XMRV not found in cell lines.....

[VillageLife]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045105611001205

 

[VillageLife]

"although in some cases DNA fragments identified as cellular sequences were seen following the first round of PCR amplification with the env primer pair."

 

[currer]

An earlier paper, (not the one on the title of this thread) Zhang et al identified XMRV in the human colorectal carcinoma cell line RKO from the Maitra lab(John Hopkins Medical centre)
http://totoneimbehl.files.wordpress...-som-detekterer-smittsomme-xmrv-juli-2011.pdf

They decided this was from horizontal spread from 22RV1 during the few days the two cell lines were maintained in the same facility.

However the paper found that 26% of cell lines were contaminated with other related XMLVs (not specifically XMRV)

".....our studies demonstrated that several MLV strains were present in over one fourth of xenografted cell lines....such contamination was widespread....Infected cultures usually release large numbers of infectious virions, and intra-laboratory spread of MLV virus to other cell lines maintained in the same facilities may occur, confirming the highly infectious nature of MLV viruses."

Judy Mikovits has been saying for a long time that she is finding a wider range of MLVs in her patients.
I wonder if this is what she is finding, and not specifically XMRV.

 

[RustyJ]

So the only MLV they picked up was VP62 from 22RV1. VP62 is the contaminant in 22RV1, right? This is too rich. First they look only for a contaminant (what's the bet they used Silverman's assays) with assays optimized to only find VP62, a lab artifact contaminant, then when they find it they dismiss it as a contaminant, but one from their own lab. My, how they weave their webs. Even these guys must know their assays are limited. The squirming is going to get more and more ugly folks as they try to wriggle out from this mess.

 

[Bob]

So the only MLV they picked up was VP62 from 22RV1. VP62 is the contaminant in 22RV1, right? This is too rich. First they look only for a contaminant (what's the bet they used Silverman's assays) with assays optimized to only find VP62, a lab artifact contaminant, then when they find it they dismiss it as a contaminant, but one from their own lab. My, how they weave their webs. Even these guys must know their assays are limited. The squirming is going to get more and more ugly folks as they try to wriggle out from this mess.

Yes, I like your sense of irony here Rusty... I haven't read the paper, but from what you say it does all seem like a fruitless waste of time, doesn't it!

 

[currer]

It is true that the findings of this paper are at variance with the Zhang et al paper, which found widespread contamination, but not specifically XMRV, but XMLVs.

 

[markmc20001]

So the only MLV they picked up was VP62 from 22RV1. VP62 is the contaminant in 22RV1, right? This is too rich. First they look only for a contaminant (what's the bet they used Silverman's assays) with assays optimized to only find VP62, a lab artifact contaminant, then when they find it they dismiss it as a contaminant, but one from their own lab. My, how they weave their webs. Even these guys must know their assays are limited. The squirming is going to get more and more ugly folks as they try to wriggle out from this mess.

I was trying to distill what happened down into a short little, and easy to understand synopsys. I think you may have nailed it.

So what really happened was an extra variable(flawed clone?) was added through whatever Silverman did with the 22RV1/Vp62? All the tests from that point on had a flawed starting point(flawed clone) because they never tried to measure exactly what Lombardi Et al found, but were actually working from a new creation(VP62/22RV) by Silverman and weren't any longer looking for what Lombardi et al found?

Unfortunately, everybody calibrated to a totally flawed starting point which was the new variable 22RV/VP62?. From that point on, everybody was measuring from some bogus reference point?

So if they were to have double checked all the 20 plus studies by running the original Lombardi methods to begin with, maybe this whole mess could have been picked up earlier on? But instead everybody went steaming down the wrong road? If I'm understanding the jist of it, that would be a miserable(maybe even careless) oversight.

That would make perfect sense to me. Pretty easy to understand why all the studies would be messed up from there on if the reference point was flawed.