Search results

If all these arguments are right, I think you would expect to find a lot of common findings between chronic illness GWAS, and I don' think that is the case (though I think there is some evidence for genetic links to research participation etc).. Also, GWAS findings I'm aware of often tie in with...

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make: it's diagnosis by a heatlhcare professional plus meeting IOM/CCC criteria (assessed by symptoms, inc PEM). Yes, and it sounds very plausible, though the reality might not have backed that up.

I'm not entirely sure about that. Certainly heritability was modest but non-zero (0.096, I think). Given that these are well defined individuals, I'm not sure if that number is also prone to the same confounders. However, there will be subgroup analysis at some point, of comorbid conditions...

Me too. My sister, niece and mother had come by (rare for us to be together, and it has to be short due to my health) with a takeaway. We watched the C4 report together in stunned silence - it was some moment to share. Thanks to Chris, the participant, Tessa Munt(??) and the C4 team for the...

In simple terms, the headline one is the strongest of several candidates for each genetic signal (though more than one gene covered by a genetic signal may play a part in the illness. This is from the DecodeME blog: > DecodeME identifies top genes DecodeME has started searching for the...

I think the ambition is to sequence 10,000 people, and the cost would be I think at least £6 million (sequencing costs have fallen a lot since DecodeME was funded five years ago). The proposed new study already has a name – SequenceME It works in a different way to GWAS. Certainly, it would...

There were two parts to this. The study was of people who reported they had a diagnosis from a health professional. The study screening questionnaire also asked people about their symptoms. Only people who met the criteria for either IOM or Canadian consensus definitions were invited to...

An excellent write up in Science magazine, which is probably one of the very best places to get coverage if you want to reach the wider scientific communities. Chris, Sonya and @Andy are all created from a press conference this morning. Thank you all...

GWAS is a field that had its problems in the early days – but unlike this field, for instance it got its house in order. And its replication record now is excellent. These genetic signals should stand the test of time. As the paper makes clear, there is work to do to firm up on a specific genes...

And the questionnaire data looking at comorbidities (not coal visitors!), symptoms and severity differences, and onset types, but nothing that suggested two different categories

Yes, though they have yet to analyse data for the sex chromosomes, which might be a more likely place to find any differences.

Shortened version– read the full blog here. Scientists, people with ME/CFS, and their charities came together to create DecodeME, the world's biggest ME/CFS study – and its results are striking. 18,000 people with ME/CFS gave their DNA, enabling DecodeME to reveal eight genetic signals for the...

That's great news

I just noticed that the window closes at the end of the month, will there be a new one announced following reporting of the results?

I don't think many have been found with much confidence. So this approach is likely to be chasing shadows.

is it possible that slow reaction times could have influence the finger tapping test in the Wallit "effort preference" experiment? I don't know how big the effect size is for reaction time, but it could be an important factor with ME/CFS performed badly @Karen Kirke

Yes, I can imagine it's a problem with online gaming, which is a pretty artificial situation. I've never heard anyone with this illness mentioned reaction time as a problem general conversation or discussion about symptoms. Could you be more specific, I'm curious?

I think a reaction time deficit is the most consistent finding in all cognitive testing (I wrote a blog about this years ago, but don't have the energy to find that now). On the other hand, nobody I know with this illness is ever complained about reaction time being a significant problem, so...

I don't know, I thought 0.4 was higher than you normally get from things like that. But I still think that using a sensible measure would give us a clear answer.

I agree that symptom count is a weird measure, and wouldn't expect it to show much, so r=0.4 is quite impressive. It would be great to see this work done measuring the overall symptom severity/burden on standing. Maybe there is something impressive to find here