Switzer now finds (some) XMRV in Prostate Cancer

[taniaaust1]

One thing which has made me doubt the XMRV stuff more lately is thinking about prostate cancer and ME/CFS. If they were both caused by the same virus one would expect to hear of more of them getting ME/CFS or more of us getting prostate cancer. Prostate cancer thou hasnt been said to be any more common in us then in the normal population.

(Id believe things more if the XMRV had caused a stir due to being found in one of the cancers which have been associated with ME/CFS).

:sofa: so I'll sit back and await how this all plays out.

 

[Bob]

One thing which has made me doubt the XMRV stuff more lately is thinking about prostate cancer and ME/CFS. If they were both caused by the same virus one would expect to hear of more of them getting ME/CFS or more of us getting prostate cancer. Prostate cancer thou hasnt been said to be any more common in us then in the normal population.

(Id believe things more if the XMRV had caused a stir due to being found in one of the cancers which have been associated with ME/CFS).

:sofa: so I'll sit back and await how this all plays out.

It's a good point that you make. A possible answer to that is that prostate cancer tissue might just be a tissue that XMRV can live and replicate in easily. Maybe XMRV doesn't cause prostate cancer, but just takes advantage of it. Another possible answer is that most healthy people are infected with XMRV, but it is only detectable in ME patients or in prostate cancer tissue, due to an altered immune response in each. In which case, XMRV could be used as a useful biomarker for ME, even if it's not the cause. Or maybe there are different strains of XMRV in ME patients and prostate cancer patients, which have slightly different disease causing behaviours. Or there could be many other answers. We just don't have any answers. I think it's a good idea to sit back and watch it playing out. It can be too emotionally exhausting any other way!

 

[currer]

Regarding the cancer link and XMRV. I was thinking about this yesterday and did somr looking about on the internet.(I wont dignify it with the term "research")

Roughly speaking;
In the last thirty years -
Prostate cancer has tripled, (and this rise has been in all the age groups, not just the elderly),
breast cancer has risen by 50%,
Non - Hogkins lymphomas have doubled. From being very rare they have now become the fifth most common cancer.
Of course the ME/CFS charities have been saying that ME/CFS numbers have also risen dramatically during this period. But typically for this disease, no proper figures exist.

Otherwise, it would be interesting to plot all these disease statistics on a graph and see if the rise in these threee cancers is mirrored by the growth in ME/CFS cases.

There is no real explanation for this rise in these cancers, but I did find the following interesting article, suggesting a link to some kind of lowered immunity state leading to the rise in NHL (though this is just a theory and not proven) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/7/494.full

I think the WPI are trying to draw together this data and the XMRV hypothesis to account for this unexplained rise in cancer.

It is an interesting hypothesis but of course is not proven and may not be correct. But I think this is why they are so focussed on the MLV hypothesis as they think it could account for both the immune problems thought to POSSIBLY underly lymphoma, and of course the hormonally driven cancers of the prostate and breast.

However if the theory is true, the scientist who proves it will become famous.
This could be one reason for the fight that is going on at the moment.

 

[Bob]

I've been thinking about this study more... About how many of the negative studies it disproves... Here are some of the things that this study proves:

1. XMRV is not mouse contamination.
2. XMRV is a human virus.
3. XMRV detected in humans is not a contaminant from a cell line.
4. XMRV is extremely hard to detect in the blood.
5. XMRV exists in prostate cancer patients, but is extremely hard to detect in prostate cancer tissue.
6. There are a wide variety of XMRV strains.

Have I missed anything?

The CDC confirming that XMRV is a human virus, and that it has barely detectable, extremely low copy numbers in prostate tissue and is even harder to detect in the blood... I never thought I'd see the CDC confirm that XMRV is a human virus, and then single-handedly blow all of the negative studies out of the water!

 

[Valb626]

I also found this paper really interesting! I had just finished the Singh paper when I read it, so I was wearing "contamination" eyeglasses. I found it interesting that they developed a new contamination test for murine MCOX2 (whatever that is). I didn't see that they tested the Taqman products used in their PCRs for contamination, but that wouldn't matter here, because their plasma results were all negative.

Isn't this one of the teams in the Lipkin study?

 

[currer]

Hi,
As I am not a virologist I will ask this as a question, but I thought that A XMRV could not be BY DEFINITION, mouse contamination, as it cannot live in mouse cells?

Are the sequences they are finding in this paper sufficiently diverse from mouse viruses to be HGRVs? If they are, there can be no contamination issues here.

In fact the CDC conclude in this paper that their findings are not contamination.

 

[currer]

I've been thinking about this study more... About how many of the negative studies it disproves... Here are some of the things that this study proves:

1. XMRV is not mouse contamination.
2. XMRV is a human virus.
3. XMRV detected in humans is not a contaminant from a cell line.
4. XMRV is extremely hard to detect in the blood.
5. XMRV exists in prostate cancer patients, but is extremely hard to detect in prostate cancer tissue.
6. There are a wide variety of XMRV strains.

Have I missed anything?

The CDC confirming that XMRV is a human virus, and that it has barely detectable, extremely low copy numbers in prostate tissue and is extremely hard to detect in the blood... I never thought I'd see the CDC confirm that XMRV is a human virus, and then single-handedly blow all of the negative studies out of the water!

Dont think you have missed anything, Bob. This is what JM has been saying all along!

 

[currer]

One thing which has made me doubt the XMRV stuff more lately is thinking about prostate cancer and ME/CFS. If they were both caused by the same virus one would expect to hear of more of them getting ME/CFS or more of us getting prostate cancer. Prostate cancer thou hasnt been said to be any more common in us then in the normal population.

(Id believe things more if the XMRV had caused a stir due to being found in one of the cancers which have been associated with ME/CFS).

:sofa: so I'll sit back and await how this all plays out.

JM's abstract to the NYAS talked about lymphomas in CFS patients expressing large amounts of XMRV.

 

[justy]

Dont think you have missed anything, Bob. This is what JM has been saying all along!

My thoughts exactly.
Just want you to know you are not alone on this thread. others are watching too. This seems like it could be being played up a bit more though.

 

[liquid sky]

I just finally read through this thread. It is a much more illuminating study than the Singh study. Thanks everyone for dissecting the study so well.

I have wondered if a possible route for infection through the body could be the lymphatic system, since the virus obviously leaves the blood quickly. Another possibility is that the virus lives in B cells like EBV. This would help it to evade detection from the immune system. B cells are implicated in autoimmune conditions and also in malignancies.

I think I have heard Judy say that she has found it in both B and possibly T cells. Would it not be a good place to look for the virus, rather than whole blood or plasma? The Rituxan study and anecdotal info shows a reduction in all symptoms of ME with B cell depletion therapy. Then it comes back, as newly formed B cells are infected. The next Rituxan study is about to be released, I believe, can't remember the name of the conference?

This was a great study. I hope they don't try to ditch ME/CHF and just concentrate on prostate cancer though.

 

[Bob]

I just finally read through this thread. It is a much more illuminating study than the Singh study. Thanks everyone for dissecting the study so well.

I have wondered if a possible route for infection through the body could be the lymphatic system, since the virus obviously leaves the blood quickly. Another possibility is that the virus lives in B cells like EBV. This would help it to evade detection from the immune system. B cells are implicated in autoimmune conditions and also in malignancies.

I think I have heard Judy say that she has found it in both B and possibly T cells. Would it not be a good place to look for the virus, rather than whole blood or plasma? The Rituxan study and anecdotal info shows a reduction in all symptoms of ME with B cell depletion therapy. Then it comes back, as newly formed B cells are infected. The next Rituxan study is about to be released, I believe, can't remember the name of the conference?

This was a great study. I hope they don't try to ditch ME/CHF and just concentrate on prostate cancer though.

Interesting points, liquid sky...

I've wondered if the lymphatic system might be involved as well... Has Judy mentioned this at some point? I can't remember.

I don't know too much about the lymphatic system, but I wondered if it might explain how the virus was detected in respiratory secretions (are mucous secretions related to the lymphatic system in any way?), and am I right in thinking that you get a lot of immune cells being created in the lymphatic system?

 

[Bob]

Hi,
As I am not a virologist I will ask this as a question, but I thought that A XMRV could not be BY DEFINITION, mouse contamination, as it cannot live in mouse cells?

Are the sequences they are finding in this paper sufficiently diverse from mouse viruses to be HGRVs? If they are, there can be no contamination issues here.

In fact the CDC conclude in this paper that their findings are not contamination.

Hi currer,

Yes, the CDC conclude that that they have detected XMRV and that these viruses are living in humans...

XMRV is not designated as a mouse virus... It's designated a human virus... It has not yet been found living in any mouse populations, although it is possible to infect some mice with XMRV.

The general consensus now seems to be that XMRV is not a mouse virus... even amongst the scientists who are denying the XMRV-ME association.

I don't know anything about A XMRV... I'd never heard of it before this week... I'll look out for more info on it.

I'm not a virologist either! But I hope that helps a bit.

Bob

 

[currer]

I don't know anything about A XMRV... I'd never heard of it before this week... I'll look out for more info on it.


Hi Bob, dont worry A XMRV is just "a xenotropic murine retrovirus" It is not another new virus! Just a typo!

 

[currer]

Regarding where to find XMRV - heapsreal posted a new thread about research in 1995 on ME/CFS with the following link which shows that even then they could find MLVs in peripheral blood lymphocytes.
http://www.ncf-net.org/library/jcfsvirus95.htm

I had not thought specifically about this but would it be true then that if XMRV hides in white blood cells a test of plasma or whole blood would not find it?
Would you need to use a specific test to get at/into the contents of these white blood cells?

If so, is testing blood or plasma a waste of time? Why are they doing it then?

 

[Bob]

Regarding where to find XMRV - heapsreal posted a new thread about research in 1995 on ME/CFS with the following link which shows that even then they could find MLVs in peripheral blood lymphocytes.
http://www.ncf-net.org/library/jcfsvirus95.htm

I had not thought specifically about this but would it be true then that if XMRV hides in white blood cells a test of plasma or whole blood would not find it?
Would you need to use a specific test to get at/into the contents of these white blood cells?

If so, is testing blood or plasma a waste of time? Why are they doing it then?

Thanks for the link currer... It looks interesting... I'll read it later.

My understanding is that the plasma is the liquid of the blood with all the blood cells taken out of it. It's the liquid in which the blood cells are usually suspended.
In which case, any XMRV in the white blood cells would not be detected in the plasma.

'Whole blood', for research purposes, would include both white blood cells and red blood cells, although the white blood cells are sometimes, or usually, removed from the 'whole blood' for blood transfusions. So this makes it a bit confusing.

If white blood cells are included for research purposes, which I assume they are, then any XMRV in the white blood cells should be detectable, in theory.

 

[Jemal]

One thing which has made me doubt the XMRV stuff more lately is thinking about prostate cancer and ME/CFS. If they were both caused by the same virus one would expect to hear of more of them getting ME/CFS or more of us getting prostate cancer. Prostate cancer thou hasnt been said to be any more common in us then in the normal population.

(Id believe things more if the XMRV had caused a stir due to being found in one of the cancers which have been associated with ME/CFS).

:sofa: so I'll sit back and await how this all plays out.

CFS is obviously a woman's disease and women don't have prostates.

/sarcasm

Anyway, do we have enough data on the CFS population that we can say for sure that the prostate cancer percentage is "normal"? I think research in this area is lacking.

Also there is the theory that CFS is the state where the immune system has detected XMRV and is engaging it with everything it got. There's some evidence, as many of our symptoms could be caused by our own immune system. If this is the case, our immune system might actually be protecting us from certain other diseases XMRV is involved with, like cancer. So a person that is XMRV+ and does not have CFS, could actually be at a higher risk to get cancer than a person that is XMRV+ and has CFS. This would not make us immune obviously, as the immune system can only sustain this battle for a while. Eventually it would become exhausted and we might be at even a greater risk to get certain infections and cancers. Many of us show signs of immune depletion I think?

 

[currer]

But the white blood cells would need to be treated to break open the cell membrane before the contents could be tested.
Then any virus could spill out and be detectable. You would not be able to detect if the cells were intact would you?

 

[Bob]

But the white blood cells would need to be treated to break open the cell membrane before the contents could be tested.
Then any virus could spill out and be detectable. You would not be able to detect if the cells were intact would you?

I don't know what the exact procedures are, but I imagine that you are right about that... They would treat the blood samples before doing any testing, so that all of the DNA material was floating around freely. I'm afraid that I don't know any more about the basic details than you do currer. But these scientists should be able to get the basics right!

Judy has complained that other researchers are not culturing the samples for 45 days like she does, and about things like differences in the specificity of the PCR, and Lo mentioned differences in annealing temperatures (whatever they are), along with the fact that other small differences in methodology can lead to very different results.

 

[liquid sky]

I don't know what the exact procedures are, but I imagine that you are right about that... They would treat the blood samples before doing any testing, so that all of the DNA material was floating around freely. I'm afraid that I don't know any more about the basic details than you do currer. But these scientists should be able to get the basics right! Judy has complained that other scientists are not culturing the samples for 45 days like she does, and about things like differences in the specificity of the PCR, and Lo mentioned differences in annealing temperatures (whatever they are), along with the fact that other small differences in methodology can lead to very different results.

I don't think they would find it in the blood except for when the virus is budding. If it is in the B cells, they would have to be broken open or have undergone apoptosis for the virus to be exposed. Judy knows how to find it and if they would just do a real replication study using her exact methods, others could find it too.

I do see tissue studies being important, especially lymph nodes. One of the most important changes in the hunt for HIV was when the French decided to look in the lymph nodes rather than the blood. I wish they would do that study now.

 

[lansbergen]

I don't think they would find it in the blood except for when the virus is budding.

Virions bud but those contain RNA. Who tests for DNA is not looking for budding virions.