In the first of two shows recorded at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Vincent meets up with faculty members to talk about how they got into science, their research on DNA viruses, and what they would be doing if they were not scientists.

You can find TWiV #407 part one at microbe.tv/twiv. Or watch the video above, or listen below.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 407a (43 MB .mp3, 71 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunesRSSemail

Become a patron of TWiV!

prion conversionPrions are not viruses – they are infectious proteins that lack nucleic acids. Nevertheless, virologists have always been fascinated by prions – they appear in virology textbooks (where else would you put them?) and are taught in virology classes. I’ve written about prions on this blog (five articles, to be exact – look under P in the Table of Contents) and I’m fascinated by their biology and transmission. That’s why the newly solved structure of an infectious prion protein is the topic of the sixth prion article at virology blog.

Spongiform encephalopathies are neurodegenerative diseases caused by misfolding of normal cellular prion proteins. Human spongiform encephalopathies are placed into three groups: infectious, familial or genetic, and sporadic, distinguished by how the disease is acquired initially. In all cases, the pathogenic protein is the host-encoded PrPC protein with an altered conformation, called PrPsc. In the simplest case, PrPSc converts normal PrPC protein into more copies of the pathogenic form (illustrated).

The structure of the normal PrPprotein, solved some time ago, revealed that it is largely alpha-helical with little beta-strand content. The structure of PrPSc protein has been elusive, because it forms aggregates and amyloid fibrils. It has been suggested that the PrPSc protein has more beta-strand content than the normal protein, but how this property would lead to prion replication was unknown. Clearly solving the structure of prion protein was needed to fully understand the biology of this unusual pathogen.

The structure of PrPSc protein has now been solved by cryo-electron microscopy and image reconstruction (link to paper). The protein was purified from transgenic mice programmed to produce a form of  PrPSc protein that is not anchored to the cell membrane, and which is also underglycosylated. The protein causes disease in mice but is more homogeneous and forms fibrillar plaques, allowing gentler purification methods.

prion structureThe structure of this form of the PrPSc protein reveals that it consists of two intertwined fibrils (red in the image) which most likely consist of a series of repeated beta-strands, or rungs, called a beta-solenoid. The structure provides clues about how a pathogenic prion protein converts a normal PrPC into PrPSc . The upper and lower rungs of beta-solenoids are likely the initiation points for hydrogen-bonding with new PrPC molecules – in many proteins with beta-solenoids, they are blocked to prevent propagation of beta-sheets. Once added to the fibrils, the ends would serve to recruit additional proteins, and the chain lengthens.

The authors note that the molecular interactions that control prion templating, including hydrogen-bonding, charge and hydrophobic interactions, aromatic stacking, and steric constraints, also play roles in DNA replication.

The structure of PrPSc protein provides a mechanism for prion replication by incorporation of additional molecules into a growing beta-solenoid. I wonder if incorporation into fibrils is the sole driving force for converting PrPCprotein into PrPSc, or if PrPC is conformationally altered before it ever encounters a growing fibril.

 

The TWiV team discusses eye infections caused by Zika virus, failure of Culex mosquitoes to transmit the virus, and replication of norovirus in stem cell derived enteroids.

You can find TWiV #406 at microbe.tv/twiv, or listen below.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 406 (59 MB .mp3, 98 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunesRSSemail

Become a patron of TWiV!

Professor Simon Gaskell
President and Principal
Queen Mary University of London
Mile End Road
London E1 4NS

Dear Professor Gaskell:

Last month, the First-Tier Tribunal ordered Queen Mary University of London to release critical data from the PACE trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME/CFS. In its decision, which rejected the university’s appeal of last fall’s ruling from the Information Commissioner’s Office, the tribunal dismantled all of QMUL’s rationalizations for keeping the data secret.

In particular, the tribunal dismissed the fears of QMUL’s security expert that hostile patients would be able to de-anonymize the data in order to identify and harass trial participants. Such concerns, noted the tribunal, were “grossly exaggerated” and based on “a considerable amount of supposition and speculation with no actual evidence.” The tribunal also noted pointedly that the “seeming reluctance” of the PACE investigators “to engage with other academics they thought were seeking to challenge their findings” had strengthened the case for releasing the data publicly.

Significantly, the tribunal emphasized that criticism of the PACE trial was not limited to a small group of patients, citing the “impressive” roster of 42 scientists and clinicians who supported Virology Blog’s open letter of concern to The Lancet last February. The open letter was based on an investigative report about PACE by David Tuller, a lecturer in public health and journalism at the University of California, Berkeley; Virology Blog posted Dr. Tuller’s investigation last October. The letter outlined some of the study’s major deficiencies, declared that “such flaws have no place in published research,” and requested that The Lancet seek a fully independent analysis of the trial data. All of us signed or later endorsed that open letter.

The current case involves a freedom-of-information request filed by an Australian patient, Alem Matthees. The data he requested would allow for an independent analysis based on the primary outcome thresholds and the definition of “recovery” outlined in the published trial protocol. These promised results remain unknown, because the investigators dramatically changed their protocol methods of assessing the two primary measures of fatigue and physical function. They also relaxed all four criteria for determining “recovery”—so much so that participants could already be “recovered” at baseline on the two primary measures, before any treatment at all.

The investigators have refused to provide the results per the original methods established in the protocol. They have also not provided any sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of the mid-trial changes on the reported findings. This is unacceptable. It is also antithetical to good science and honest debate, as are the other flaws cited in the Virology Blog open letter and in Dr. Tuller’s investigation. (In fact, patients and advocates began pointing out the study’s problems years ago, but their legitimate concerns were consistently ignored, ridiculed or misrepresented.)

The PACE trial has greatly impacted policies and attitudes toward ME/CFS, popularizing the notion that psychotherapy and exercise are effective treatments. Yet patients routinely experience serious relapses after even minimal activity. A report last year from the Institute of Medicine called this phenomenon “exertion intolerance” and identified it as the defining symptom of the disease. This key IOM finding strongly suggests that to increase activity levels, as the PACE interventions recommend, is contraindicated and potentially harmful.

The PACE trial remains under an enormous cloud, and the requested data will provide answers to some of the questions. Given the tribunal’s powerful and persuasive rejection of QMUL’s arguments, prolonging the legal process will only further tarnish the university’s reputation, waste more public funds, and discourage others from participating in future QMUL-sponsored research—all for an indefensible and ultimately losing cause.

We strongly urge QMUL not to appeal the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal and to release the PACE trial data as soon as possible.

Sincerely–

Ronald W. Davis, PhD
Professor of Biochemistry and Genetics
Stanford University
Stanford, California

Jonathan C.W. Edwards, MD
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University College London
London, England

Rebecca Goldin, PhD
Professor of Mathematics
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia

Bruce Levin, PhD
Professor of Biostatistics
Columbia University
New York, New York

Zaher Nahle, PhD, MPA
Vice President for Research and Scientific Programs
Solve ME/CFS Initiative
Los Angeles, California

Vincent R. Racaniello, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Columbia University
New York, New York

Charles Shepherd, MB BS
Honorary Medical Adviser
ME Association
London, England

John Swartzberg, MD
Clinical Professor Emeritus
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California

The TWiXers discuss a study on vertical transmission of Zika virus by Aedes mosquitoes, and uncovering Earth’s virome by mining existing metagenomic sequence data.

You can find TWiV #405 at microbe.tv/twiv, or listen below.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 405 (70 MB .mp3, 117 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunesRSSemail

Become a patron of TWiV!

By David Tuller, DrPH

In January, I posted a list of the questions I still wanted to ask the PACE authors, who have repeatedly refused my requests to interview them about their ethically and methodologically challenged study. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, has similarly declined to talk with me, ignoring my e-mails seeking comment for the initial investigation, posted on Virology Blog last October, as well as for several follow-up articles. Now Dr. Horton has doubled-down on his efforts to keep a lid on the controversy by rejecting a letter that he personally solicited—a major breach of professional courtesy to the 43 well-regarded researchers and clinicians who signed it.

As Dr. Racaniello explained this week at Virology Blog, he submitted the letter on behalf of the group in March, in response to an express invitation from Dr. Horton. The invitation came right after Virology Blog posted an open letter, based on my investigation, that outlined the trial’s major missteps. Dr. Racaniello presumed from the wording of Dr. Horton’s invitation that the letter would, in fact, be published, as did the other signatories. On Monday, having been dissed by The Lancet, Dr. Racaniello finally posted the letter on PubMed Commons. He also called the PACE trial “a sham.” (I’ve called it “a piece of crap.” I might also have referred to it somewhere as “doggie-poo,” but I’m not sure.)

In rejecting the letter that he himself solicited, Dr. Horton certainly appeared to be trying to squelch the growing public controversy over PACE and its recommendations that graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavior therapy are effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (or myalgic encephalomyelitis, CFS, ME, CFS/ME, or ME/CFS, or some other name). But The Lancet’s effort to shield PACE is doomed, not only because the study is so bad but because the emerging science presents a completely different portrait of the illness. On Monday, a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported distinct patterns of metabolites in the plasma of ME/CFS patients—an important finding that, if confirmed, could finally lead to diagnostic tests. The PNAS paper and other recent research support the conclusion of reports last year from both the Institute of Medicine and National Institutes of Health: ME/CFS is a devastating physiological disease.

Back in January, Columbia statistics professor Andrew Gelman blogged about the harm Dr. Horton was already inflicting on his journal by not addressing the serious questions that serious critics were raising about PACE. The longstanding claim of the PACE authors, The Lancet and the trial’s other defenders—that the opponents were a small cabal of irrational, dangerous, and anti-psychiatry patients—has been exposed as false. The PACE authors, The Lancet and their colleagues wielded this narrative for years to discredit those challenging the trial. To their dismay, this tactic is no longer working.

The Lancet’s decision to reject the Virology Blog letter will only compound the journal’s growing reputational damage over the issue. It also seems deeply short-sighted, in light of last month’s powerful court decision ordering Queen Mary University of London, the professional home of principal PACE investigator Peter White, to release the raw trial data. That would allow others to determine whether the PACE investigators altered their outcome assessments strategies to produce results more likely to get published in The Lancet and other journals. (The answer should not surprise anyone except those in extreme stages of denial.)

The decision involved a freedom-of-information request filed two years ago by Alem Matthees, an Australian patient. Since the published results did not include the results per the assessment methods outlined in the PACE trial protocol, Matthees wanted the data necessary to calculate those results for the two primary outcomes of fatigue and physical function, as well as for the original definition of “recovery.” Last October, the Information Commissioner’s Office, an independent agency, found that QMUL had no grounds for refusing to provide the data. QMUL appealed that ruling to the First-Tier Tribunal, which issued the recent decision.

The U.K. medical-academic-media establishment has wholly endorsed the PACE trial’s unreliable findings and accepted the authors’ unsubstantiated claims that they have been subjected to a concerted campaign of threats and harassment. In contrast, the tribunal demonstrated a refreshing unwillingness to play along. In robust language, the tribunal smacked down the specious arguments raised by the university in its attempt to shield the data from public disclosure.

The chance that any participant could or would be identified from the anonymized data was “remote,” the tribunal found. The scenarios envisioned ed by QMUL’s data security expert, who sketched out far-fetched strategies that “activist” patients might pursue to re-identify and then harass trial participants, were “grossly exaggerated” and “a considerable amount of supposition and speculation,” wrote the tribunal. In fact, noted the tribunal, the only incident of “harassment” proven by QMUL’s experienced legal team was that someone somewhere once heckled Trudie Chalder, a principal PACE investigator who also testified at the tribunal hearing. (I also have some thoughts on Dr. Chalder’s testimony, but will hold those for another time.)

In contrast to the QMUL portrait of PACE opponents, the tribunal cited Virology Blog’s open letter to The Lancet as evidence of a robust scientific debate, noting that “the identity of those questioning the research…was impressive.” The tribunal also noted that QMUL’s decision to share data with friendly researchers but not with others had created the impression that it was acting out of self-interest, not principle. “There is a strong public interest in releasing the data given the continued academic interest so long after the research was published and the seeming reluctance for Queen Mary University to engage with other academics they thought were seeking to challenge their findings,” declared the tribunal in the decision.

The PACE authors, QMUL, Dr. Horton, and The Lancet are stonewalling the obvious, at the expense of millions of sick patients. Although Dr. Horton will never grant me an interview, I want to highlight some of the questions I have about his actions, claims and thoughts, in case someone else gets the chance to talk with him. This list of questions is certainly not exhaustive, but it’s a decent start.

So, Dr. Horton–Here’s what I’d like to ask you:

1) Do you agree that the invitation you sent to Dr. Racaniello certainly implied, even if it didn’t explicitly promise, that The Lancet would publish the letter? Since the letter submitted by Dr. Racaniello, on behalf of himself and 42 other experts, reflected the points made in the Virology Blog open letter that triggered your invitation, what changed your mind about whether it added something to the debate? Since you personally solicited the letter from Dr. Racaniello and his colleagues, do you feel you should have sent him a personal apology, rather than leaving your correspondence editor, Audrey Ceschia, to answer for your behavior?

2) In your invitation to Dr. Racaniello, you noted that the PACE authors would have a chance to respond, alongside the published letter. That was a fair plan. When did that plan of offering them a response morph into the plan of offering them a role in discussions about whether to publish the critical letter in the first place? What impact did their views have on your decision? Did the PACE authors argue, as they have in the past, that they have already answered all these criticisms?

This repeated claim that they have answered all questions is simply untrue. They have never explained, for example, how it is possible to be disabled and “within normal range” on an indicator simultaneously, and why 13 % of their participants were already “within normal range” on one or both primary outcome sat baseline. When anyone asks legitimate questions, they evade, ignore or misstate the issues—including in the correspondence following The Lancet’s 2011 paper. (This pattern of non-response is clear from their non-responsive responses to the charges raised in my Virology Blog investigation, and my rebuttal of their non-responses.)

3) What’s your reaction to the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision ordering the release of the PACE trial data? Do you agree with the tribunal’s observation, referring to Virology Blog’s February open letter to you and The Lancet, that the roster of scientists and researchers now publicly questioning the methodology and findings of PACE is “impressive”?

4) Do think QMUL should spend more public money to appeal the decision?

If QMUL decides to appeal, do you think this will fuel the already-widespread assumption that PACE had null findings per the original protocol methods of assessment?

5) The PACE interventions, as described in The Lancet, are based on the premise that deconditioning rather than any pathological process perpetuates the illness, and that increased activity and a new psychological mind-set will fix the problem. The descriptions of the interventions categorically exclude the possibility of a continuing organic disease as the cause. Do you think this portrait of the illness squares with the view emerging from this week’s study in PNAS and other recent research, including last year’s reports from the Institute of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health?

6) The IOM report identified “exertion intolerance”—the prolonged relapses patients often suffer after minimal activity–as the core symptom of the illness. Yet a key aspect of the PACE rehabilitative interventions, GET and CBT, is urging patients to increase their activity and to interpret a resurgence of symptoms as a transient event, not a sign of deterioration. Given the IOM’s focus on “exertion intolerance” as the central phenomenon, isn’t the PACE approach contraindicated?

7) Does it bother you that you published a paper in which 13% of the sample had already, at baseline, met the outcome thresholds for one or both primary measures? These outcome thresholds, which represented worse health than the entry criteria, were variously defined as being “within normal range” (the Lancet paper), “back to normal” (Dr. Chalder’s statement at the press conference for the Lancet paper), and “a strict criterion for recovery” (the Lancet commentary by colleagues of the PACE authors). Can you point me to any other studies published in The Lancet, or anywhere, in which positive outcome scores represented worse health than entry criteria?

8) Does it bother you personally that the PACE authors did not inform you or your editorial staff that a significant minority of patients were already “within normal range” on at least one primary outcome at baseline? (I presume they didn’t mention it to you because, well, it’s hard to imagine you would have published the paper if you or anyone there had been told about or noticed the inexplicable overlap in the entry criteria and the post-hoc “normal range” thresholds.)

9) During a 2011 Australian radio interview not long after The Lancet published the first PACE results, you said the following about the trial’s critics: “One sees a fairly small, but highly organised, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have I would say actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.” Given that the First-Tier Tribunal expressed a different perspective on the stature and credibility of those criticizing PACE, do you still agree with your 2011 characterization of the trial’s opponents?

10) During the same interview, you stated that the PACE trial had undergone “endless rounds of peer review.” Yet the trial was also “fast-tracked” to publication, as indicated on the version of the article in the ScienceDirect database. Can you explain the mechanics of “fast-tracking” a paper to publication while simultaneously subjecting it to “endless rounds of peer review”? How long was the fast-track process for the PACE paper, and how many actual rounds of review did the paper undergo during that endless period?

11) Can you explain why the Lancet’s endless peer review process did not catch the most criticized aspect of the paper—the very obvious fact that participants could be simultaneously disabled enough for entry yet already “within normal range”/”back to normal”/”recovered” on the primary outcomes? Can you explain why the reviewers did not request the authors to provide either the original results promised in the protocol or else sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of the mid-trial changes they introduced?

12) Do you think it was appropriate for the PACE investigators to publish a mid-trial newsletter that promoted the therapies under study and included glowing testimonials from earlier participants about their excellent outcomes? Can you point to other published studies that featured such mid-trial dissemination of personal testimonials and explicit descriptions of outcomes? The PACE authors have stated that the newsletter testimonials did not identify participants’ trial arms and therefore could not have created any bias. Do you agree with this novel and creative argument that influencing all remaining participants in a trial in a positive direction is not a form of bias?

13) Did The Lancet’s peer review process include an evaluation of the PACE trial’s consent forms, given the authors’ explicit promise in the protocol to abide by the Declaration of Helsinki? The Declaration of Helsinki requires investigators to disclose “any possible conflicts of interest” not just to journals but to prospective participants. Yet the PACE consent forms did not disclose the authors’ close financial and consulting ties with the insurance industry. Do you agree this omission violates their protocol promise, and that given this violation the PACE authors failed to obtain legitimate informed consent from their participants? Without legitimate informed consent, did the PACE authors have the right to publish their findings in The Lancet and other journals? What should happen to the PACE papers already published, since the authors do not appear to have legitimate informed consent from participants?

14) Who do you think should be held responsible for the $8,000,000 in U.K. government funds wasted on the PACE trial? Who should be held responsible for the harm it has caused? What responsibility, if any, does The Lancet bear for the debacle?

Last February, Virology Blog posted an open letter to The Lancet and its editor, Dr. Richard Horton, describing the indefensible flaws of the PACE trial of treatments for ME/CFS, the disease otherwise known as chronic fatigue syndrome (link to letter). Forty-two well-regarded scientists, academics and clinicians put their names to the letter, which declared flatly that the flaws in PACE “have no place in published research.” The letter called for a completely independent re-analysis of the PACE trial data, since the authors have refused to publish the results they outlined in their original protocol. The letter was also sent directly to Dr. Horton.

The open letter was based on the extensive investigative report written by David Tuller, the academic coordinator of UC Berkeley’s joint program in journalism and public health, which Virology Blog posted last October (link to report). This report outlines such egregious failings as outcome thresholds that overlapped with entry criteria, mid-trial promotion of the therapies under investigation, failure to provide the original results as outlined in the protocol, failure to adhere to a specific promise in the protocol to inform participants about the investigators’ conflicts of interest, and other serious lapses.

Virology Blog first posted the open letter in November, with six signatories (link to letter). At that time, Dr. Horton’s office responded that he would reply after returning from “traveling.” Three months later, we still had not heard back from Dr. Horton–perhaps he was still “traveling”–so we decided to republish it with many more people signed on.

The day the second open letter was posted, Dr Horton e-mailed me and solicited a letter from the group. (He did not explain where he had been “traveling” for the previous three months.) Here’s what he wrote: “Many thanks for your email. In the interests of transparency, I would like to invite you to submit a letter for publication–please keep your letter to around 500 words. We will then invite the authors of the study to reply to your very serious allegations.”

Dr. Horton’s e-mail clearly indicated that the letter would be published, with the PACE authors’ response to the charges raised; there was no equivocation or possibility of misinterpretation. In good faith, we submitted a letter for publication the following month, with 43 signatories this time, through The Lancet’s online editorial system (see the end of this article for a list of those who signed the letter). After several months with no response, we learned only recently by checking the online editorial system that The Lancet had flatly rejected the letter, with no explanation. No one contacted me to explain the decision or why we were asked to spend time creating a letter that The Lancet clearly had no intention of publishing.

I wrote back to Dr. Horton, pointing out that his behavior was highly unprofessional and requesting an explanation for the rejection. I also asked him if he was in the habit of soliciting letters from busy scientists and researchers that his journal had no actual interest in publishing. I further asked if the journal planned to reconsider this rejection, in light of the recent First-Tier Tribunal decision, which demolished the PACE authors’ bogus reasons for refusing to provide data for independent analysis.

Dr. Horton did not himself apologize or even deign to respond. Instead, Audrey Ceschia, the Lancet’s correspondence editor, replied, explaining that the Lancet editorial staff decided, after discussing the matter with the PACE authors, that the letter did not add anything substantially new to the discussion. She assured us that if we submitted another letter focused on the First-Tier Tribunal decision, it would be “seriously” considered. I’m not sure why she or Dr. Horton think that any such assurance from The Lancet is credible at this point.

The reasons given for the rejection are clearly specious. The letter for publication reflected the matters addressed in the open letter that prompted Dr. Horton’s invitation in the first place, and closely adhered to his directive  to outline our “serious allegations”. If outlining these allegations was not considered publication-worthy by The Lancet, it is incomprehensible to us why Dr. Horton solicited the letter in the first place. Perhaps it was just an effort to hold off further criticism for a period of months while we awaited publication of the letter, unaware of the journal’s intention to reject it. It is certainly surprising that The Lancet appears to have given the PACE authors some power to determine what letters appear in the journal itself.

Dr. Tuller’s investigation, based on the groundbreaking analyses conducted by many savvy patients and advocates since The Lancet published the first PACE results in 2011, has effectively demolished the credibility of the findings. So has a follow-up analysis by Dr. Rebecca Goldin, a math professor at George Mason University and director of Stats.org, a think tank co-sponsored by the American Statistical Association. In short, the PACE study is a sham, with meaningless results. In this case, the emperor truly has no clothes. Dr. Horton and his editorial team at The Lancet are stark naked.

Yet the PACE study remains in the literature. Its recommendation of treatments that are potentially harmful to patients–specifically, graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavior therapy, both designed specifically to increase patients’ activity levels–remains highly influential.

Of particular concern, the PACE findings have laid the groundwork for the MAGENTA study, a so-called “PACE for kids” that will be testing graded exercise therapy in children and adolescents. A feasibility study, sponsored by Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, is currently recruiting participants. It is, of course, completely unacceptable that any study should justify itself based on the uninterpretable findings of the PACE trial. The MAGENTA trial should be halted until the PACE authors have done what the First-Tier Tribunal ordered them to do–release their raw data and allow others to analyze it according to the outcomes specified in the PACE trial protocol.

Today, because of the urgency of the issue, we are posting on PubMed Commons the letter that The Lancet rejected. That way readers can judge for themselves whether it adds anything to the current debate.

Please note that the opinions in this blog post are mine only, not those of any of the other signers of the Lancet letter, listed below

Vincent R. Racaniello, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Columbia University
New York, New York

Ronald W. Davis, PhD
Professor of Biochemistry and Genetics
Stanford University
Stanford, California

Jonathan C.W. Edwards, MD
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University College London
London, England, United Kingdom

Leonard A. Jason, PhD
Professor of Psychology
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois

Bruce Levin, PhD
Professor of Biostatistics
Columbia University
New York, New York

Arthur L. Reingold, MD
Professor of Epidemiology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California

******

Dharam V. Ablashi, DVM, MS, Dip Bact
Scientific Director – HHV-6 Foundation
Former Senior Investigator
National Cancer Institute, NIH
Bethesda, Maryland

James N. Baraniuk, MD
Professor, Department of Medicine
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

Lisa F. Barcellos, PhD, MPH
Professor of Epidemiology
School of Public Health
California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences
University of California
Berkeley, California

Lucinda Bateman MD PC
MECFS and Fibromyalgia clinician
Salt Lake City, Utah

Alison C. Bested MD FRCPC
Clinical Associate Professor of Hematology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

John Chia, MD
Clinician/Researcher
EV Med Research
Lomita, California

Lily Chu, MD, MSHS
Independent Researcher
San Francisco, California

Derek Enlander, MD, MRCS, LRCP
Attending Physician
Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York
ME CFS Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
New York, New York

Mary Ann Fletcher, PhD
Schemel Professor of Neuroimmune Medicine
College of Osteopathic Medicine
Nova Southeastern University
Professor Emeritus, University of Miami School of Medicine
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Kenneth Friedman, PhD
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Physiology (retired)
New Jersey Medical School
University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ
Newark, New Jersey

Robert F. Garry, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Tulane University School of Medicine
New Orleans, Louisiana

Rebecca Goldin, PhD
Professor of Mathematics
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia

David L. Kaufman, MD,
Medical Director
Open Medicine Institute
Mountain View, California

Susan Levine, MD
Clinician, Private Practice
Visiting Fellow, Cornell University
New York, New York

Alan R. Light, PhD
Professor, Department of Anesthesiology
Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Patrick E. McKnight, PhD
Professor of Psychology
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia

Zaher Nahle, PhD, MPA
Vice President for Research and Scientific Programs
Solve ME/CFS Initiative
Los Angeles, California

James M. Oleske, MD, MPH
Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Professor of Pediatrics
Senator of RBHS Research Centers, Bureaus, and Institutes
Director, Division of Pediatrics Allergy, Immunology & Infectious Diseases
Department of Pediatrics
Rutgers – New Jersey Medical School
Newark, New Jersey

Richard N. Podell, M.D., MPH
Clinical Professor
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
New Brunswick, New Jersey

William Satariano, PhD
Professor of Epidemiology and Community Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California

Paul T Seed MSc CStat CSci
Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics
King’s College London, Division of Women’s Health
St Thomas’ Hospital
London, England, United Kingdom

Charles Shepherd, MB BS
Honorary Medical Adviser to the ME Association
London, England, United Kingdom

Christopher R. Snell, PhD
Scientific Director
WorkWell Foundation
Ripon, California

Nigel Speight, MA, MC, BChir, FRCP, FRCPCH, DCH
Pediatrician
Durham, England, United Kingdom

Philip B. Stark, PhD
Professor of Statistics
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California

Eleanor Stein, MD FRCP(C)
Assistant Clinical Professor
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

John Swartzberg, MD
Clinical Professor Emeritus
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California

Ronald G. Tompkins, MD, ScD
Summer M Redstone Professor of Surgery
Harvard University
Boston, Massachusetts

Rosemary Underhill, MB BS.
Physician, Independent Researcher
Palm Coast, Florida

Dr Rosamund Vallings MNZM, MB BS
General Practitioner
Auckland, New Zealand

Michael VanElzakker, PhD
Research Fellow, Psychiatric Neuroscience Division
Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Mark Vink, MD
Family Physician
Soerabaja Research Center
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Prof Dr FC Visser
Cardiologist
Stichting CardioZorg
Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

William Weir, FRCP
Infectious Disease Consultant
London, England, United Kingdom

John Whiting, MD
Specialist Physician
Private Practice
Brisbane, Australia

Marcie Zinn, PhD
Research Consultant in Experimental Neuropsychology, qEEG/LORETA, Medical/Psychological Statistics
NeuroCognitive Research Institute, Chicago
Center for Community Research
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois

Mark Zinn, MM
Research consultant in experimental electrophysiology
Center for Community Research
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois

TWiV 404: Not found

From the twiVivants, follow up on FluMist and Zoster vaccines, Zika virus update, and isolation of a multicomponent animal virus from mosquitoes.

You can find TWiV #404 at microbe.tv/twiv, or listen below.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 404 (91 MB .mp3, 126 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunesRSSemail

Become a patron of TWiV!

dose-response-plaque-assayThere are many examples of viruses with segmented genomes – like influenza viruses – but these genomes segments are packaged in  one virus particle. Sometimes the genome segments are separately packaged in virus particles. Such multicomponent viruses are commonly found to infect plants and fungi, but only recently have examples of such viruses that infect animals been discovered (paper link).
Sequence analysis of viruses isolated from Culex mosquitoes in Central and South American Countries revealed six new viruses with segmented RNA genomes, which was confirmed by gel electrophoresis of RNA extracted from virus particles.
Some of the virus isolates appear to lack the fifth RNA segment, and the results of RNA transfection experiments indicated that this RNA is not needed for viral infectivity.
RNA viruses with segmented genomes are common, but in this case, the surprise came when it was found that the dose-response curve of infection for these viruses was not linear. In other words, one virus particle was not sufficient to infect a cell (illustrated). In this case, between 3 and 4 particles were needed to establish an infection. These findings indicate that the viral RNA segments are separately packaged, and must enter a cell together to initiation infection.
These novel viruses, called Guaico Culex virus (GCXV) are distantly related to flaviviruses, a family of non-segmented, + strand RNA viruses. They are part of a clade of RNA viruses with segmented genomes called the Jingmenvirus, which includes a novel tick-borne virus isolated in China (previously discussed on this blog), and a variant isolated from a red colobus monkey in Uganda. These viruses are also likely to have genomes that are separately packaged.
An interesting question is to identify the selection that lead to the emergence of  multicomponent viruses that require multiple particles to initiate an infection. Perhaps transmission of these types of viruses by insect vectors facilitates the introduction of multiple virus particles into a cell. How such viral genomes emerged and persisted remains a mystery that might be solved by the analysis of other viruses with similar genome architectures.

The TWiV team takes on an experimental plant-based poliovirus vaccine, contradictory findings on the efficacy of Flumist, waning protection conferred by Zostavax, and a new adjuvanted subunit zoster vaccine.

You can find TWiV #403 at microbe.tv/twiv, or listen below.

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 403 (70 MB .mp3, 96 min)
Subscribe (free): iTunesRSSemail

Become a patron of TWiV!