Monday, 7 May 2012

The scientific evidence for murine related retroviruses as causal in myalgic encephalomyelitis

Permission to repost.

The following is an article which Invest in ME said they would post in their last newsletter. When the letter was released the article was not included and they said they had forgotten to post it. Instead of waiting for the next newsletter which could be months away, they were asked if they would post this article on their website. Their reply was that they would ask the person who ran the site (Richard) to do so when he had the time. This was two months ago.

The scientific evidence for murine related retroviruses as causal in myalgic encephalomyelitis.


Several genetically distinct murine related retroviral nucleic acid sequences have been detected in human cells and plasma (1-3). Transmission electron microscope imaging has demonstrated that murine related retroviruses have type C morphology and are clearly replicating in human cells (2). Specific immune responses have been observed in infected people, which prove beyond reasonable doubt that the viruses are very closely related to a family of viruses that cause cancer and severe neurological disease in mice (2,5). Proteins produced by integrated viral DNA have been repeatedly observed using western blot and IHC staining techniques (4,5). These proteins have been detected within human cells and in plasma. Nucleic acids have also been detected within the nuclei of human cells using FISH staining techniques (5). This nucleic acid is called copy DNA and can only enter nuclei by forming something called a pre integrative complex. Only replicating retroviruses can do this. Some of these sequences have been described as belonging to xenotropic or polytropic MRVs. This indicates whether these viruses could potentially infect mice or not.

There is considerable confusion regarding the label XMRV. This label has been given to a particular proviral DNA sequence. Unfortunately this sequence is highly unlikely to be related to any MRV sequences that have been detected in humans. To avoid confusion this article will name the MRV sequences that have been detected in the human population as HMRV and the artificial sequence as AMRV, where A stands for artificial. It will become readily apparent that the various tests that have been calibrated to detect the AMRV in laboratory samples or monkeys have been understandably unable to detect HMRV’s in infected people.

Clinical validation

The researchers who have found HMRVs have all used techniques capable of detecting a wide range of genetically different viral sequences (1-3) calibrated their assays until they were able to detect proteins or nucleic acids in people known to be infected using other approaches or both (4,5). The ones who have failed to find any evidence of MRVs have constructed their assays in such a way as to be only able to detect the AMRV sequences or AMRV proteins in artificial situations (6-14). The work of Danielson et al. is particularly intriguing (15). This team was able to detect HMRV ENV sequences once a minimum concentration of proviral DNA was achieved. They were however unable to detect GAG or POL sequences. The technique used did allow for the detection of a little sequence variation compared to the AMRV sequence but still could not detect GAG or POL sequences. It could simply mean that the GAG and POL sequences were not present or not accessible for some reason. It could also mean that the GAG or POL sequences were so different to those of the AMRV that the assay was not capable of detecting them. In any event the requirement of a minimal concentration of DNA alone would explain the findings of Groom (10) and Erlwein (7,8) who used comparatively tiny amounts of DNA.

What other reasons account for the failure of PCR?

Even if a HMRV is genetically very similar to the AMRV there are a number of reasons why a PCR assay would fail to detect it in an infected person. The two most common reasons for PCR failure are low copy number of target sequence and the presence of secondary structures. The first is obvious, but perhaps the relevance of the second factor when it comes to HMRV detection is less so. In essence HMRVs are very likely to be integrated into the host genome into promoter regions (CpG islands) of genes and may well not express proteins while in this latent state (16-18). These CpG islands are very difficult to amplify by PCR and require modifications in annealing temperature and time as well as magnesium concentration, which is not needed to detect AMRV DNA in a spiked sample in vitro (19, 20). Hence without adjusting PCR conditions used to detect the AMRV DNA in vitro, the assay could fail to detect a HMRV in an infected person. The presence of secondary structures in such areas could well render the target sequence invisible to such a number of primers that the amplification of a low copy integrated virus could simply fail in the amplification of DNA.

Oxidative stress in neurological diseases and how it affects PCR.

Patients with ME, in common with other neuroimmune disease, have high levels of oxidative stress. This can lead to oxidatively damaged DNA (21). Oxidative damage to DNA is a very common reason for PCR failure (22,23).

This would be a very simple explanation for the failure of PCR assays optimized to amplify normal undamaged DNA when applied to the task of amplifying a HMRV at low copy number integrated into oxidatively damaged DNA. Oxidatively modified viral proteins would also explain the failure of various serology assays to detect a HMRV.

Gamma retroviruses and their relationshiop to blood and tissue

The most parsimonious explanation for the failure to detect a HMRV in blood is that the blood is not the natural “home” for HMRVs. The work of Onlamoon et al. (24) and others is especially instructive in this matter. They found that the AMRV inoculated into macaques soon became undetectable in the blood by PCR but readily detectable by the same methodology in tissues. The antibody response also faded rapidly. This is typical of the behavior of a very closely related gammaretrovirus that is the causative agent of murine Aids. This virus infects and destroys the cells that are needed to maintain an immune response to the virus (25). LP-bm5 def (as the virus is named) infects, activates and resides within plasma B cells (26). These cells in the absence of an infection are rarely if ever in the blood and hence PCR on blood components or plasma would be very unlikely to detect this virus without some method of activating to increase the numbers of these cells in this compartment.

Sequence variation

Some groups have claimed that the lack of sequence variation in some HMRVs indicates that they are contaminants (27). The alternative explanation is that they replicate not like HIV but like delta retroviruses (28), beta retroviruses (29) or another gammaretrovirus LP-BM5 def (30).

Does the integration site of an MRV indicate contamination?

At least one HMRV has been detected integrated into host DNA (16, 17). A recent study claimed that these integration sites were artifacts (31). The basis of this claim was the fact that the infectious AMRV clone was shown to integrate into precisely the same nucleotide in a cell line as it did in host DNA. According to the authors no retrovirus in history had ever demonstrated this property. This claim has been proved to be incorrect as two other closely related gamma retroviruses (32,33) and HTLV-1 (34) have demonstrated this property. Thus the evidence relating to HMRV integration proving that at least one is a replicating infectious retrovirus is robust and untarnished. Indeed in a recent report Dr P Chaney suggests that second generation sequencing studies on ME patients in Belgium and Germany are detecting integrated HMRVs at levels considerably higher than in healthy controls (35).

Future progress

A vehement critic of HMRV research was recently quoted as saying that:

“…the science is done…” (36).

I would argue that no real science has yet been done. Hopefully we are done with biopolitical studies and we can have research based on natural science instead. I would conclude with the words of Robert Persig:

"An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or another.” (37)

It is time to end the publication of paper after paper whose experimental design is such that the conclusions merely reflect the philosophical disposition of the authors and fail to provide any scientifically robust evidence regarding the presence or absence of HMRVs in the populations studied. It is time for serious scientists to take the scientific mode of investigation seriously.


Rituximab has several effects on the immune system, which may or may not be related to B cell depletion. One of the most potentially surprising effects is the reduction of Th17 T cell production (38,39). These T cells are the cause of T cell induced autoimmunity and neurotoxicity in other autoimmune diseases like MS. The cytokine and chemokine profile detected in HMRV positive people is consistent with an activated but TH17 biased immune system (40). Rituximab has a direct effect on reducing IL-2 levels and thus potentially inactivating a chronically activated immune system (41). Rituximab achieves this by inhibiting the production of NF-kappa B (42-45), which is another key mediator of autoimmunity. Rituximab also raises the function of regulatory T cells (46,47). Reduced T reg function is also another major cause of autoimmunity and neurotoxicity. The benefit induced by a CD20 monoclonal antibody is entirely consistent with a disease produced by a gammaretroviral infection.

The closely related gammaretrovirus that cause murine aids (MAIDS) could be an appropriate explanatory model. This virus inserts into the DNA of infected B cells and stimulates the genes causing an increase in mitosis (48). The defective GAG protein encoded by this virus causes havoc with the host’s immune system and induces severe autoimmune disease (49). Pathogenesis is caused by the presence of multiple autoantibodies (50), some of which induce serious and often fatal neurotoxicity (51). This virus is known to infect plasma B cells and possibly pre B cells (52). It causes pathology by altering B cell signaling via a complex mechanism involving biochemical pathways p38 MAPK, ERK and others leading to pronounced immune dysregulation and neuroinflammation (53). Rituximab blocks B cell signalling (54) thus the benefits conveyed by Rituximab are entirely consistent with the disease being caused by HMRVs.


1. Lo et al. Detection of MLV-related virus gene sequences in blood of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy blood donors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006901107

2. Lombardi et al. Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Science. 2009. DOI:10.1126/science.1179052

3. Switzer et al. No association of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related viruses with prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019065

4. Schlaberg et al. XMRV is present in malignant prostatic epithelium and is associated with prostate cancer, especially high-grade tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906922106

5. Urisman et al. Identification of a Novel Gammaretrovirus in Prostate Tumors of Patients Homozygous for R462Q RNASEL Variant. PLoS Pathogens. 2006. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.0020025

6. Switzer et al. Absence of evidence of Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related virus infection in persons with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and healthy controls in the United States. Retrovirology. 2010. doi:10.1186/1742-4690-7-57

7. Erlwein et al. Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. PLoS One. 2010. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008519

8. Erlwein et al. Investigation into the Presence of and Serological Response to XMRV in CFS Patients. PLoS One. 2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017592

9. Robinson et al. Xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV) does not cause chronic fatigue. Trends in Microbiology. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2011.08.005

10. Groom et al. Absence of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus in UK patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Retrovirology. 2010. doi:10.1186/1742-4690-7-10

11. van Kuppeveld et al. Prevalence of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome in the Netherlands: retrospective analysis of samples from an established cohort. BMJ. 2010. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1018

12. Knox et al. No Evidence of Murine-Like Gammaretroviruses in CFS Patients Previously Identified as XMRV-Infected. Science. 2011. DOI: 10.1126/science.1204963

13. Shin et al. Absence of XMRV and other MLV-related viruses in patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Journal of Virology. 2011. doi:10.1128/ JVI.00693-11

14. Elfaitouri et al. Murine Gammaretrovirus Group G3 Was Not Found in Swedish Patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia. PLoS One. 2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024602

15. Danielson et al. Detection of Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus– Related Virus in Normal and Tumor Tissue of Patients from the Southern United States with Prostate Cancer Is Dependent on Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction Conditions. J of Infectious Diseases. 2010. DOI: 10.1086/656146

16. Dong et al. An infectious retrovirus susceptible to an IFN antiviral pathway from human prostate tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610291104

17. Kim et al. Integration site preference of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, a new human retrovirus associated with prostate cancer. J Virol. 2008. doi: 10.1128/ JVI.01299-08

18. Kim et al. Fidelity of target site duplication and sequence preference during integration of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. PLoS One. 2010. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010255

19. Saxonov et al. A genome-wide analysis of CpG dinucleotides in the human genome distinguishes two distinct classes of promoters. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006. doi:10.1073/pnas.0510310103

20. Sol-Church et al. Pyrosequencing submission guidelines. Nemours. 2002.

21. Kadioglu et al. Detection of oxidative DNA damage in lymphocytes of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Biomarkers. 2004. doi:10.1080/13547500410001728390

22. Sikorsky et al. DNA damage reduces Taq DNA polymerase fidelity and PCR amplification efficiency. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.01.169

23. Kathe et al. Single-Stranded Breaks in DNA but Not Oxidative DNA Base Damages Block Transcriptional Elongation by RNA Polymerase II in HeLa Cell Nuclear Extracts. J Biol Chem. 2004. doi:10.1074/jbc.M313598200

24. Onlamoon et al. Infection, viral dissemination, and antibody responses of rhesus macaques exposed to the human gammaretrovirus XMRV. J Virol. 2011. doi: 10.1128/ JVI.02411-10

25. Masuda et al. Loss of follicular dendritic cells in murine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Lab Invest. 1995.

26. Liberatore et al. Tetherin is a key effector of the antiretroviral activity of type I interferon in vitro and in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113694108.

27. Garson et al. Analysis of XMRV integration sites from human prostate cancer tissues suggests PCR contamination rather than genuine human infection. Retrovirology. 2011. doi:10.1186/1742-4690-8-13

28. Tanaka et al. The clonal expansion of human T lymphotropic virus type 1-infected T cells: a comparison between seroconverters and long-term carriers. J Infect Dis. 2005. doi:10.1086/428625

29. Callahan et al. MMTV-induced mammary tumorigenesis: gene discovery, progression to malignancy and cellular pathways. Ongogene. 2000.

30. Hitoshi et al. Delayed Progression of a Murine Retrovirus-induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome in X-llnked Immunodeficient Mice. J. Exp. Med. 1993.

31. Hue et al. Disease-associated XMRV sequences are consistent with laboratory contamination. Retrovirology. 2011. doi:10.1186/1742-4690-7-111

32. Weinstein et al. Insertion and truncation of c-myb by murine leukemia virus in a myeloid cell line derived from cultures of normal hematopoietic cells. J Virol. 1987.

33. Selten et al. The primary structure of the putative oncogene pim-1 shows extensive homology with protein kinases. Cell. 1986. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(86)90886-X

34. Meekings et al. HTLV-1 Integration into Transcriptionally Active Genomic Regions Is Associated with Proviral Expression and with HAM/TSP. PLoS Pathogens. 2008. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000027

35. Cheney P. Changing status of XMRV / HGRV research. The Cheney Clinic. 2011.

36. Steven Salzberg. Chronic fatigue syndrome researcher arrested. Medpedia. 2011.

37. Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. William Morrow & Company. 1974. ISBN 0-688-00230-7

38. Ireland et al. Potential Impact of B Cells on T Cell Function in Multiple Sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/423971

39. van de Veerdonk et al. The anti-CD20 antibody rituximab reduces the Th17 cell response. Arthritis Rheum. 2011. doi:10.1002/art.30314.

40. Lombardi et al. Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related Virus-associated Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Reveals a Distinct Inflammatory Signature. In Vivo. 2011.

41. Lederer et al. Regulation of NF-kappa B activation in T helper 1 and T helper 2 cells. J of Immunology. 1996.

42. Jazirehi et al. Rituximab (Chimeric Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody) Inhibits the Constitutive Nuclear Factor - KB Signaling Pathway in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma B-Cell Lines: Role in Sensitization to Chemotherapeutic Drug-induced Apoptosis. Cancer Res. 2005.

43. Bonavida B. Rituximab-induced inhibition of antiapoptotic cell survival pathways: implications in chemo/immunoresistance, rituximab unresponsiveness, prognostic and novel therapeutic interventions. Oncogene. 2007. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210365

44. Bonavida et al. Rituximab-mediated chemosensitization of AIDS and non-AIDS non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Drug Resist Updat. 2005.

45. Bonavida B. ‘Rituximab-induced inhibition of antiapoptotic cell survival pathways: implications in chemo/immunoresistance, rituximab unresponsiveness, prognostic and novel therapeutic interventions’Rituximab-induced inhibition. Oncogene. 2007. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210365

46. Vigna-Perez et al. Clinical and immunological effects of Rituximab in patients with lupus nephritis refractory to conventional therapy: a pilot study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006

47. Vigna-Pérez et al. In vivo effect of Rituximab on regulatory T cells and apoptosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Inmunología. 2006

48. Huang et al. The murine AIDS defective provirus acts as an insertional mutagen in its infected target B cells. J of Virology. 1995.

49. Morse et al. Immunologic havoc induced by the 60 kD Gag protein of the MAIDS defective virus. Leukemia. 1997.

50. Mittleman et al. Amelioration of experimental systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by retrovirus infection. J Clin Immunol. 1996.

51. Kousteva et al. LP-BM5 virus–infected mice produce activating autoantibodies to the AMPA receptor. J Clin Invest. 2001. doi:10.1172/JCI11500

52. Klein et al. Establishment of MAIDS-defective virus-infected B cell lines and their characterization. Virology. 1998.

53. Sonja et al. CD19 Signaling Pathways Play a Major Role for Murine AIDS Induction and Progression. J of Immunology. 2002.

54. Kheirallah et al. Rituximab inhibits B-cell receptor signaling. Blood. 2010. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-08-237537 http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.or...5/985.long