Rutts tankespinn og ME-nyheter

Det meste av det siste innen biomedisinsk forskning på ME

Uttalelse fra Dr. Vernon om U.K. XMRV-studiet

Suzanne D. Vernon, PhD har kommet med en uttalelse om BBCs oppslag «Research finds no proof that a virus is the cause of ME»

Om Suzanne D. Vernon hentet fra cfids.org: «She earned her doctorate in virology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and worked in public health research on infectious diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 17 years before joining the CFIDS Association of America’s staff as scientific director in 2007. She has more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific publications on topics including human immunodeficiency virus, human papillomavirus, cervical cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome. Dr. Vernon has initiated and participated in numerous international and multidisciplinary research collaborations and she now leads the CFIDS Association’s research program. «

Dr. Suzanne D. Vernon skriver:

«Can this study be considered comparable to the results published by Lombardi et al., in Science? In short, no. Both studies included CFS patients defined by the 1994 case definition criteria, but this is where the comparability ends. Here are some of the ways the PLoS ONE and Science methods differ: 

  • The blood was collected from CFS patients in different types of blood collection tubes. 
  • The genomic DNA was extracted and purified using different techniques. 
  • The amount of genomic DNA included in the amplification assay was different. 
  • Different primer sequences were used that amplified different regions of the XMRV proviral DNA. 
  • The conditions of the PCR amplification assay were different – from the numbers of cycles, to the type of polymerase used. 

Should these differences affect an investigator’s ability to detect XMRV? To a microbiologist with experience handling samples and studying various infectious agents (as I am), these variances in procedure could make the difference between detecting XMRV or not.»

Les hele innlegget her 

Flere uttalelser ang U.K. XMRV-studiet vil bli lagt ut fortløpende i kommentarfeltet.

10 responses to “Uttalelse fra Dr. Vernon om U.K. XMRV-studiet

  1. Rutt 06.01.10, kl. 11:31

    ME Associations uttalelse om U.K XMRV studiet:

    A number of research groups both in the UK and abroad are now carrying out XMRV replication studies using stored blood samples.

    The first replication study to be reported in the medical literature comes from a very reputable virology/infectious disease group based at Imperial College in London. The group obtained stored blood samples from patients who have been attending the King’s College Hospital (KCH) ME/CFS service.

    The virologists examined 186 blood samples from the KCH patients who met Fukuda/CDC criteria for CFS using sensitive molecular testing techniques. DNA (viral genetic material), which was extracted from the blood samples, was screened for XMRV provirus and for the closely related murine leukaemia virus (MLV) by nested PCR (polymerise chain reaction) using specific oligonucleotide primers. PCR is a highly sensitive method that can locate tiny viral fragments. No molecular evidence of XMRV or MLV sequences was found in any of the ME/CFS samples.

    These results clearly represent a major difference in scientific opinion on the possible role of XMRV in ME/CFS.

    Among the explanations for the differing results that could be relevant are:

    1. The use of different types of ME/CFS patients in the two studies. The American patients had ‘severe disability’, were diagnosed using both CDC/Fukuda and Canadian clinical criteria, and were obtained from a small group of private physicians who take a very biomedical approach to ME/CFS. The UK sample, who had ‘high levels of disability’, were diagnosed using only Fukuda/CDC criteria and came from King’s College Hospital in London – an NHS tertiary referral centre that specialises in behavioural interventions.

    2. There may be different prevalence rates for XMRV in different countries and it is interesting to note that German researchers were unable to replicate the American results in relation to the presence of XMRV in patients with prostate cancer.

    3. The UK and USA laboratories used slightly different techniques for investigating the presence of XMRV and there may have been differing levels of risk in relation to the possibility of laboratory XMRV contamination.

    Comment from Dr Charles Shepherd, Honorary Medical Adviser to the MEA:

    «The ME Association has taken a cautious and open-minded view about the initial XMRV findings and offered to help fund further research into what could be a very significant finding. Although these UK results are clearly questioning the validity of the American conclusions, no single study can be regarded as being conclusive. So we believe it is important to wait for the results of further replication studies before drawing any firm conclusions about the possible role or pathogenicity (disease causing ability) of XMRV in ME/CFS. In the meantime, there seems little point in people with ME/CFS spending large sums of money in arranging private tests for XMRV. And in our current state of uncertainty it would not be appropriate for doctors to start prescribing antiretorviral treatment to people with ME/CFS.»

  2. petterblogg 06.01.10, kl. 14:04

    Heisan Rutt. Godt nytt år!🙂

    Så lenge Simon Wessely deltar på en retrovirus-replikasjon har jeg null tillit til dette forsøket. King College er jo sykehuset til både Simon Wessely, Trudi Chalder og Peter White. Resultatet var at de fant ikke en enesete tilfelle av XMRV i 186 tilfeller av CFS forteller vel det meste. Samtidig må det understrekes at denne testen allerede var klar månedsskiftet november /desember(!) og Wessely ventet over en måned før han fikk den publisert… Måten testene er blitt utført på har 3 – 4 graverende feil ifht. metodene brukt hos Clevland Clinic.

    WPI har utført rund 500 XMRV tester hos britiske ME syke og de fant samme forekomst som i USA, dvs. over 95% enten aktive XMRV eller antistoffer XMRV.

    Man kan spørre seg hvorfor King University Hospital setter igang replisering uten å engang sette seg inn i hvordan metodene skal utføres!! Samtidig setter selvfølgelig Wessely i gang en stor PR kampanje om dette resultatet. Han har tenkt på alt, både publisering, timing….alt.

    • Rutt 06.01.10, kl. 15:34

      Hei Petter!
      Godt nyttår :-)!!
      Jeg håper dette setter fart på andre studier feks. XMRV Task Force som ble satt igang av HHS før nyttår! Det blir spennende å høre WPIs uttalelse, jeg har ikke sett at den har kommet enda?
      Klem

  3. Rutt 06.01.10, kl. 15:08

    Pasientorganisasjonen Action for MEs uttalelse:

    «Link between XMRV and CFS?

    New UK research claims there’s no link between XMRV and CFS.

    Research published today from Imperial and King’s College London announces that they have been unsuccessful in finding the XMRV retrovirus in a sample of British patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.

    Last year, as reported on our website, the Whittlemore Peterson Institute in America found that 68 out of 101 patients with the illness appeared to be infected with the virus, compared to 8 out of 218 healthy controls.

    The recent UK study analysed tissue samples from 186 patients with CFS using sensitive molecular testing techniques, but found no evidence that they had the XMRV virus.

    In a press release issued by Imperial College, Professor Myra McClure, one of the authors of the study, said:

    “Our research was carried out under rigorous conditions – we looked at samples from well-studied patients, and we used very sensitive testing methods to look for the virus. If it had been there, we would have found it. The lab in which we carried out the analysis had never housed any of the murine leukaemia viruses related to XMRV, and we took great care to ensure there was no contamination.

    “We are confident that our results show there is no link between XMRV and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, at least in the UK. The US study had some dramatic results that implied people with the illness could be treated with anti-retrovirals. Our recommendation to people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome would be not to change their treatment regime, because our results suggest that anti-retrovirals would not be an effective treatment for the condition,” added Professor McClure.

    Sir Peter Spencer, Action for M.E. says:

    “Action for M.E. is disappointed to hear about these findings but no single small-scale study can be conclusive and the fact remains: American researchers found XMRV virus in 68 out of 101 people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Were those samples contaminated – or were those people susceptible to XMRV because they had CFS?

    “What we need is more research involving large numbers of carefully characterised patients at a number of sites, preferably using fresh, not stored, blood samples. We also need studies on large numbers of both healthy people and people with other conditions.

    “250,000 British men, women and children have this devastating illness. They need answers, better treatments and a cure.”

    Note: Imperial College London Press Release»

  4. Rutt 06.01.10, kl. 15:11

    Invest in MEs uttalelse:

    «The perennial problem of trials such as this from ICL and those funded by the Medical Research Council is that they do not use well defined patient cohorts which can negate the research results.

    To replicate a research study the patient samples used and the methodology have to be the same and in this case it appears that there are differences in both compared to the study published online 8 October, 2009 by the Science magazine.

    The organisations in USA who discovered the XMRV retrovirus used the Canadian Guidelines to select patients for their research and Invest in ME feel the Canadian Guidelines should be used for all research.

    Those who portray ME as a somatoform illness are fully aware that using patients who do not fit strict selection criteria will obviously skew results. We therefore have serious doubts about the the results of the ICL research.

    If the correct patient cohorts are not participating in the trials or different methods are used then this will affect the results.

    The result of finding no sign of XMRV would point to a different methodology to that used in the research published by the Science magazine 3.7% of controls tested positive.

    The work performed by the Whittemore-Peterson Institute (WPI) and the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic is of the highest quality and has been validated by Science magazine.

    Much more research is underway and the results from the first XMRV replication trials such as these from ICL prove little.

    People with ME and their families should expect these “false” results to be publicised early, especially as ME has been ignored by the government and research organisations for generations. However, the new XMRV research has changed the landscape for good and patients and carers can look forward to a new era of ME/CFS research based on the biomedical basis for the illness.»

    Proper science is now finally being performed.

    Those who have delayed or stopped high quality biomedical research into ME from being performed in the past, and those who continue to downplay the significance of the new research from WPI, will not be in a position to continue this denial for much longer.

    The WPI have promised more exciting news which we can expect to hear at the forthcoming 5th Invest in ME International ME/CFS Conference on 24th May in London.

    Invest in ME remain convinced that the WPI research is of monumental importance to the future of research into ME and we look forward to the future and the momentum in biomedical research into ME which the XMRV research has generated.

    Invest in ME»

  5. petterblogg 06.01.10, kl. 21:20

    Her fant jeg en offisiell uttalelse fra WPI om Simon Wesselys «hastverk» retrovirus eksperiment.🙂 (Fant uttalelsen på en utenlandsk blogg) Det er ikke vanskelig å se at Wessely og co har gjort alt de kunne for å ikke finne retrovirus. Og gudene må vite hvor/hvem dette blodet kom fra.

    Official Statement from the Whittemore Peterson Institute Regarding UK Study

    The Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) has reviewed the paper entitled “Failure to Detect the
    Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” This study did not duplicate the
    rigorous scientific techniques used by WPI, the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland
    Clinic, therefore it cannot be considered a replication study nor can the results claim to be
    anything other than a failure not just to detect XMRV, but also a failure to suggest meaningful
    results.

    The scientific methods used by WPI are very exact and require specific techniques to ensure
    accuracy. Differences in techniques employed by Erlwein et al. not only explain their failure to
    replicate the WPI study, but also render the conclusions meaningless. These differences
    include, but are not limited to the following:

    1) blood sample volumes and processing;
    2) patient criteria/population differences;
    3) number and type of tests done to assure accurate results, including white blood cell
    culture;
    4) use of a molecular plasmid control in water versus a positive blood sample; and
    5) different primer sequences and amplification protocol used to find the virus, which
    were not validated by a clinical control.

    The WPI study was published after six months of rigorous review and three independent lab
    confirmations, proving that contamination had not taken place and that infectious XMRV was
    present in 67 percent of CFS patients diagnosed according to the Canadian and Fukuda criteria.
    In contrast, this latest study was published online after only three days of review. Significant
    and critical questions remain as to the status of patient samples used in the UK study as those
    samples may have been confused with fatigued psychiatric patients, since the UK has relegated
    “CFS” patients to psychiatric care and not traditional medical practices.

    “Little is known about the prevalence of XMRV world-wide, much less the incidence of XMRV
    in ME/CFS or prostate cancer” emphasizes Dr. Judy Mikovits. “WPI and its NCI collaborators
    are actively engaged with international research teams to investigate these important questions.”
    WPI does not recommend the use of anti-retroviral drugs that have yet to be proven to be
    effective in treating XMRV infection. However, several large pharmaceutical companies have
    expressed interest in developing anti-retroviral and immune modulating drugs that will
    effectively treat XMRV associated diseases.

    WPI looks forward to the results of other scientific groups around the world, serious about
    replicating its scientific results, by using the same techniques as WPI and its collaborators. The
    fact that XMRV was detected in 67 percent of the CFS samples in the U.S. study determined a
    significant association between XMRV and CFS, demanding a much more serious inquiry by
    responsible health agencies around the world as to the cause of this debilitating disease.

    Whittemore Peterson Institute
    The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease exists to bring discovery, knowledge,
    and effective treatments to patients with illnesses that are caused by acquired dysregulation of the
    immune system and the nervous system, often results in lifelong disease and disability. The WPI is
    the first institute in the world dedicated to X associated neuro-immune disease (XAND), and other X
    associated diseases, integrating patient treatment, basic and clinical research and medical
    education.

  6. petterblogg 06.01.10, kl. 23:04

    Hastverk porsjektet til Wessely var dømt til å mislykkes. Likevel har han vært nærmest hyperaktiv på PR fronten for å avvise dette XMRV viruset. PCR er jo ikke en test, men et redskap, hvor man legger inn genom av virus, bakterier osv. I dette tilfellet var det snakk om genomet til XMRV. Hvor i all verden har de fått tak i dette genomet? Man er jo nødt å ha (i det minste) deler av dette genomet for å finne viruset. Herregud, at det går an, sier jeg..

    • Rutt 07.01.10, kl. 10:08

      Hei Petter!
      Håper dette kan få fortgang i arbeidet til Task Force gruppen. Hvis jeg ikke husker helt feil, skulle de bla sette opp standarder for hvordan man skulle teste for XMRV. Her er jo bla Dr. Mikovits med.
      Ha en fin dag🙂
      Klem

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

WordPress.com-logo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din WordPress.com konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Facebookbilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google+ konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Kobler til %s

%d bloggers like this: