Dr Esther Crawley discusses XMRV and WPI, March 2010
August 18, 2010
Dr Esther Crawley discusses XMRV and Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), March 2010
Part transcript: Presentation to the Dorset CFS/ME Society Annual Medical Lecture: section on XMRV.
XMRV: Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) Opens on campus of University of Nevada (Parts 1 and 2)
Sam Shad for Nevada Newsmakers
Update: This transcript was revised on 20 August and supersedes previous versions.
May be reposted if posted in full, unedited and a link to source is given.
Dorset CFS/ME Society
Annual Medical Lecture
27th March 2010
The Future of Research in CFS/ME
It’s a great pleasure to be here, everybody, and I’m really glad actually that my talk actually fits in very nicely with what William’s just said – Phew!
I’m going to be talking a lot about the collaborative research and the first half of my talk actually was given to the MRC Working Group at the end of last year. So you’ll actually see what we were talking about where the MRC gathered lots and lots of researchers together to discuss a way forward with chronic fatigue [sic] and I did the talk on Epidemiology.
I couldn’t resist talking about XMRV. I think we have to know about what’s actually happened and I will discuss that as well and what the implications are.
[Rest of intro and presentation skipped.]
Approx 27 mins in from start of presentation:
XMRV. OK, so in the next, last, remaining bit of the talk I want to summarise what’s happened about the XMRV story for you. I think it’s really important that we’re all informed about it.
Many of you will have woken up and read this story, in fact I knew about it 24 hours before it was about to break – “Has science found the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome?” – we’re all very excited and hopeful this might give us something we can treat. Great.
Don’t you think this is the most beautiful picture? That’s the XMRV virus. I don’t know how they get those colours on them – very beautiful.
Now this is the Centre that reported it. Do any of you notice anything about that picture? XXXX you’re not allowed to say.
Member of the audience: Sunshiny?
EC: Sunshiny, yeah. It’s in Reno, yeah, yeah. Anything else? It’s a bit far away.
Has anyone looked at the website? Isn’t that interesting? That doesn’t exist. That’s a fake picture – it’s what they would like to exist, when you donate money, when you go on the website. I thought everybody knew that! Yeah, sorry? This is Dorset.
OK. The Centre isn’t built. That’s their picture of what they would like to build and when you go on the website it has “Please donate.”
OK. What do the Lombardi group originally show?
OK. This is a complicated slide. I’m just going to take you through bit by bit because it’s really important when we look at all the research evidence.
OK. The gag sequences – the DNA that’s associated with these particular type of viruses – so they use PCR. PCR is basically when you get a tiny bit of DNA and you multiply and multiply and multiply and then you run it on a gel and see if it’s there. And what they found, and you’ll all remember these figures, I’m sure, is that they found it in 68 out of 100 [Ed: 101 on slide] chronic fatigue [sic] patients and 8 out of 218 controls.
They then looked in the cells and they found the protein in the cells and then they looked at whether it’s infectious. Now I have to say, this bit made me slightly worried – so they looked to see whether this virus could infect other cells within the lab and they showed that it’s infectious and they also looked at what happened if you put the virus with other cells in terms of did it develop an immune response?
And these are some of the pictures they showed. So when you multiply out the DNA, you then run it on a gel and you tag it with a thing that shines – I did my PhD doing this, I can tell you all sorts of awful stories of gels breaking and all sorts of other things going wrong. But these are the chronic fatigue [sic] patients – you see all these lines, here? That’s that gag sequence - here and here – that’s the end of the line and these are the controls.
Then they looked at the expression in cells and you could see it. And then they looked at the infection and this is the infection happening here.
Now this paper went out for review by virologists – not by clinicians and that’s a very important point and it was passed and it was published.
And this is what they said on their website and I think this is kind of interesting: “
“We have detected the retroviral infection XMRV is greater than 95%…”
Where did the 95% come from? Did anybody notice the 95%? Can anybody remember the percentage they found it in? Yeah, 66% [sic], slightly less.
OK. Says on the website “…95%…The current [working] hypothesis is that [XMRV]…” infects these cells…and I found this absolutely terrifying…viral chronic fatigue syndrome “causes the chronic inflammation and immune deficiency resulting in an inability to mount an effective immune response to opportunistic infections”.
OK. Have they shown any of that? Have they shown increased risk of opportunist infections? Have they shown a defect in the immune system that’s actually going to affect someone rather than just in a cell lab plate?
No. But that’s what’s on their website. That’s what they say they’ve found. So what happens? The research community runs to replicate the work.
OK. And you’ll all remember when this first paper came out “Failure to replicate…” – this is an English paper [Ed: the McClure PLoS ONE paper]. Well obviously this is wrong because they didn’t use the same techniques and it wasn’t the same patient group.
So in this particular experiment, they actually characterised the patients.
Now on the original paper, they say that the chronic fatigue [sic] patients were well-characterised but they do not describe them at all. We don’t know how many were girls – we don’t know how many…girls! – I’m such a paediatrician – we don’t know how many were female. We don’t know how long they had had the illness for. We don’t know who diagnosed them and we don’t know whether they had any blood tests to exclude other illnesses.
In this one, [Ed: the McClure paper], they actually had all the exclusion stuff excluded, they then used the DNA sequence. They had positive and negative controls. Why do you need positive and negative controls? Yes, so you’re worried that maybe when you do PCR it’ll pick up…you’ve all seen crime scenes, right? So PCR will pick up one bit of DNA, so if you’ve got a bit of DNA in your solution or something like that, you must have negative controls because you need to be certain that the DNA has come from the samples - not from your lab solutions.
Yes. OK. And you must have positive controls to make sure your experiments work.
They used a virus free laboratory. So they did it in a laboratory that had not had the virus in the past and they blinded the person doing the PCR. Does everyone know about “blinding”? So what they did, was that the person that was reading the gels didn’t know whether they were patients or not, because it’s really easy on those gels to over-interpret what you see.
OK and their results, you might all remember, they didn’t find any out of 186 patients – none of them had chronic fatigue [Ed: corrects herself] – XMRV.
And then a few days later, this one came out. This one had several people from England – Jonathan Kerr and so on. And they’re very open – they said, John Gow – these are all people that we’re collaborating with – they said we wanted to find chronic fatigue syndrome – we wanted to find the XMRV virus. We wanted to – we looked hard.
Now the criticism of the previous paper was that they hadn’t used the same techniques, so in this one they used the same techniques. They had 170 patients, 395 controls. You can already see the sample size is much bigger and they did both PCR and looked at the serology.
They found none in 299 samples of patients – had chronic fatigue [Ed: corrects herself] – had XMRV. And although they found what’s called “neutralising activity” they looked at this further and suggested that the immune response was actually related to other viruses and not to the XMRV.
And then this was published a couple of weeks later [Ed: BMJ paper] – from the Dutch group. Again, a very well described Dutch cohort – smaller, 76 patients 69 controls. And what they did, they actually went completely overboard with trying to find it. They used very, very sensitive techniques that should have detected – if any was there at all, they should have detected it – much more sensitive than the original paper and they looked at a variety of DNA and they tried several times to improve the sensitivity – all samples were negative for XMRV.
So what do you think’s going on?
Member of the audience: Publicity.
….I have actually given a clue.
Member of the audience: Money?
EC: Sorry. Money…money…money…
Member of the audience: XXXX wants to tell us.
EC: OK, go on, XXXX…
EC’s young son (in front row): Did they all do it from one place?
EC: Ye…es! The first group – actually, the question is, was the first group chronic fatigue syndrome? And eventually, when they were asked, they told the research community that, this is in Lisbon, at the end of last year, that all the samples came from an outbreak of chronic fatigue syndrome in one village in Lake Tahoe.
And when you actually go and have a look at all the research data around that outbreak, everybody at that time thought it was a viral infection. And nobody could find the virus.
So most of us think that that was probably the issue – it was probably a viral outbreak that has certainly caused chronic fatigue syndrome but is not necessarily going to be relevant for us here in the UK.
It’s not clear about the PCR operator, the person that looks – it’s not clear from the paper, whether they were blinded. There might be issues about whether you work in a virus free lab, remember they showed that this was infectious.
And there’s a big question here [Ed: indicates on slide] – this XMRV virus was initially described with prostate cancer and the prostate research community has shown this in prostate cancer in two studies in the USA. These are different labs in different studies but no association in Europe.
So maybe this is a virus that’s important in America but not important in this country – it’s not clear.
And I think this is of interest. Within a week of their paper being published they produced a test for the XMRV virus at $650 a test. [Ed: Slide reads, at point 4: Conflict of interest?].
And if I was developing a test, I would declare that as a conflict of interest on the paper – “I’m developing a test for this.” Then people can make up their mind about whether it has affected the results. We don’t know, it wasn’t declared they’d produced a test.
Why are patients so upset?
OK, well I don’t know and you’ll probably be able to tell me more than I can tell. But I think when they first publicised this they went on everything, lots and lots of American television.
[Reads from slide]
“Vindication” they said, “This “[new] report has intrigued scientists, been seen as vindication by some parents [Ed: corrects herself] – patients and inspired hope for treatment.”
Well you know, the history of this condition is that patients have not been listened to, they’ve been dismissed, they’ve had a terrible time and if a virus comes along as a cause, that is going to be seen as a vindication – I can understand that.
And it’s very disappointing, isn’t it, the negative replications?
But I do think that there’s been other stuff that’s been going on that I have particular difficulties with. When I prepared this talk for an infectious diseases conference, I went through and I just got some quotes off the web from the research team.
Look at this:
[Reads from slide]
“Here you’ve got your immune system working well and the virus and the immune system are coexisting just fine and then some other bug, whether it be Lyme, a flu, anything gets you…and then you’ve just tipped the scale to where your immune system can’t handle [XMRV] or anything, and every day you’re seeing new infections.”
And then at one point, rumour has it (and I couldn’t find any evidence for this) that they started to suggest that patients with chronic fatigue syndrome should have anti-retrovirals, ie HIV drugs.
They’ve taken that back, and this is all I could find:
[Reads from slide quoting Dr Judy Mikovits; the "she says" refers to Dr Mikovits]:
“While it’s not advisable to take highly toxic anti-retrovirals [without tests confirming effectiveness], she says some available therapies may help, including: immune modulators; anti-inflammatories, because inflammation activates XMRV, things that improve natural killer cell function; medications that help [level progesterone levels, because progesterone up-regulates XMRV in lab tests]; avoiding stress.”
It appears – and this really upset me, OK. All of their studies are in adults. OK, all in adults. And then they say:
[Reads from slide]
“Early infection in children can lead to more severe disease later on.”
Oh, that’ll be that test that they produced for $605 [sic] a pop.
[Reads from slide]
“and intervention important to keep viral loads from getting high.”
I find that really frightening. If I had a child with chronic fatigue syndrome and I read that on the web, the first thing I’d do, I’d go and buy the test, and the second thing I’d be doing would be phoning an infectious disease doctor which is what’s happened and ask about anti-retrovirals for my child, having read that.
So I do feel as researchers, we do take some responsibility for saying “This is a first paper! Let’s wait and see what happens.”
You know, I think it’s really interesting, it look likes they did find something in a group of patients and we haven’t found it here. That’s really interesting and is deserving of more research. But let’s just say, it’s interesting at the moment, rather than all of this speculation, which I think can be very harmful for patients.
The future for infection
OK, I gather that this may well already have happened, not been published, the way forward in these things is to replicate the studies in both labs and try and look at why there are differences.
I think it may be important for a subtype of chronic fatigue syndrome.
I very much doubt it effects all of them, as they claim.
It doesn’t appear to be important in this country.
And there’s actually very beautiful research which we need to understand more, looking at the relationship between genetics, infection and other things like mood.
OK. After a whistle-stop tour of most research on chronic fatigue syndrome, this is now my summary slide – this is what I’ve talked about.
There are two arms for research in chronic fatigue syndrome and I don’t believe that one replaces the other. The funding for both arms is different in this country and they both need to be done together and both influence the other.
The first is important for providing services and treatment:
We need to know more about how common this is.
We need to understand who it affects.
And we need to know about the different types of chronic fatigue syndrome.
We need to understand how the different types influence treatment.
We need to know much, much more about the impact of this devastating condition on patients and carers.
The second one is that we need to know more about the aetiology, about the causes of this condition and in my view, the fastest way forward is to use the large, very large sample sizes that we have available in this country to conduct rigorous genome-wide association studies and I’m not so certain about the role of infection but I do think there is an interesting story with XMRV that we need to get to the bottom of.
And it just remains for me to thank my funders – I’m funded by the National Institute of Health Research and my Clinician Scientists Fellowship, the Linbury Trust, Action for M.E. and I’m the Medical Adviser for AYME.
And this is where I work.
Thank you very much.
There was a Q and A session which included questions about the RNHRD NHS FT/University of Bristol Lightning Process pilot.