XMRV: a new virus in prostate cancer ? Aloia et al


The game is afoot
Not sure if this has been posted already. I can't find it in a search. Let me know if it already has a thread and I'll get this one deleted. Thanks.

XMRV: a new virus in prostate cancer ?

Amanda L Aloia1, Karen S Sfanos2, William B Isaacs3, Qizhi Zheng4, Frank Maldarelli1, Angelo M. De Marzo4, and Alan Rein1,*

- Author Affiliations
1HIV Drug Resistance Program, National Cancer Institute
2Urology, Johns Hopkins University
3Urology, Johns Hopkins
4Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

* Corresponding Author:
Alan Rein, HIV Drug Resistance Program, National Cancer Institute, 1050 Boyles St., Frederick, MD, 21702, United States reina@mail.nih.gov


Several recent papers have reported the presence of a gammaretrovirus, termed "XMRV" (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus) in prostate cancers (PCa). If confirmed, this could have enormous implications for the detection, prevention, and treatment of PCa. However, other papers report failure to detect XMRV in PCa. We tested nearly 800 PCa samples, using a combination of real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The PCR reactions were simultaneously monitored for amplification of a single-copy human gene, in order to confirm the quality of the sample DNA and its suitability for PCR. Controls demonstrated that the PCR assay could detect the XMRV in a single infected cell, even in the presence of a 10,000-fold excess of uninfected human cells. The IHC used two rabbit polyclonal antisera, each prepared against a purified MLV protein. Both antisera always stained XMRV-infected or -transfected cells, but never stained control cells. No evidence for XMRV in PCa was obtained in these experiments. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancies in the results from different laboratories. It is possible that XMRV is not actually circulating in the human population; even if it is, the data do not seem to support a causal role for this virus in PCa.

Received August 3, 2010.
Revision received October 4, 2010.
Accepted October 9, 2010.
Copyright 2010, American Association for Cancer Research.
South Australia
It doesn't appear to state what the primary XMRV probe targets were (at least I didn't see it on a quick read - the article could have been written better..)
Additonal testing:
54 samples tested with additional probe targeted towards conserved gag sequence
41 cases, using primer from Urisman et al.
24 cases using primer from Hohn et al.
Serology: MLV30 (targets cleavage products of env) and MLV70 (targets cleavage products of gag) antisera.

Some of the discussion below:

How can our negative results be reconciled with the positive reports from other laboratories? It has been suggested that XMRV might be present in North American, but not European, prostate tumors (9). However, our samples, like those of Schlaberg et al. (4), were from North American men. Also, while we did not select RNase L R462Q homozygotes for analysis, the number of cases we examined was high enough to include a substantial number of these individuals. Another possibility is that XMRV was present in our samples, but we failed to detect it because the viral sequences were somewhat different from the published XMRV sequences. While little variation in XMRV sequences has been observed to date (the reported sequences are ~ 97% identical), this could potentially explain our negative PCR results. However, we used several primer sets, some against highly conserved MLV sequences, and still saw no MLV signals. Further, unlike PCR primers, the sera we used in our IHC assays are both broadly reactive, since they were generated using Mo–MLV proteins but reacted with the XMRV proteins in our positive controls (Mo-MLV and XMRV are 82 % identical at the aminoacid level). Thus it seems extremely improbable that sequence polymorphisms can explain our failure to detect XMRV by IHC.
It could also be proposed that infected cells are present at such a low level in virus-positive tumors that the samples we tested were too small to contain infected cells. (Contrary to this, Schlaberg et al. initially reported that positive samples contained 1-10 XMRV copies per 660 cells; 660 diploid cells contain ~ 5 ng of DNA, while we tested amounts ranging from 25 to 1000 ng (4)). This might explain the negative IHC results with tissue microarrays, but seems unlikely in the >100 tumors for which we analyzed standard slides, which generally contain more than 105 cells.
Finally, another conceivable explanation for the staining seen by Schlaberg et al. (4) is that the anti-XMRV serum used in their experiments contains antibodies directed against cellular proteins, in addition to the antibodies against XMRV proteins. The XMRV used as immunogen by Schlaberg et al. was apparently produced in human cells.
It is thus difficult to exclude the possibility that human proteins were present in the virus preparation used as immunogen. HIV-1 virus particles are known to incorporate a wide variety of proteins from the virus-producing cells (13), so that these proteins are impossible to remove from the virus; indeed, early vaccine trials with simian immunodeficiency virus were confounded by this phenomenon (14, 15). Incorporation of major histocompatibility complex proteins into MLV particles has also been reported (16). We received PCa tissue sections (kindly provided by Dr Ila Singh, University of Utah) from a number of cases from specimens used by Schlaberg et al. (4). Based on their results with the anti-XMRV antiserum, these samples were predicted to be IHC-positive.
However, the sections did not stain with our MLV30 or MLV70 antisera (data not shown). While we cannot fully explain the discrepancies in staining results, Switzer et al. have also demonstrated that under immunoblotting conditions, the anti-XMRV antiserum (4) reacts with proteins in uninfected HeLa cells (17).
Many laboratories have used PCR to detect XMRV in clinical samples. However, the extraordinary sensitivity of this technique magnifies the risk of finding false positives, as well as the ability to find authentic positives. The risk is compounded by the widespread use of mice in biomedical research. Every mouse cell contains, in its DNA, ~100 MLV genomes, termed “endogenous viruses”. These genomes reflect past infections of germ cells and the resulting integration of the viral sequences into the mouse germline.
As PCR is capable of amplifying and detecting a single molecule of viral DNA, this means that, for example, (depending, of course, on the specificity of the primers) a millionth of a microliter of mouse blood is a potential source of a positive signal in a PCR assay for MLV. Indeed, there are anecdotal reports of false-positive MLV signals ultimately traced to the use of the same microtome blade for cutting mouse and PCa sections, and to the tiny amounts of mouse DNA contaminating the mouse antipolymerase monoclonal antibody used in commercial “hot start” PCR kits.
The existence of endogenous MLVs may be pertinent to another recent set of observations. In an attempt to reproduce the detection of XMRV in cases of CFS, Lo et al. (18) performed PCR and reverse transcription-PCR on blood samples from CFS patients and healthy blood donors. They obtained positive signals from a high proportion of the CFS cases (and a much lower proportion of the healthy donors). However, when the PCR products were sequenced, they were found to differ from XMRV; thus these results are completely distinct from the reports of XMRV detection. In fact, the sequences match endogenous MLV sequences almost exactly. It should be emphasized that (unlike the studies reporting isolation of XMRV) this report does not include direct evidence for the presence of an infectious virus: the data consisted exclusively of amplification and detection of MLV-like sequences. Notably, the endogenous MLVs that they resemble most closely are defective MLV genomes which do not give rise to infectious MLV. While the authors provided strong experimental evidence arguing against contamination of their clinical samples with mouse DNA, this remains a possible explanation for their results.
In conclusion, the fundamental question of whether XMRV is really an infectious agent circulating in the human population is still unresolved. This question will not be settled until reproducible assays for the virus are established and validated; in turn this will require exchange of samples and testing of well-characterized standards, followed by cross-comparison of results obtained in different laboratories. Efforts in this direction are now underway at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. However, based on the data presented here, as well as that from other investigators (8-11), we are doubtful that XMRV is commonly found in PCa. Over the years, many claims associating viruses with diseases have turned out to be mistaken (19, 20), and it is still possible that XMRV will fall into this category.
Finally, it is crucial to distinguish the question of the existence and prevalence of XMRV in the human population from the question of its causal role in PCa. In general, gammaretroviruses like XMRV induce malignant transformation by insertional mutagenesis, so that tumors induced by a gammaretrovirus are clones in which all the cells are infected (21). This mechanism of carcinogenesis has been observed not only in laboratory animals, but also in children exposed to gammaretrovirus-derived vectors in gene-therapy trials (22, 23). Although some exceptions to this insertional mutagenesis mechanism have been described (24), the viral genome is present in the transformed cells in all known cases. Thus, infection of an extremely minute fraction of the cells in some prostate tumors, even if confirmed, would seem to be incompatible with the possibility that XMRV plays a causal role in prostate tumorigenesis.


Senior Member
We're back to questions about positive controls. We also have the usual confusion of XMRV with MLV itself.

The whole field has problems with endogenous sequences, and I would like to know more about how these were resolved. Choosing highly-conserved sequences is likely to put you close to matching endogenous sequences. Avoiding these pushes you toward more variable sequences. which the PCR assay's exquisite selectivity then rejects.

This is one area where long experience with a specific virus plays a major role. Weighed in the balance, Silverman and Singh have more relevant experience. And, neither Lo nor Alter is exactly naive.

The hypothesis that insertional mutagenesis by known XMRV sequences must be the cause of PCa seems to be telling the virus how it must behave, not learning from nature. The low rate of PCa appearance in infected prostates suggests it is the result of very rare events. These could be due to rare variants, not the most common virus. In that case, clones of that cell would carry the variant, not standard XMRV.

I am disappointed, not simply that this failed to confirm other reports, but by the small amount of useful data extracted. This is basically a single bit. Silverman and Singh both seem to be generating considerably more data, and data which correlates with something other than a particular laboratory or experiment.

If Alter and Lo have gone on to detect XMRV and isolate infective virus, as reported, some objections voiced here will already be void.