amount going on now that is very high quality and on the right tracks, doing things the right way. We may only be talking, say, 10 really good research groups worldwide, but what those groups are doing right now is really exciting and I find those people really impressive - and I think they're all barking up the right trees. With all that work going on and all the strong clues we've got now, I suppose it's almost to be expected that there may be surprise discoveries happening right now.

Just one personal guess: I think that the key breakthrough is going to have to have some insight into fundamental sub-setting based on objective markers, and that can then unlock and explain everything else we already know. That's one reason I'm so excited about Baraniuk's work (though I thought his work was cool even before I saw his IiME presentation).

 

[August59]

Does anyone know why Montoya pulled out of Lipkin's study? It could be that he is having his own set of data cicumstances or something as he is still recruiting for study that was suppose to be done a year ago, but he raised the study from 450 samples to 600 for what ever reason.

 

[alex3619]

Hi Mark, even ten good studies could make a huge difference given how little has been funded over the years. It would be winning the lottery a bunch of times in a row.

The impact of subtyping is unknown. I do strongly suspect that even hard core ME is two different diseases or perhaps a spectrum. Broadly defined CFS on the other hand is bound to be very many diseases - maybe hundreds.

In particularly there is a remote possibility, based on the general response and finding trend in studies, that about two thirds of patients have one thing, and the remaining third have other things. The Rituximab results are an example of this, but not the only one. Given the possible fluctuating mix in cohorts, some variation would be expected anyway. On the other hand the discovery that some Rituximab non-responders can be made responders if co-morbid conditions are treated raises the possibility that this is a co-morbid disease issue, and perhaps a spectrum issue.

Bye, Alex

PS As a side comment there are some interesting trends in systems biology approaches in medicine. The New York Academy of Science for example is holding an event based on using systems approaches to drug discovery rather than one problem/one drug approaches. By taking into account multiple factors, errors related to excessive reductionism might be avoided.

"December 11, 2012 | 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM
Systems Biology Approaches to Drug Discovery: Single Gene Targeting is Not Enough
The most pressing unmet medical needs correspond to complex diseases caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. This symposium discusses the use of biological assays that feature multiple target approaches during the primary discovery steps."

 

[CBS]

Does anyone know why Montoya pulled out of Lipkin's study? It could be that he is having his own set of data cicumstances or something as he is still recruiting for study that was suppose to be done a year ago, but he raised the study from 450 samples to 600 for what ever reason.

Are you asking about the CFI project?

 

[jace]

Any word on this?

Nothing I've heard of. Waiting is.

 

[August59]

Are you asking about the CFI project?

I was talking about the "Lipkin Study" as being the study that Montoya withdrew from. That information was based on a post on this forum. Of course I haven't found it yet, but hopefully will shortly!

Or was you talking about the increase in numbers on the Montoya study?

 

[August59]

I new I read it somewhere. The last interview Cort had with Dr. Peterson about a third of the way through there is a section called "The Proving Groud" and the very last sentence is:

Dr. Montoya, by the way, has dropped out of the CFI study. He is being replaced by Dr. Felsenstein at Mass General..

 

[CBS]

I was talking about the "Lipkin Study" as being the study that Montoya withdrew from. That information was based on a post on this forum. Of course I haven't found it yet, but hopefully will shortly!

Or was you talking about the increase in numbers on the Montoya study?

Lipkin is doing several studies, some involve Dr. Montoya. Montoya's ongoing work with Lipkin predates the NIH's XMRV study. The project Montoya withdrew from was the CFI project. There are several elements to the CFI project, some include Lipkin but I wouldn't call it the "Lipkin Study." If that is what you are talking about, the explanation for Montoya's withdrawal was administrative (at the level of the University and for no project or Montoya based reason other than the CFI project and Stanford administration were not able to make things work on the CFI timeline).

 

[CBS]

I new I read it somewhere. The last interview Cort had with Dr. Peterson about a third of the way through there is a section called "The Proving Groud" and the very last sentence is:

Dr. Montoya, by the way, has dropped out of the CFI study. He is being replaced by Dr. Felsenstein at Mass General..

The four doctors participating in the portion of the CFI project that involves Lipkin are Klimas, Peterson, Bateman and Levine. In the quote you provide, Dr. Peterson is not talking about the work that Likpin is doing right now for the CFI project and he is not referring to doctors providing patient blood samples (or any other samples) for analysis at present by Dr. Lipkin.

http://cfinitiative.org/lead-researchers/

 

[August59]

Thanks CBS for straightning me out on that. It surely seems to be a larger and complex study, but I would seem to think it is something that is very much needed right now. Just wish they didn't take so long though!

 

[urbantravels]

My attention to what's been going on in the research field has been very spotty for some time now...but...

It's been nearly a year since Kathleen Light & team got their cool million from the NIH (well, since the award was announced...I'm *pretty* sure they don't cut you a check the same day...) Is it way too soon to start anticipating some sort of publication coming out of that work? An especially interesting thought since there is now so much talk about subtyping, and biomarkers are the only really convincing way of subtyping on the horizon...right?

At this point, I actually hope there isn't some major "new discovery" surprise coming along...because if it is REALLY new, it might be, in some ways, XMRV all over again: big splash, widespread hope, widespread skepticism, everyone weighing in with a premature opinion, (some) patients demanding immediate access to whatever it is, and then all the fallout from that.... not to mention the potential diversion of funds from all these other promising lines of research where progress is actually being made through follow-up.

What I'd like to see is some strong new evidence, or even a big leap forward, emerging to support and expand upon early findings already published...biomarkers/cytokines, biomarkers/proteomics, Rituximab, OI, etc. etc...

 

[alex3619]

Hi urbantravels, I completely agree with you about biomarkers and subtyping. We need something concrete as a basis of subtypes so that further study can be done and subgroups validated or rejected. Bye, Alex

 

[cfsme23]

September 18th it is then!!!

https://twitter.com/CII722