Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
It is important to note that the HGRVs or MLV-related viruses that Alter found were not Xenotropic, because they can infect mice. ...
Instead, Alter’s MLV-related viruses are called 'polytropic', because they can infect both species (humans and mice).
i have two remaining burning questions
1. why did alter/lo name their variants CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, and then say that there is not a direct link between these retroviruses and CFS?
2. are any of these newly discovered (alter/lo discovered) retroviruses the one Elaine DeFreitas found?
The viruses found are not mouse viruses they are human viruses. XMRV has changed so much from the original mouse virus that it can no longer infect mice, but the polytropic viruses have still got that.
I read that the polytropic viruses are still 80 - 90 % similar to XMRV while some of the HIV variants are only 40%.
Of the 41 patient samples, 29 were collected from 25 patients by one of us (A.L.K.) at the Chronic Fatigue Research Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA). ... Most of the patients were from the New England Area.
The 5′ gag leader sequence of previously described XMRVs represents the most divergent segment of the XMRV genome in comparison with the genomes of the other MLVs (4). In particular, there is evidently a unique 15-nt deletion in the 5′ gag leader region in all of the XMRVs previously identified in patients with prostate cancer and CFS (3, 4). To detect XMRVs in human samples with better sensitivity and specificity, some studies used a PCR primer spanning this unique deletion as the “XMRV-specific” primer (6). However, none of the viral gag gene sequences amplified from the blood samples of CFS patients and blood donors in our study has this particular deletion (Fig. S1). As a consequence, such primers might have been insensitive in detecting the MLV-related gag gene sequences that we have identified.
... the heterogeneity in gag gene sequences that we observed suggests that geographic differences in different MLV-related viruses may be considerable and could affect both the sensitivity and the specificity of molecular amplification using standard primer sets.
Indeed, it is possible that the PCR primers used in various studies may have different sensitivity in detecting the diverse group of MLV-related virus gag gene sequences that we found in the clinical samples.
But in the months since then, they have continued to study the CFS patients included in the Science paper and Mikovits says that almost all of them are positive for one or more MLV-related viruses, including X and P.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/08...is-mark-the-spot-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/
Of the 25 CFS patients who had been rigorously evaluated at the academic medical center, 24 (96%) were positive.
The other 12 samples from CFS patients were sent by individual clinicians taking care of patients in the mid-1990's who were given the diagnosis of CFS. We do not have details regarding the methodology by which the referring clinicians established the diagnosis of CFS.
Although there's still many questions to be answered at this point in time... to me, this seems like a very optimistic time for our community, and, I think, the turning point... The point of no return, in terms of scientific research.
Hi, I am one who believes this is being a great week for all of us--not the end, but the second major step in the beginning of the end--it is great news.
In response to Rrrr's question about why Alter named those variants CFS 1 etc, I assume that as in astronomy the discoverer of a new object has the privilege of naming it. Alter states, as he has to, that causality has not yet been proven, only association; but clearly he believes that causality is almost certain, given the percentages. So he names them in such a way that all subsequent discussion will have to acknowledge at least the association, even if it tries to minimize it--embarrassing, to say the least. I think it was a very clever political move--and you don't get to be a top flight researcher without developing some political savvy--I worked in academia for 34 years.
Best, Chris