-
Phoenix Rising has opened two new sub-forums: Autoimmunity and Autoimmune Diseases and Long COVID and Coronavirus.
XMRV + by culture and negative by serology
- Thread starter serg1942
- Start date
Hi everybody,
I just wanted to let you know that my test results for XMRV came, and that I was positive by culture:victory:, but negative by serology...
S.
I just wanted to let you know that my test results for XMRV came, and that I was positive by culture:victory:, but negative by serology...
S.
did they also tell you why this is ? You should expect that one makes antibodies to a virus, so this result should be + ? Unless you don't make any antibodies, or the test is just not sensitive enough...
OS.
This is what I know:
1- The current test is unable to detect antibodies bound to the virus, what makes the tests less reliable...
2- The lymphocytes B (LB) have been shown to be infected by XMRV. Once this happens, they do not die, but instead are left in a state of anergy (they don’t work). So, because LB are the cells that synthesize antibodies, it is expected for an XMRV infected patient not to form many antibodies…
S.
1- The current test is unable to detect antibodies bound to the virus, what makes the tests less reliable...
2- The lymphocytes B (LB) have been shown to be infected by XMRV. Once this happens, they do not die, but instead are left in a state of anergy (they don’t work). So, because LB are the cells that synthesize antibodies, it is expected for an XMRV infected patient not to form many antibodies…
S.
We've talked about a new poll since more serology results are coming in and the new serology test seems better than the "old" one.
Is anyone up for making one? (Please, not me!)
I am also positive by culture and "none detected" in serology.
Sushi
Is anyone up for making one? (Please, not me!
)I am also positive by culture and "none detected" in serology.
Sushi
We've talked about a new poll since more serology results are coming in and the new serology test seems better than the "old" one.
Is anyone up for making one? (Please, not me!)
I am also positive by culture and "none detected" in serology.
Sushi
Is anyone up for making one? (Please, not me!
)I am also positive by culture and "none detected" in serology.
Sushi
I agree with Sushi. Another poll is needed. It should probably state that this is the VIP test (as other antibody tests are likely to come out soon). I'm a positive culture, negative serology also. I've never set up a poll and am nervous about messing it up. Where are all the poll pros?
- Messages
- 368
- Likes
- 579
CONGRATULATIONS sergio!!!!!
i, too, am + by culture and - by serology
xxoo
rivka
i, too, am + by culture and - by serology
xxoo
rivka
One clue about this that appears to have slipped past quite a few people, is some work by the WPI with a treatment study. I can't remember where I saw this, or what the treatment was, but I have a feeling it was Ampligen. I'm also not sure what the nature of that paper was, but it wasn't published, obviously. Maybe a conference presentation / poster.
Anyway: the finding was that the patients who were negative for antibodies were less responsive to the treatment.
It was a worrying finding, I'm afraid, for patients who are negative for antibodies. The implication to me seemed to be that there is variation amongst patients as to their ability to mount an effective immune response to XMRV, and that those who are unable to mount an effective immune response are less likely to benefit from the treatment. The paper also prompted me to wonder whether this difference might also represent the difference between the "frequent colds" and "never catch colds" versions of ME, or the difference between 'severe' and 'moderate' symptoms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news here: it's all very preliminary of course, but that's all we have to go on at the moment. Hopefully somebody will remember the paper I'm referring to...
Regarding setting up a poll: it's quite easy to do as an option when creating a new thread. The most common errors are failing to make the view of who voted for what private (there's an option on the 'create poll' for that) and failing to think through the options in the poll. I suggest that people on this thread draft out a question and a list of options, refine it together a bit, and then create the poll. No great expertise required.
Anyway: the finding was that the patients who were negative for antibodies were less responsive to the treatment.
It was a worrying finding, I'm afraid, for patients who are negative for antibodies. The implication to me seemed to be that there is variation amongst patients as to their ability to mount an effective immune response to XMRV, and that those who are unable to mount an effective immune response are less likely to benefit from the treatment. The paper also prompted me to wonder whether this difference might also represent the difference between the "frequent colds" and "never catch colds" versions of ME, or the difference between 'severe' and 'moderate' symptoms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news here: it's all very preliminary of course, but that's all we have to go on at the moment. Hopefully somebody will remember the paper I'm referring to...
Regarding setting up a poll: it's quite easy to do as an option when creating a new thread. The most common errors are failing to make the view of who voted for what private (there's an option on the 'create poll' for that) and failing to think through the options in the poll. I suggest that people on this thread draft out a question and a list of options, refine it together a bit, and then create the poll. No great expertise required.
Hi Ronan,
Sorry for the delay. My onset was sudden, probably triggered by a very high Hg poisoning...No previous infection signs such a flu or mononucleosis and any previous symptoms...So it seems it doesn't matter how you develop the disease, but the factors that perpetuate it. Hopefully one of the major factors is XMRV...
Saluditos,
Sergio
Sorry for the delay. My onset was sudden, probably triggered by a very high Hg poisoning...No previous infection signs such a flu or mononucleosis and any previous symptoms...So it seems it doesn't matter how you develop the disease, but the factors that perpetuate it. Hopefully one of the major factors is XMRV...
Saluditos,
Sergio
C
One clue about this that appears to have slipped past quite a few people, is some work by the WPI with a treatment study. I can't remember where I saw this, or what the treatment was, but I have a feeling it was Ampligen. I'm also not sure what the nature of that paper was, but it wasn't published, obviously. Maybe a conference presentation / poster.
Anyway: the finding was that the patients who were negative for antibodies were less responsive to the treatment.
It was a worrying finding, I'm afraid, for patients who are negative for antibodies. The implication to me seemed to be that there is variation amongst patients as to their ability to mount an effective immune response to XMRV, and that those who are unable to mount an effective immune response are less likely to benefit from the treatment. The paper also prompted me to wonder whether this difference might also represent the difference between the "frequent colds" and "never catch colds" versions of ME, or the difference between 'severe' and 'moderate' symptoms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news here: it's all very preliminary of course, but that's all we have to go on at the moment. Hopefully somebody will remember the paper I'm referring to...
Regarding setting up a poll: it's quite easy to do as an option when creating a new thread. The most common errors are failing to make the view of who voted for what private (there's an option on the 'create poll' for that) and failing to think through the options in the poll. I suggest that people on this thread draft out a question and a list of options, refine it together a bit, and then create the poll. No great expertise required.
Anyway: the finding was that the patients who were negative for antibodies were less responsive to the treatment.
It was a worrying finding, I'm afraid, for patients who are negative for antibodies. The implication to me seemed to be that there is variation amongst patients as to their ability to mount an effective immune response to XMRV, and that those who are unable to mount an effective immune response are less likely to benefit from the treatment. The paper also prompted me to wonder whether this difference might also represent the difference between the "frequent colds" and "never catch colds" versions of ME, or the difference between 'severe' and 'moderate' symptoms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news here: it's all very preliminary of course, but that's all we have to go on at the moment. Hopefully somebody will remember the paper I'm referring to...
Regarding setting up a poll: it's quite easy to do as an option when creating a new thread. The most common errors are failing to make the view of who voted for what private (there's an option on the 'create poll' for that) and failing to think through the options in the poll. I suggest that people on this thread draft out a question and a list of options, refine it together a bit, and then create the poll. No great expertise required.
There are many stealth pathogens that get around the immune system undetected....xmrv could be one of them for a number of reasons.
On the other point....I remember that study on differences in Tx responsiveness based on antibody status. Well of course one would respond more favorably treatment if their immune systems already recognize the pathogen....but more studies are needed to say that with any certainty regarding XMRV.
Hi everybody,
I just wanted to let you know that my test results for XMRV came, and that I was positive by culture:victory:, but negative by serology...
S.
I just wanted to let you know that my test results for XMRV came, and that I was positive by culture:victory:, but negative by serology...
S.
Count me in as another who is culture +, negative by serology.
Marg, if a person is positive on one of the tests the person definately has XMRV. The culture test checks for the actual virus in the blood while the serology checks for the antibodies (our immune response) to the virus in the blood. If XMRV is winning the war then the culture test would be positive & our bodies may not be mounting an immune response to the virus so the serology (antibody) test would be negative. If our body is mounting a good immune response to XMRV then we would be positive for the serology test & test negative for the culture because the immune system has fought off XMRV to undetectable levels in the blood. Hope this helps.
Marg, if a person is positive on one of the tests the person definately has XMRV. The culture test checks for the actual virus in the blood while the serology checks for the antibodies (our immune response) to the virus in the blood. If XMRV is winning the war then the culture test would be positive & our bodies may not be mounting an immune response to the virus so the serology (antibody) test would be negative. If our body is mounting a good immune response to XMRV then we would be positive for the serology test & test negative for the culture because the immune system has fought off XMRV to undetectable levels in the blood. Hope this helps.
Hi X-man,
are you sure that no antibodies are produced ? I have always been told that antibody is always produced, if it's efficient to eliminate the virus, is a complete different story, but antibodies are always produced.
What might be playing here, is that the antibody-test is not sensitive enough, when antibodies are created in small amounts, due to low viral load. I know this is the case with HTLV. The commercial serology test for HTLV1-2 is sensitive, but not 100%, so you can have false negatives, while you might be positive. I got this from a HTLV-researcher, and she carried out a much more sensitive test on me.
And I guess it might be the case with XMRV too, seen the similarities with HTLV.
OS.
are you sure that no antibodies are produced ? I have always been told that antibody is always produced, if it's efficient to eliminate the virus, is a complete different story, but antibodies are always produced.
What might be playing here, is that the antibody-test is not sensitive enough, when antibodies are created in small amounts, due to low viral load. I know this is the case with HTLV. The commercial serology test for HTLV1-2 is sensitive, but not 100%, so you can have false negatives, while you might be positive. I got this from a HTLV-researcher, and she carried out a much more sensitive test on me.
And I guess it might be the case with XMRV too, seen the similarities with HTLV.
OS.
I am not at all scientifically minded, but could undetectable levels of XMRV in the blood also mean the virus as migrated to other cells, yet remain infectious and replicating? Could this give a false neg/neg result?
BB
BB
Overstressed,
What my VIP serology test actually said was "none detected"--not negative. So it is possible that it isn't sensitive enough to detect low levels of anti-bodies.
BB,
I think yes about XMRV migrating to "reservoirs." This is why KDM is doing stomach biopsies on some people and finding it there when it wasn't detected by serology or culture.
Sushi
What my VIP serology test actually said was "none detected"--not negative. So it is possible that it isn't sensitive enough to detect low levels of anti-bodies.
BB,
I think yes about XMRV migrating to "reservoirs." This is why KDM is doing stomach biopsies on some people and finding it there when it wasn't detected by serology or culture.
Sushi