XMRV not detected in German prostate cancer

[Levi]

..........

 

[hvs]

Cleveland Clinic and National Cancer Institute reproduced the results.

 

[consuegra]

kerr

It looks like Jonathan Kerr is going to try to replicate the results.

Chris

http://cfspatientadvocate.blogspot.com

 

[consuegra]

Xmrv

I have no idea what this German study means.

However, we do not want to get over confused. As far as I recall, Jonathan Kerr's name was not on this study. He would be an obvious person to try to get similar results, using similar means. Dr. Enlander seemed to indicate yesterday that he was sending blood samples to Kerr, in order to facilitate things. As you know, Kerr and Enlander have worked together before. Jonathan Kerr is a serious researcher. Kerr also collaborates with the WPI. There is no way that this association would disqualify him from trying to get the same results (or not) as the WPI. In spite of what one would like to think, everyone is not going to be plunging into this to try to substantiate it. The replication (or non-replication) is going to come from people and alliances (cancer) that are favorably inclined. Discredit and debunking is going to come from the other side. However, science remains science and we will see. This is not a beauty contest with awards to the most beautiful and well connected.

Chris

http://cfspatientadvocate.blogspot.com

 

[gracenote]

Validation?

Here is Cort's response to mention of this study. It can be found in the XMRV - Hope and Caution link. (He doesn't cite this new study.)

That was a big study in Germany (which brings in geographic issues) and shows just how difficult this stuff can be. Science takes so many loops and turns. Another recent article on XMRV appeared to validate its existence in malignant prostate cancer in the US.

Geography? Is XMRV in Europe? It appears to be in Japan.

 

[dannybex]

Was this the same type of prostate cancer?

Seems to me in the earlier study the XMRV was found only in a percentage of patients with a particularly aggressive type of prostate cancer.

I can't decipher the scientific lingo, so not sure if these patients had the same form of cancer...

d.

 

[susan]

Our local Bond University here in Australia has just been given $2.000,000 for research for a test for CFS...just as the news of XMRV was announced. I dont want this money wasted in wages as my my Doc who has CFS thinks it will be.

They are coming to our support group next month asking for blood and explaining what they are doing..... They were working on Neuropeptides dont know what now. I would love to fire some really good questions to them about exactly what we want them to do...but what? I am sure they will be working with WPI ...I will ask. Has anyone got any good questions I could ask?

 

[gracenote]

Two studies

You can check out a summary of the following two studies at ScienceDaily. It's all too much for my brain right now except to acknowledge that replication of WPI's studies will need to be done with care and may take time.

Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related Virus May Not Be Associated With Human Prostate Cancer October 15, 2009

First Evidence Of Virus In Malignant Prostate Cells: XMRV Retrovirus Linked To More Aggressive Tumors September 8, 2009

http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=xmrv

ScienceDaily (Oct. 15, 2009) The xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) which has previously been linked to prostate cancer has been found to have a dramatically lower prevalence among German prostate cancer patients, if any. Contrary to some reports, which have found XMRV in 40% of cases in patients in the US with familial prostate cancer, research published today in BioMed Central's open access journal, Retrovirology, has found no link between the two conditions in a large study of German prostate cancer patients.

 

[hvs]

Has anyone got any good questions I could ask?

Interesting, susan. Why don't you re-post your question elsewhere, maybe as its own thread.

 

[Tony]

re the German study

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/10/viral-link-to-prostate-tumors-questioned.html

An important point from that blog: Dr. Robert Silverman of the Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, who originally discovered the virus, noted that the techniques used in Germany to look for the virus "are significantly different from the methods we use.... It is possible that the methods used may have missed detecting XMRV."

 

[garcia]

With new pathogens, the method of detection is key. If it wasn't key then the work would already been done by someone else. Two pathogens come to mind. Helicobacter Pylori. Marshall & Warren had to discover new methods of finding this illusive bug. The other is Chlamydia pneumoniae. If you read through the Stratton patents, a substantial portion is devoted to how to detect it.

So I can imagine that there are two ways of detecting XMRV. One which works (the WPI way) and one which is almost guaranteed not to work (the German method). So like everything else its going to come down to politics. Which is why the WPI work needs to be replicated by friendly (or at least neutral) parties to build up enough momentum so that the work can not be simply dismissed by the opposing camp.

 

[Finch]

Hi

Thanks for the input Garcia - it's good to see you here, although I guess you've been here longer than I have!

 

[jenbooks]

Garcia

With new pathogens, the method of detection is key. If it wasn't key then the work would already been done by someone else. Two pathogens come to mind. Helicobacter Pylori. Marshall & Warren had to discover new methods of finding this illusive bug. The other is Chlamydia pneumoniae. If you read through the Stratton patents, a substantial portion is devoted to how to detect it.

So I can imagine that there are two ways of detecting XMRV. One which works (the WPI way) and one which is almost guaranteed not to work (the German method). So like everything else its going to come down to politics. Which is why the WPI work needs to be replicated by friendly (or at least neutral) parties to build up enough momentum so that the work can not be simply dismissed by the opposing camp.

Key point and thanks for making it.

 

[MEKoan]

This also speaks to individual testing and, perhaps, the wisdom of waiting for a test which is supported by WPI so that our results will be consistent with their methods.

Koan

 

[Chris]

Repeating results...

Hi,all; I think this is going to be an ongoing story for a while yet; there is a Dr. Paul Jolicoeur at L'Institut de recherche clinique at the University of Montreal (in Montreal) who is working on trying to replicate the results of the WPI --I have no information on just how, but he is a retroviral specialist and probably knows what he is doing. In hope, Chris

 

[Christopher]

http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/23/xmrv-not-detected-in-german-prostate-cancers/

Prostate tissue samples were collected from 589 patients undergoing prostatectomy at the Universittsmedizin Berlin. DNA was extracted from the biopsy material, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to detect the presence of XMRV. None of the samples were found to contain viral DNA. Furthermore, no antibodies to XMRV were detected in serum from 146 prostate cancer patients.

Two other studies have addressed the prevalence of XMRV in Germany and Ireland. In the German study, one of 105 samples from patients with prostate cancer was found to contain viral DNA. In the Irish study, no XMRV sequences were detected in 139 patient samples.

There are at least three ways to explain the results of the most recent German study. The trivial explanation is that the assay methods were not sufficiently sensitive to detect XMRV nucleic acid or antibodies. If I were working on the German samples, I would ask the authors of the American study to examine them for XMRV using their methods. Another possibility is that XMRV is geographically restricted. Alternatively, more than one gammaretrovirus might be associated with prostate cancer, which would not have been detected by the methods used by the German group.

 

[lostinthedesert]

Discussed here:

http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?t=740

This issue was also addressed during the CFSAC meetings. I believe the current thinking is that the testing method was different.

Peace,
S

 

[Christopher]

O I'm sorry. I just was reading about that last night and didn't see it on the forum already (not that I even looked!).

 

[lostinthedesert]

Nothing to be sorry about. Plenty of duplicate threads around here, just comes with the territory.

My brain is overcooked farina. Sigh.
Susan

 

[Advocate]

O I'm sorry. I just was reading about that last night and didn't see it on the forum already (not that I even looked!).

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for the valuable link to the virology blog by Vincent Racaniello Ph.D. It's the best virology website I've seen so far.

I love Racaniello's attitude: "Since I think about viruses every day, and I have always been interested in teaching others about viruses, this blog seemed to be an ideal forum to convey some of my knowledge on this topic."