Dr Karl Morten - UK researcher based at Oxford University

Sasha said:
Is there a way to automatically generate a transcript of this? It has the option for closed captions but the instructions I've found on the Net for generating a transcript from them don't work.
Click to expand...

If you view it on youtube, under the video there are three dots. If you click on them, you're given the option to view the transcript. If you skip to the end of the video, it will show the entire transcript, and it's possible to copy it. When copying it into a text file, it inserts a linebreak after every timestap. I made a textfile where these linebreaks have been removed (with search and replace that uses a regex to distinguish between linebreaks that follow digits and those that follow lettes).
 

Attachments

strategist said:
If you view it on youtube, under the video there are three dots. If you click on them, you're given the option to view the transcript. If you skip to the end of the video, it will show the entire transcript, and it's possible to copy it. When copying it into a text file, it inserts a linebreak after every timestap. I made a textfile where these linebreaks have been removed (with search and replace that uses a regex to distinguish between linebreaks that follow digits and those that follow lettes).
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll see if I can process it further.
 
Russell Fleming said:
I finally cleared some time to watch the video and I also have the slides that Dr Morten used.

The MEA helped fund the talk so we'll be publishing both and summarising highlights - did you guys pick up on the Acumen/Myhill/Booth research outcomes? - probably tomorrow now. I had hoped to do it earlier this week, but couldn't due to workload.

I was surprised to see Dr Morten talking openly about the MRC application - researchers don't tend to do so fearing it might jeopardise applications - but I hope it will lead to something positive we can all celebrate in the New Year.

Russell
Click to expand...
Can you clarify a bit on this? Did the Myhill test look positive or not? Or was it another mito test that had the positive results?
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
I've read the transcript and it seems a blood test didn't work, but another mito test did. It's not entirely clear at that point.
Click to expand...

I couldn't even make that much sense out of it. I wonder if he was pointing at the slide or doing something else that would have made it clear to the audience. I thought he was referring to two blood tests where one did something and the other didn't but I couldn't tell which was the Acumen test.
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
Can you clarify a bit on this? Did the Myhill test look positive or not?
Click to expand...
I watched some parts of this presentation twice. My understanding was that his team and the Newcastle team followed the Accumen test method and could not reproduce their results - no difference between patient and control.

He said that blood starts to change as soon as you draw it and 24 hours later it is different to what it was at the time of the draw. Patients send Accumen blood overnight, so there is a 24 hour delay between draw and processing. If you run the test on 24 hour blood vs fresh blood you get different results.

He then said that Newcastle ran the Seahorse mito test and found differences. So yes the mitochondial energy cycle is affected, but they could not determine that by following the Accumen procedure.
 
I was very impressed by Dr. Karl Morten. He has 30 years of Mitochondria research experience. He decided to enter the ME/CFS field as he wants to "make a difference for patients" in this next stage of his career. Despite being fairly new to the field he is already well connected and has set up collaborations with other researchers and doctors.

He seems to think out of the box. He did a plasma swap experiment with healthy muscle cells and showed oxygen consumption is different when mixed with patient plasma vs healthy plasma.

So refreshing to see another researcher enter the field and share results before publication.

I wonder what the unknown metabolite is at the 47min time point????? It was also mentioned in the August ME association PDF

Basal metabolic rate

Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the rate of body energy expenditure over time. Initial comparisons indicate that basal metabolic rate is strongly correlated with two unidentified metabolites, that do not have accepted chemical names in the metabolomics database.

However, as variables such as age and BMI are well known to have an impact on basal metabolic rate we attempted to control for these variables whilst analysing males and females separately.

Males were found to have a higher average BMR and when correcting the correlation for age and BMI and using a form of regression analysis, these confounded the correlation with basal metabolic rate. Conversely, following these corrections, previously insignificant metabolites exhibit significant correlations.

Without correcting for confounding factors (age and BMI) none of the metabolites with high VIP scores correlated with fatigue scores. However, with confounder correction using partial regression analysis to account for these factors, one of the unknown metabolites showed a strong correlation.
Click to expand...
 
wigglethemouse said:
I was very impressed by Dr. Karl Morten. He has 30 years of Mitochondria research experience. He decided to enter the ME/CFS field as he wants to "make a difference for patients" in this next stage of his career. Despite being fairly new to the field he is already well connected and has set up collaborations with other researchers and doctors.

He seems to think out of the box. He did a plasma swap experiment with healthy muscle cells and showed oxygen consumption is different when mixed with patient plasma vs healthy plasma.

So refreshing to see another researcher enter the field and share results before publication.

I wonder what the unknown metabolite is at the 47min time point????? It was also mentioned in the August ME association PDF
Click to expand...
Does any of this tie in with Ron Davis' teams work? (ie serum test/mystery molecule etc).

As much of the OMF stuff is not published I wonder if Dr Morten has watched any of the OMF presentations? (he didn't pronounce Fluge right which makes me wonder if he has only read papers, but I could be wrong of course).

Is Ron Davis aware of Dr Mortens work? @Ben H

(my only concerns with the presentation : starting with a Crawley paper [I remember a lot of criticism when Ron Davis used the same paper in one of his interviews], also although he acknowledges 'GET' is a dirty word he suggests at the end that there might be a group of pwME who might benefit, and other therapies eg cold, acupuncture are also cited as possible therapies. Somewhere he also mentions use of the Chalder FQ, although again he acknowledges that some people have a problem with it.)
 
OMF /Ron Davis announced the something in the serum a couple of years ago. I think it’s a very important finding and glad researchers are trying to investigate further

I’m really pleased Karl Morten is looking now for a larger grant. My fear regarding the MRC is that 1.5 years after Stephen Holgate started talking about trying to get more MRC funds ( after ten years of no pressure on them for consistent funding until the field could function alone) they are still not committing. Are they going to instead grant to KM and £1.6m over 4 years as their “we are doing something rather than nothing to hold up but not nearly enough” which they seem to prefer with CFS.
 
I am hoping there will be some additional positive news from the MRC and NIHR regarding biomedical research funding for ME/CFS in the New Year following CMRC efforts. I can't say more for now, but you may well have been following the 'Bioresource' developments in the CMRC summary minutes that are publicly available and heard about things from Prof. Holgate at the CMRC conference etc.

I hope very much the application, when finalised, from Dr Morten's team does meet with success from the MRC. But I have had some little experience of the application process - I was a member of the MEGA PAG - and it can seem very arbitrary. However, the MRC keeps mentioning its highlight notice on ME/CFS research, so - touch wood - this application makes it through the vetting process and the CMRC application does as well.

If both do then 2019 really could be THE year for funding ME/CFS in the UK.
 
Russell Fleming said:
I am hoping there will be some additional positive news from the MRC and NIHR regarding biomedical research funding for ME/CFS in the New Year following CMRC efforts. I can't say more for now, but you may well have been following the 'Bioresource' developments in the CMRC summary minutes that are publicly available and heard about things from Prof. Holgate at the CMRC conference etc.

I hope very much the application, when finalised, from Dr Morten's team does meet with success from the MRC. But I have had some little experience of the application process - I was a member of the MEGA PAG - and it can seem very arbitrary. However, the MRC keeps mentioning its highlight notice on ME/CFS research, so - touch wood - this application makes it through the vetting process and the CMRC application does as well.

If both do then 2019 really could be THE year for funding ME/CFS in the UK.
Click to expand...


As patients obviously we aren’t kept very informed or involved and just have to wait for drops of information, it sounds like insiders already have some knowledge. I’m not really understanding what the CMRC application you talk of is, i thought initially there was going to be a request for a step up on incentivising research via a funding call from the MRC like Norway did, rather than a grant application for the big data study as it seems ? . I’ve not been especially enthused by MEGA which seems to have been CMRC sole focus, as I think it’s a long and winding road approach when I need targeted urgent research, including on severe ME frankly but others here might think it’s very good .
There’s only a paragraph in the minutes on this, maybe MEA members are given more info. ....


I cannot view the CMRC as heroes on funding when the charities and Holgate were all Together since 2007.
 
Sly Saint said:
Does any of this tie in with Ron Davis' teams work? (ie serum test/mystery molecule etc).

As much of the OMF stuff is not published I wonder if Dr Morten has watched any of the OMF presentations? (he didn't pronounce Fluge right which makes me wonder if he has only read papers, but I could be wrong of course).

Is Ron Davis aware of Dr Mortens work? @Ben H

(my only concerns with the presentation : starting with a Crawley paper [I remember a lot of criticism when Ron Davis used the same paper in one of his interviews], also although he acknowledges 'GET' is a dirty word he suggests at the end that there might be a group of pwME who might benefit, and other therapies eg cold, acupuncture are also cited as possible therapies. Somewhere he also mentions use of the Chalder FQ, although again he acknowledges that some people have a problem with it.)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Ron is aware of Dr Morten. If not I'll be forwarding the research to him.

I think it's really good line of enquiry, particularly being UK research. Hopefully they will get the funding.

On another note the point @wigglethemouse makes is a really good one-the method in which the blood is collected is extremely important, and the discrepancies that arise from that can be major. Time before analysis, how it has been stored, heparin, edta or other agents in the tube etc. Massive differences.

Hopefully they'll be able to replicate once all of these are matched. That would be good.


B
 
Last edited:
A comment on his results as they concern GET

• Healthy controls (n=24)
• Base Line ME/CFS patients (n=59)
• ME/CFS patients who have
completed GET ( 6 month
sample) (n=28 )
Click to expand...

• Currently identifying the key metabolic
differences between ME/CFS and controls.
• Our metabolomics data supports previous
work.
• GET does not significantly impact on the key
differences between ME/CFS and controls.
• Most of the key compounds that are different
are unknown!
Click to expand...

He mentioned elsewhere that half the patients doing GET drop out, which could be a reference to this study.

The patients that complete 6 months of GET are probably not the ones that are significantly harmed by it.

It's also possible that activity displacement is taking place (I believe one study found this, and other studies of CBT/GET found no increased levels of activity). So GET might appear to be harmless (in some or many cases) because the patients are not actually increasing their activity levels.
 
Last edited:
Ravn said:
The answer was that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the mitochondria themselves,
Click to expand...
In the mitochondrion signaling, many, many proteins and ions are involved - anywhere on that path, something can go wrong. There is signaling between the ER and the mitochondrion (via the MAM = mitochondrion associated membrane), whereby both lie in close proximity so that Ca signals from the ER can enter the mitochondrion. For example, if the Ca signal is somehow disrupted, pyruvate dehydrogenase gets more inhibited which leads, e.g., to problems with ATP production . The mitochondrion itself is not dysfunctional, it doesn't get the correct signals or proteins etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom