National conference on Retroviruses -- Feb 27-Mar 2, 2011 (Boston)

[Rrrr]

this upcoming retrovirus conference in Boston, MA (feb 27-March 2) has a whole page of the program dedicated to xmrv talks that will be at the conference.

The main XMRV session is on page 22, but there is also another isolated presentation,too:

91LB: XMRV probably originated through recombination between 2 endogenous murine retroviruses during in vitro passage of a human prostate cancer xenograft.*

here is the downloadable, full "pocket" program
http://retroconference.org/2011/display.asp?page=493

 

[SOC]

91LB: XMRV probably originated through recombination between 2 endogenous murine retroviruses during in vitro passage of a human prostate cancer xenograft.*

Translation, please?

I know all the words, but I can't understand sentence.

 

[alex3619]

Hi SickofCFS, I haven't researched this kind of thing in detail, but I will give translation a go. Human prostate cancers were transplanted to lab mice (I think they use mice with defective immune systems) as part of the cell culture process. Two different species of murine retroviruses were in the mouse. They infected the graft (a xenograft means a cross species graft), and combined due to replicating in the same cell. This combination, half of one and half of another, was XMRV.

That is my interpretation of the claim. It remains to be proven that this is right.

Bye
Alex

 

[Mya Symons]

Hi SickofCFS, I haven't researched this kind of thing in detail, but I will give translation a go. Human prostate cancers were transplanted to lab mice (I think they use mice with defective immune systems) as part of the cell culture process. Two different species of murine retroviruses were in the mouse. They infected the graft (a xenograft means a cross species graft), and combined due to replicating in the same cell. This combination, half of one and half of another, was XMRV.

That is my interpretation of the claim. It remains to be proven that this is right.

Alex, do you have a guess as to how this would then get to a human? (as in infection)

 

[August59]

They aren't suggesting that this happened during the XMRV \ Prostate study at the Cleveland Clinic that actually found xmrv in the prostate tissue. I thought there was another thread where College of London or that other s%^head from over there said that the prostate study was bogus or flawed. Did that study use "xenografts"?

 

[SOC]

Hi SickofCFS, I haven't researched this kind of thing in detail, but I will give translation a go. Human prostate cancers were transplanted to lab mice (I think they use mice with defective immune systems) as part of the cell culture process. Two different species of murine retroviruses were in the mouse. They infected the graft (a xenograft means a cross species graft), and combined due to replicating in the same cell. This combination, half of one and half of another, was XMRV.

That is my interpretation of the claim. It remains to be proven that this is right.

Bye
Alex

Thanks, Alex, that helps.

It seems like a pretty spectacular claim. It will be interesting to see how they came to this conclusion. It implies, does it not, that XMRV is a very new retrovirus and therefore an unlikely cause of ME/CFS? Also, this implies it is a form of man-made retrovirus; that is, it wouldn't exist without human intervention. This could be chilling on all kinds of medical research if our cancer researchers could be inadvertently creating highly infectious retroviruses.

It could also suggest that XMRV is astoundingly infectious if it has infected 10% of the population from a lab that presumably takes some care to avoid all kinds of contamination -- and all in a very few years.

I assume, therefore, that it's more likely they are claiming the positive lab results in PC and ME/CFS patients come from lab contamination. We'll see. Another interesting story to watch play out.

 

[SOC]

Sadly, it doesn't look like XMRV will get much good play at this conference. The related Themed Discussion (not a presentation mode I'm familiar with) lasts only one hour. Discussants (huh?) are Kathryn Jones of NCI and Jonathan Stoye (gee, thanks).

Out of 9 topics/papers/presentations, 2 are by the CDC (both with our pal MR Switzer as primary author), 1 is by Wellcome Trust folks (including G. Towers), 1 from the NCI group including F. Ruscetti.

The Wellcome Trust one looks inflammatory to me: Disease-associated XMRV Sequences Explained by Laboratory Contamination. Unless they've been in the labs who found "disease-associated XMRV sequences" and actually found contamination, they are claiming to know a lot more than they can possibly know. I suspect another case of extrapolating FAR beyond their data. If I was the WPI, Cleveland Clinic, FDA and NIH labs, etc, I'd be seriously PO'd about this... furious, even.

On the positive side, the Wellcome Trust is making themselves look unprofessional and idiotic to their colleagues, which can only be good.

 

[Deatheye]

On the positive side, the Wellcome Trust is making themselves look unprofessional and idiotic to their colleagues, which can only be good.

That one should have counted for the interpretation of other contamination studies. But still people accepted those paper that didn't even state that everything is contamination in every lab. just hinted at the possability. Now comes a study that (at least going on from the title) seems to put every study into the contamination thing? I really don't see why that should come out any bether for us :/
I hope I'm wrong, really...

 

[August59]

Unfortunately these conferences are the only way that medical professionals pick up any knowledge and training once they receive their license to practice. These conferences supply them with the needed "CE" units required to renew their license. The dominance of "negative" information could have a "negative" influence for years. These physicians may choose to go to a "antibiotic conference" next year, but if xmrv comes up they will remember the "retrovirus conference" they attended a couple of years ago!

The good news might be that they go to a "Central Spinal Fluid w\ Abnormal Proteins Conference" (you know what I mean) next year - I hope!

 

[alex3619]

Alex, do you have a guess as to how this would then get to a human? (as in infection)

Hi Mya, I do not know fur sure this claim is correct, but I will try to answer on the assumption that it is. You should be aware however that this is only one view of many possibilities.

This is a virus that can reactivate. While the bood would have little virus, it would reactivate and become infectious after an immune insult or even severe stress. This it might be transmittable via every mechanism it can transmit - and the only one we are sure of is blood to blood contact at the moment, like a needle-stick injury.

Then there is the cell culture argument. These cultures go everywhere, are in many labs. An injury to a lab tech at even one lab could see a viral jump into humans.

Then we have a more extreme line of argument, in which multiple cultures could become infected, and some of those might then be used in vaccine manufacture. I suspect that purification and other processing of such culture derived vaccines might deactivate the virus in nearly all cases - but this might mean that only some vaccine batches are contaminated, and even one batch, once, if long enough ago, could trigger a local viral outbreak.

I have not discussed the potential link between XMRV and various diseases, thats a much longer answer.

None of these are proven, and I have deliberately ignored unproven possibilities like salivary or urinary transmission. Lab mice might infect a cage, and then even the cage cleaners could be at risk. We just don't know, its all speculation without more facts, which brings me to my mantra: we need more research.

Bye,
Alex

 

[Mya Symons]

Thanks Alex.

 

[SOC]

That one should have counted for the interpretation of other contamination studies. But still people accepted those paper that didn't even state that everything is contamination in every lab. just hinted at the possability. Now comes a study that (at least going on from the title) seems to put every study into the contamination thing? I really don't see why that should come out any bether for us :/
I hope I'm wrong, really...

I'm not suggesting the paper, or presentation, or whatever it is, will be good for us. I agree with you that any clinical physicians, media people, or other laymen who hear this could be negatively influenced, and that is most certainly bad for us.

I was simply saying that the Wellcome Trust losing credibility with their fellow researchers can be good for us. Consider it a small positive light in a sea of darkness.

 

[lansbergen]

This is a virus that can reactivate.

I suspect that purification and other processing of such culture derived vaccines might deactivate the virus in nearly all cases -

Any stressor can reactivate it.

For some diseases live virus vaccines are used. These vaccines can not be treated in a way that kills viruses. That would make the vaccine inefficient.

 

[citybug]

XMRV global action says Mikovits submitted a presentation and was rejected (please check due to my fog). Coffin and the professor from Pittsburgh are on the advisory board. Can anyone in boston hold a sign, positive XMRV studies locked out of CROI?

 

[alex3619]

For some diseases live virus vaccines are used. These vaccines can not be treated in a way that kills viruses. That would make the vaccine inefficient.

Hi lansbergen, this might be correct. However, even live vaccines are attenuated, and there are processes that go on before the vaccine is extracted, I don't know enough about vaccine manufacture, but I suspect reduced risk. However, as I pointed out, even if risk is low it only has to fail once for there to be a problem. Of course if risk is high, then there is a huge problem.

Bye
Alex

 

[lansbergen]

Hi lansbergen, this might be correct. However, even live vaccines are attenuated, and there are processes that go on before the vaccine is
extracted, I don't know enough about vaccine manufacture, but I suspect reduced risk. However, as I pointed out, even if risk is low it only has to fail once for there to be a problem. Of course if risk is high, then there is a huge problem. /QUOTE]


They can reverse to more virulence.

Furthermore attenuation does not apply for contamination viruses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine

In an attenuated vaccine, live virus particles with very low virulence are administered. They will reproduce, but very slowly. Since they do reproduce and continue to present antigen beyond the initial vaccination, boosters are required less often. These vaccines are produced by growing the virus in tissue cultures that will select for less virulent strains, or by mutagenesis or targeted deletions in genes required for virulence. There is a small risk of reversion to virulence; this risk is smaller in vaccines with deletions. Attenuated vaccines also cannot be used by immunocompromised individuals.

 

[Dr. Yes]

The politics of XMRV-CFS research have reached a new low.

According to Andrea Whittemore on Facebook, neither Judy Mikovits, Frank Ruscetti, nor Sandra Ruscetti were invited to CROI; also, the CROI abstract committee rejected at least one of their abstracts on XMRV and immune dysfunction. John Coffin is sort of the top dog on the CROI committee.

In whatever XMRV discussion has been included, there is a very heavy emphasis on contamination studies and on more negative studies. Switzer and Coffin each will get two studies discussed; the WPI will get none. And of course, if Mikovits and Ruscetti are truly not invited, they won't even have a chance to critique these studies or defend their own work.

This is blatant censorship and bias, not science; it is an attempt to manipulate general opinion in the scientific community. And unfortunately it hurts everyone - especially all of us.

It's too late to do anything about it except to loudly protest, at least to let the CROI organizers know that we are aware of what they are doing and willing to make noise about it. The only contact information I've seen so far is the CROI secretariat: http://retroconference.org/2011/display.asp?page=537

If anyone can find contact info for someone higher up, please post it!

Here's the program committee, by the way, which includes Coffin and his sometime associate John Mellors (the guy who suggested that XMRV could be a contaminant in some kind of IV or IM therapies that all those positive CFS patients are taking, and who has been extremely unwisely nominated by the CAA for the CFSAC!): http://www.retroconference.org/2011/display.asp?page=298

I think we must protest this. There is a limit to how far we can let the ugly politics go and still remain silent.

 

[leaves]

Hi Dr Yes, I think this deserves a new thread...
can you include the facebook link btw? tnx

 

[shannah]

Looks like some of these sessions are being webcast.

http://www.retroconference.org/2011/data/files/webcast_2011.htm

 

[akrasia]

The Process of Elimination

(I decided to send a heads up to Racaniello, under the assumption that he cares about being fair minded in view of his volte face on XMRV and contamination. Acknowledgements to Dr. Yes for a few sentences.)

Vincent,

It's being reported on Facebook that neither Frank and Sandra Ruscetti nor Judy Mikovits has been invited to the upcoming CROI conference. The committee also rejected at least one of their abstracts on XMRV and immune dysfunction.

While there will be discussion of XMRV at the conference the emphasis will be on contamination and negative studies. The absence of Mikovits and the Ruscetti means that they will not be able to offer even a critique of these arguments, let alone defend their own work.

I've appreciated your programs on XMRV and the last one with David Tuller, even if sometimes I've been critical of things you've said. But how much faith can a lay person like me have in the "scientific process" if important views are marginalized. Where does the debate take place if not at a meeting like this?