WASF3 disrupts mitochondrial respiration and may mediate exercise intolerance in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, 2023 Hwang et al

cassava7 said:
@John Mac If my memory serves right, the investigators had issued an update to the participants in early 2020 noting that they had found evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction with the Seahorse assay. The number of patients is indeed too low to pinpoint a specific gene, but their results may point towards it possibly having a role in ME/CFS.

Edit: it is the expression of the gene that is upregulated here; this is not the same as identifying variants of the gene (which is the goal of a GWAS study). I don’t know whether assessing upregulation reliably requires as many patients as for a GWAS, i.e. at least 10.000 patients.
Click to expand...

You can certainly detect significant quantitative differences in expression with this number of samples - it's not like a GWAS as you say. There will still be problems with multiple testing though - they have hopefully corrected for the number of different genes they have looked at, but the NIH intramural study as a whole looks at so many outcomes that it'll be difficult for it to be informative with such a small number of patients.

That said, maybe the expression difference has a huge effect size. Either way replication is the key to these things.
 

[ME/CFS News: The @NIH has found that increased expression of the WASF3 protein is associated with abnormal mitochondrial function in the muscles of some #MECFS patients. Credit to @brianvastag. While we wait for the publication of their findings, let's look at the underlying biology:

The endoplasmatic reticulum (ER) is a network of membranes in the cell that produces various proteins and substances. Mitochondria are attached to the ER at special sites called mitochondria-associated ER membrane (MAM).]


[ME/CFS News: MAMs do not merely hold the mitochondria in place: they allow communication and exchange of substances between mitochondria and the ER. WASF3 is one of the proteins found in MAMs.

WASF3 also has functions elsewhere in the body but from the information released so far it sounds like the NIH believes that its function as link between ER and mitochondria is most important.]


[ME/CFS News: What does all this mean? I am not sure yet. It sounds like it could have something to do with mitophagy (removal of damaged mitochondria) and regulation of metabolism (perhaps part of a "starvation" response). MAMs are important in neurological disorders.]


According to Wikipedia, “[t]he [WASF3] gene product is a protein that forms a multiprotein complex that links receptor kinases and actin. Binding to actin occurs through a C-terminal verprolin homology domain in all family members. The multiprotein complex serves to tranduce signals that involve changes in cell shape, motility or function.[6]”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Everyone, Brian here - I appreciate folks picking up the thread. When I tweeted the name of the gene product they were working on back in July, I probaby shouldn't have. But I did, so let me clarify some things since there is a lot of rampant (incorrect) speculation on this thread:

Dr Hwang's lab made a discovery in a patient with another disease he was studying. The discovery involved mitochondria.

Brian Walitt then asked Hwang to look at mitochondria in the muscle biopsies from the patients in the intramural NIH study.

Hwang saw the same finding in about 10 of the ME/CFS patients.

The discovery is unpublished and it is a new mechanism of action of the protein in question - so yes, it's a discovery, nothing in the literature describes it as yet.

Hwang is submitting a paper describing this discovery as a case study in the non-ME/CFS patient but in the paper he is also mentioning the possible connection to ME/CFS.

So, as with anything, caution is certainly warranted. I think it's very interesting but whether it leads to treatment, well we all know how long and winding the road of medical research is.... There's also no way to know right now WHY this gene product is elevated in ME/CFS and what is going on upstream to elevate it. So...proceed with caution.

Edit: This finding was seen in most, but not all, of the intramural patients who had muscle biopsies.

Brian
 
Last edited:
cassava7 said:
@John MacI don’t know whether assessing upregulation reliably requires as many patients as for a GWAS, i.e. at least 10.000 patients.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it, especially if the difference is large enough to be observed in a small cohort. I think the two reasons GWASes need so many people is because the effect of individual mutations is tiny and because you need to rule out coincidences from looking at so many genes.

Edit: My reply was redundant. I wrote it before seeing the whole thread. Sorry.
 
B_V said:
Hi Everyone, Brian here - I appreciate folks picking up the thread. When I tweeted the name of the gene product they were working on back in July, I probaby shouldn't have. But I did, so let me clarify some things since there is a lot of rampant (incorrect) speculation on this thread:

Dr Hwang's lab made a discovery in a patient with another disease he was studying. The discovery involved mitochondria.

Brian Walitt then asked Hwang to look at mitochondria in the muscle biopsies from the patients in the intramural NIH study.

Hwang saw the same finding in about 10 of the ME/CFS patients.

The discovery is unpublished and it is a new mechanism of action of the protein in question - so yes, it's a discovery, nothing in the literature describes it as yet.

Hwang is submitting a paper describing this discovery as a case study in the non-ME/CFS patient but in the paper he is also mentioning the possible connection to ME/CFS.

So, as with anything, caution is certainly warranted. I think it's very interesting but whether it leads to treatment, well we all know how long and winding the road of medical research is.... There's also no way to know right now WHY this gene product is elevated in ME/CFS and what is going on upstream to elevate it. So...proceed with caution.

Edit: This finding was seen in most, but not all, of the intramural patients who had muscle biopsies.

Brian
Click to expand...
Hey Brian, thank you for the visit! When you say he found "it" in about 10 ME patients, could you estimate out of how many total? just a ballpark ;-)
 
Trish said:
I think I read that there were only 17 patients in the NIH study but I can't find that info now.
Click to expand...
10 out of 17 would appear to be a very high proportion. You'd need to think of the inclusion criteria, i.e. basis the 17 were selected, of course.

Interesting to see what the increase was (e.g. clearly distinguishing patients from activity matched controls ---) and whether it's a potential biomarker e.g. which could add a further filter to genetic studies ----.

EDIT - I've only glanced at a few posts.
 
John Mac said:
Wasn't the numbers of patients recruited to this study tiny i.e. around 35 over 5 years?
If it was as low as that wouldn't finding a significant gene product in such a tiny cohort be highly unlikely?
Sorry may be talking nonsense but I really don't trust Nath or Walitt.
Click to expand...

I think I should have mentioned that a gene being "upregulated" basically means that it's making more of whatever protein it codes for. Basically, without checking, it's an MRNA that controls the gene ---telling it to make more/less of the protein. If you've an illness then upregulating the gene may be a (downstream) consequence --- and thus a potential therapeutic (drug) target.

MRNA levels aren't a genetic fingerprint/cause/pre-disposing gene they are upregulated/downregulated as a (downstream) consequence of an illness --- so everyone with the illness (regardless of their genetic makeup) is likely to have this signature upregulation. So a high proportion of a (disease) population demonstrating upregulation might indicate a common pathology but it wouldn't tell us anything about their genes.
Check out Alain Moreaus work on MRNAs in ME/CFS - here's a random example - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33184353/


John Mac said:
Sorry may be talking nonsense
Click to expand...
Yip me too!

John Mac said:
I really don't trust Nath or Walitt.
Click to expand...
I've corresponded with Dr Nath a couple of times - e.g. highlighting technology (stuff highlighted on this website) like Aaron Ring (Yale) autoantibody/antigen work --- he was already in touch with Aaron! My impression is that he's knowledgeable and cares --- I only wish that was the norm! I come from one of the lands of BPS bullshit [EDIT - think I should mention that the UK has funded GWAS/Chris Ponting's project] - UK.
Can't recall Walitt.
 
Merged thread

Conference talk "ER [endoplasmic reticulum] Stress Induction of WASF3 May Underlie CFS"

Dr. Paul Hwang of the NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, is giving a talk on March 27 entitled "ER [endoplasmic reticulum] Stress Induction by WASF3 May Underlie CFS".

It's at a Keystone Symposium, which is closed to the public and discourages reporters from directly reporting on results presented. But this tells me Dr. Hwang is confident in his findings (which remain unpublished).

The backstory: As part of the NIH's ME/CFS intramural study, patients had muscle biopsies. Dr. Hwang, through a somewhat seredipitous route, was looking at muscle tissue of a patient with a cancer syndrome who also had ME/CFS-like symptoms. With the tissue of this patient, he discovered a problem with this gene WASF3, and when he looked at the ME/CFS patient samples, he saw the same problem in most.

This work remains unpublished but some of us who were in the intramural study returned to NIH last year to take part in Dr. Hwang's spin-off study.
 

Attachments

  • hwang keystone.jpeg
    hwang keystone.jpeg
    693.3 KB · Views: 42
Last edited by a moderator:
Exercise is listed as one of the causes of ER stress. My understanding is that ER stress can lead to the unfolded protein response. If exercise can induce the unfolded protein response in ME/CFS, could that lead to a marked reduction of metabolites in urine as we've seen in Hanson's recent study?

My understanding is that as part of the unfolded protein response, the production of new proteins is stopped.

And if the response fails to restore the cell to good condition, the cell dies. Would many cells dying off some time after exercise fit with PEM?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Whittemore of the NINDS said this on 2/13/23 of the ME/CFS Intramural Study (fwiw): “I just checked and they are finalizing the figures and then it will go for final internal review before being submitted. I’m told they are very close!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom