1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th January 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Genetic Predisposition for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Pilot Study 2019 Perez Nathanson Klimas et al

Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Sly Saint, May 8, 2019.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,569
    Likes Received:
    45,925
    Location:
    UK
    Genetic Predisposition for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Pilot Study
    [​IMG]Melanie Perez1, 2, Rajeev Jaundoo1, [​IMG]Kelly Hilton1, 2, Ana Del Alamo1, 2, Kristina Gemayel1, [​IMG]Nancy G. Klimas1, 2, [​IMG]Travis J. Craddock1, 3* and [​IMG]Lubov Nathanson1, 2*

    Provisionally accepted; full text to be published soon

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2019.00206/abstract
     
    Hutan, hinterland, Webdog and 13 others like this.
  2. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    19,529
    Hutan and merylg like this.
  3. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    4,677
    I've no real understanding of what all this means but with 517 not being far off 10% of the total SNP's tested (5693) isn't that what would be expected statistically anyway?
     
    arewenearlythereyet and MEMarge like this.
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,656
    Likes Received:
    141,301
    Location:
    UK
    Maybe each SNP can have more than one substitution, some more deleterious than others.
     
    John Mac likes this.
  5. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,160
    Likes Received:
    84,852
    As I read it 5693 is the number of SNPs found to have a twofold difference between groups, not the number tested. Without any real denominators in these figures I cannot make anything of their significance.
     
  6. mariovitali

    mariovitali Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2,389

    I am curious to see if they identified a gene called SERPINE1 / PAI1 which is part of extracellular matrix organisation.

    Others of interest are BMP7 and genes related to Calpain (CAPN1,CAPNS1 ).
     
    ukxmrv, Perrier, merylg and 1 other person like this.
  7. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    16,836
    Location:
    Australia
    Still looks like more haystack than needles...
     
    Michelle, WillowJ, Grigor and 2 others like this.
  8. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    5,569
    I believe this paper may be this NOVA study where PwME volunteered their 23andMe data. They advertised quite widely for participants so it's a shame not more took part.
    https://www.nova.edu/nim/research/mecfs-genes.html

    Note 23andMe only tests a subset of genetic data. I believe there have been 5 versions of chip, and each version reports on a slightly different set of SNP's.

    Just reading the abstract (not a lot to go on) it may tie in to what Alan Light reported in his video presentation in this thread. Certainly worth comparing the video and full paper when it comes out.
    https://www.s4me.info/threads/lives...ations-create-susceptibility-for-me-cfs.7072/

    EDIT: Patients paid for their own DnA analysis and shared the data with NOVA, so that allowed this study to happen.
     
  9. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    2,966
    good work, patients.

    Not sure the study was big enough to make any conclusions, but I am not sure I have the right data to know that (nor recall enough stats to do the right calculation).

    Although 383 is a lot for an ME study, genetic studies assess a huge amount of information and typically need very large studies.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    andypants likes this.
  10. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    2,966
  11. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,656
    Likes Received:
    141,301
    Location:
    UK
  12. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    5,569
    The one thing I'm not sure about is 23andMe coverage accuracy which could render this paper questionable.

    e.g. The first and only data point I picked from supplementary table 1 rs199535154 missense variant that seems to be present in 94% of patients but only 0.2% of the population.
    Code:
    
    RSID        Frequency_REF   Frequency_MECFS     Frequency_Ratio
    rs199535154 0.002312        0.942558747         407.6811189
    
    
    This could be the CYP2D6 gene that is highlighted in the paper as significant as the first gene discussed in the results section (based on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/rs199535154).

    The paper states files using v4 and v5 versions of the 23andMe chip were analyzed. I have a v5 file and I have no call for rs199535154 or for hg19:chr22:42524814 in the file.

    Very puzzling. I hope I am wrong and I just made a rookie mistake in looking at the data.
     
    mariovitali and Inara like this.
  13. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    5,569
    mariovitali and Amw66 like this.
  14. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    11,087
    Me neither, but I don't have 23andme data. (Although that shouldn't be the reason why I don't find it.)
     
  15. mariovitali

    mariovitali Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    @wigglethemouse

    Thank you for tagging me out. I had a quick look and the two i can say are GPBAR1 and CYP2D6 (although i never disclosed the second one).

    Regarding GPBAR1 :

    Screen Shot 2019-05-24 at 23.09.17.png


    Interestingly -for the Liver injury hypothesis- CYP2D6 has to do with Drug Metabolism :


    I will look more into this in a couple of days.
     
  16. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    5,569
    I spent some time looking at Supplemental table 2 vs the data in my 23andMe v5 file.

    I checked CADD scores > 1 in supplementary table 2 and found 525 variants listed. I looked up my 23andme data for these 525 variants
    * My 23andMe v5 file has values for ONLY 190 of them
    * 335 rsID's are not present in my v5 file
    - I searched by rsID
    - and searched by Chr & Position (to catch where 23andMe used internal reference)


    In addition it looks like there are also some issues with the Kaviar frequency used in their analysis e.g.. Gene = BCAM is one of the top CADD scores in table 1 in the paper reports a Kaviar frequency of 0.000006

    rs3810141 translates to hg19 Chr 19 position 45316804. Kaviar notes two different frequencies depending on which mutation is referenced
    C Reference
    T (7.8074%)
    A (0.0006%)
    Using tool http://db.systemsbiology.net/kaviar/cgi-pub/Kaviar.pl

    So, it is likely there are a few frequency errors in the frequency data as well.

    Not sure what this means. I wish the paper had gone into more details about v4 vs v5 array chips used and how this might affect the data, and was a bit more careful on Kaviar frequency.

    Still, for the likes of Alan Light/Bateman Horne center who are doing their own genetics study it must be good to compare data.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2019
  17. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    5,569
    The reference frequency data used in the paper seems to be based on Kaviar frequency from what I can see which in many cases is way different from 1000 genome or genomAD frequency data, so MOST of the high ratio MECFS/Reference frequency items in the spreadsheets are wrong.

    In addition the tables seem to include 23andMe miscalls such as CYP2D6 rs1135830 and rs199535154 which have no 1000 genome data. Both have been flagged
    http://phase3browser.1000genomes.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?v=rs1135830;vdb=variation
    http://phase3browser.1000genomes.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?v=rs199535154;vdb=variation


    Paper needs a major revision.

    Sorry @mariovitali but both GPBAR1 and CYP2D6 that you were interested in seem to be miscalls
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  18. mariovitali

    mariovitali Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    @wigglethemouse

    Regarding CYP2D6 : I have rs28371725, Risk is T with MAF 0.06% :

    16.9% are heterozygous in my cohort, with 4.23% missing.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
    wigglethemouse and ScottTriGuy like this.
  19. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    5,569
  20. mariovitali

    mariovitali Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
    wigglethemouse and Amw66 like this.

Share This Page