1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

A nanoelectronics-blood-based diagnostic biomarker for ME/CFS (2019) Esfandyarpour, Davis et al

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Sly Saint, Apr 29, 2019.

  1. Dudden

    Dudden Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    68
    Stunning artwork my friend @ballard. The questions is: are they actually planing on funding future studies or are they simply taking credit but are never going to be from again?
     
    ballard and Barry like this.
  2. Dudden

    Dudden Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    68
    You dont say. I REALLY hope they have´nt done this just for the credit and then abandon us further.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
  3. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    If the NIH funded the earlier nanoneedle work then they still deserve some credit. They aren't doing as much as they should but they're still doing something, which is more than most other funding bodies are doing.

    I find it concerning that on Twitter anything the NIH does in relation to ME/CFS gets mostly negative responses. They are one of the few people actually trying to help and doing useful things.
     
    petrichor, Londinium, Aroa and 5 others like this.
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,884
    Location:
    UK
    As I understand it, this piece of nanoneedle technology was initially designed for other purposes related to cancer and antibiotic research and funded by NIH. That particular funding was withdrawn, I don't know why - perhaps that's normal when new technologies are developed- they get seed funding for initial development, then, as Ron himself has describe for other projects by his department, they get spun off into startup companies to be developed commercially. As far as I can work out this doesn't seem to have happened with the nanoneedle.

    The point is, that withdrawal of funds was nothing to do with ME research, since it happened before Ron Davis decided it might be re-purposed for ME research and got OMF to fund this further stage of development.

    I've just got around to reading the article. I don't think it actually says anything inaccurate on the funding.

    It says:
    and:

    Those are both, as far as I can see, accurate statements.

    I see nothing wrong in NIH publishing an article drawing attention to this further development of something they initially funded. It might even give a higher profile to any bids for further funding from Ron's team to NIH to research it further.
     
    sb4, Aroa, Diluted-biscuit and 7 others like this.
  5. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    Yes, but it is also possibly about what you wish people to infer from the statements. It is easy to draft documents so as not to allow people to mislead themselves.
     
    mango, Wonko, DokaGirl and 2 others like this.
  6. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    As far as I recall, Rons aim was to develop the technology to, in the long term, save the NIH money (using it to test drugs on particular illnesses); they (the NIH) said that this was not a priority.
    It was on one of the early conference videos.
     
  7. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    Probably the latter
    The safe money is abandonment. They are welcome to prove me wrong.
     
  8. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,595
    One of the things which have been on my mind about this is that initially the "something in the blood" which was effecting cellular energy production in ME was labelled as possibly an autoantibody. I posted that if it were an autoantibody then rituximab would have worked; however, rituximab didn't work therefore it wasn't an autoantibody.

    I wonder if it was pretty obvious that there there were other candidates for causing this change in cellular energy production i.e. exosomes.

    I think what Prusty brought to the equation was the change in mitochondrial morphology (shape) presumably caused by micro-RNAs in exosomes - after that there was no point in referring to "potentially --- autoantibody". Ron Davis etc. don't choose how the world is (Universities/profit motive); however, they have to work with it.
     
    DokaGirl likes this.
  9. DokaGirl

    DokaGirl Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,664
    Yes, @Alvin, I am hoping the NIH provides a large grant to continue this work.
     
    andypants likes this.
  10. Diluted-biscuit

    Diluted-biscuit Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    518
    I don’t think it’s easy to do that at all. Some people will mislead themselves over 2+2=4.

    *edit* not talking about anyone in particular on this site.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
  11. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    They may not be misleading themselves. Two apples and two pears do not equal four apples. Depending on the definition of "equal".
     
    sb4 and Wonko like this.
  12. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,674
    Location:
    UK
    1 apple + 1 apple doesn't necessarily make 2 apples either.

    Many factors can prevent it - relative velocity being only 1 ;)
     
    chrisb and andypants like this.
  13. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,860
    One suggestion--

    If folks still have questions on the methods of this paper, a suggestion would be to see if @JaimeS might be able to send Esfandyarpour an email to see if he would be willing to answer questions on this forum. Suggested Jaime rather than doing it myself because I assume that Jaime likely knows him and he would therefore be more likely to respond positively.

    Most academics have some community outreach/service component as part of their work plan and if he participates, we could write a note of acknowledgement.
     
    Hutan, andypants and Webdog like this.
  14. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    905
    Anthony Komaroff has had a commentary on the study published in the NEJM Journal Watch

    Requires a subscription to read it.

    https://www.jwatch.org/na49222/2019/06/04/diagnostic-test-chronic-fatigue-syndrome


    Diagnostic Test for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?
    Anthony L. Komaroff, MD reviewing Esfandyarpour R et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019 May 21

    An electrical impedance assay distinguished CFS patients from healthy controls.

    Many biomarkers — objective measurements that distinguish cases from healthy controls — have been identified in people with what is now called myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Collectively, these markers demonstrate an underlying organic pathology in this illness. Yet no identified single biomarker has the high sensitivity and specificity needed for a diagnostic test.

    Researchers developed a nanoelectronics assay to measure the impedance of electrical circuit as it was passed through mononuclear white blood cells (incubated in plasma collected from an individual patient) before and after osmotic stress. In all 20 samples from people with ME/CFS, but in no sample from healthy controls (20), impedance rose precipitously following the osmotic stressor. The investigators currently are studying the biological explanations for this clear difference in impedance.

    COMMENT
    This test achieved perfect sensitivity and specificity for identifying ME/CFS, and the nanoelectronics device used is inexpensive to manufacture and easy to use. However, only a small number of ME/CFS patients and healthy controls were evaluated, and the investigators did not test people with other fatiguing illnesses (such as multiple sclerosis or depression). Larger and more diverse sampling will be needed before this impedance assay can be deemed a diagnostic test. Whether or not this becomes a diagnostic test, studies of impedance might reveal important information about the underlying biology of illness in ME/CFS patients.
     
    sb4, Hutan, rvallee and 4 others like this.
  15. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,674
    Location:
    UK
    Does specificity mean something different than I think it does?

    As I would have assumed, until reading the second bit, that the first bit means that it's specific to ME/CFS.
     
    Hutan and Barry like this.
  16. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Maybe the meaning of specificity is being abused somewhat? Just saying it distinguished extremely well between pwME and the other people tested ... i.e. the healthy controls.
     
    Aroa, John Mac and Wonko like this.
  17. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    410
    I don't think it's being abused under the conditions of the test.
    It did show specificity between pwme and healthy controls, which is what the test was about.
     
    Ron and Barry like this.
  18. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    I guess I misunderstand what specificity means. I was thinking it meant unique discrimination of a given disease, full stop.
     
    Aroa, Wonko and Hutan like this.
  19. James Morris-Lent

    James Morris-Lent Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    United States
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
    Milo, rvallee, Mithriel and 2 others like this.
  20. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,534
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    A reasonable thought Barry when this is written
    rather than "This test achieved perfect sensitivity and specificity for identifying the people with ME/CFS in this small trial."

    I guess the latter is what Komaroff meant.
     
    Barry and andypants like this.

Share This Page