1. The latest 'News In Brief' post for w/c 6th August is available, Guest, click here to read.
    Dismiss Notice

What biomedical research progress in the past 18 months?

Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Sasha, Nov 5, 2017.

  1. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,779
    Likes Received:
    13,672
    Location:
    UK
    ahimsa, Louie41, Esther12 and 17 others like this.
  2. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    12,123
    Location:
    UK
    I think since then there has been metabolics work done which is interesting and may be very important. But I feel we are still at the stage of research providing potential clues which need following up with bigger research projects rather than anything definitive.
     
    Louie41, MEMarge, Aimossy and 11 others like this.
  3. Ron

    Ron Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    408
    I'm waiting to see what Mark Davis has found in regards to the T-cells and a possible antigen that he talked about at the Stanford Symposium.
     
    Louie41, MEMarge, Aimossy and 4 others like this.
  4. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,974
    Likes Received:
    21,589
    I don't think there has been anything definitive. A lot more people are working on the immunology and mitochondrial metabolism. There are likely to be publications on T cells in the spring I think. There have been useful negative studies providing a consensus of an absence of evidence for persistent viruses or an inherent NK defect. Whether there is an NK defect induced by a plasma factor is less clear.
     
  5. Simon M

    Simon M Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Location:
    UK
    Good question.

    In my view we only reached the start line for biomedical research a few years ago and there has been some structural progress since, attracting new researchers and a gradual increase in funding and interest, but certainly no breakthrough as yet. Which isn’t too bad in that timescale.

    I agree with the comments above.

    As for specific areas, I’d highlight:

    1. Problems generating energy in general. This would include glycolysis as well as mitochondria and also the repeat exercise, and even a single-exercise tests on patients. The results are still all over the place and need sorting out. This includes metabolomics as well as Seahorse, any other relevant methods and also exercise tests. Stress testing remains important, as ever.

    2. The other area progressing is immunology. If the rituximab study shows a strong positive result when it reports next year that will really shake things up. It’s just frustrating that the research is needed results at the moment and we don’t :). Then there is the T cell work. I’m particularly interested in Mark Davis’s work on clonal expansion. I don’t know if this is what Jonathan is referring to when he talks about publication next spring.

    And as @Adrian says, we need much bigger studies as part of trying to nail down these findings. Doing multiple experiments on the same cohort of patients should help identify and tease out any sub-groups. The UK mecfs biobank could be a huge asset here.

    A shorter answer to your question “has there been much progress since our paper came out?” is: “not much”.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  6. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    9,950
    Fluge/Mella's pyruvate dehydrogenase paper was published less then a year ago, IMO a very important piece of the puzzle if verified
    Dr Davis has made some incremental steps that are not released yet, Janet talked about some of it at the other place
     
    Louie41, Inara, MEMarge and 4 others like this.
  7. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,004
    Likes Received:
    7,364
    I don't know if this question fits here, if not, may I ask to move it?

    What happened to the retroviral research line, like e.g. by Mikovits and DeFreitas? The findings seemed contradictory to me (some found something, some didn't). Why was it definitely concluded this is the wrong direction?
     
    Louie41 likes this.
  8. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,779
    Likes Received:
    13,672
    Location:
    UK
    I think that needs a new thread of its own, if you'd like to start one, @Inara (thanks for asking! :))
     
    Valentijn and Inara like this.
  9. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,974
    Likes Received:
    21,589
    The retrovirus from Mikovits turned out to be a lab contaminant - clearly shown by the exact sequence of the virus matching a contamination source. It made no real sense, being a mouse virus anyway and there being no epidemiology to fit. This was sorted out around 2013-4 by an international group.
     
    Inara likes this.
  10. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,004
    Likes Received:
    7,364
    Okay. I will copy your answers into the new thread, ok?
     
    Sasha likes this.
  11. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,004
    Likes Received:
    7,364

Share This Page