Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeAnalysis of this study
Posted by Flipperrr on 14 Aug 2010 at 10:19 GMT
Analysis by virologist prof. Racaniello, about the limitations of this study, and about how the study should be done to have a chance to pick up xmrv, concluding that :
"I realize it may be difficult to conduct the study in this way, but I don’t see the value of doing it any other way."
http://www.virology.ws/20...
RE: Analysis of this study
ERV- replied to Flipperrr on 16 Aug 2010 at 13:49 GMT
The title of this paper is "Lack of Detection of XMRV in Seminal Plasma from HIV-1 Infected Men in The Netherlands". Not "Lack of Detection of XMRV in Semen from HIV-1 Infected Men in The Netherlands".
While I agree it would be *neat* to know if XMRV hitches a ride in other cells, like HIV-1 can, thats not what this paper is about. Nor do I think its an odd question to ask, especially considering its been published that cell-free virus was found in bronchial lavages of immunocompromised patients. It makes more sense XMRV would be found in seminal plasma, over epithelial lining fluid in lungs.
Nor do I think its reasonable to make the authors 'test' this group of people for 'XMRV infection' by other means, considering there are no other means standardized. Why test PBMC when it apparently is difficult to find there? What if thats not the cellular reservoir? What if prostate epithelium is a better indicator than PBMC, and you falsely label patients as negative? It is logical to look for XMRV in HIV-1(+) patients because HIV+ people are infected with every other viral STD at higher levels than the general population. If XMRV was going to be in the seminal plasma of any population, it was going to be in this group too, and easier to find.