Search results

Going through the candidate genes pdf and SLC9C2 is mentioned which I don’t think we’ve had much discussion of Which reminded me of discussion in the Zhang paper starting with his from @chillier There was a fair bit of speculation about shared ion channels, results in PrecisionLife and if...

I think you’re right, the numbers and emphasis seem different from this announcement https://www.actionforme.org.uk/sequenceme-first-of-a-kind-genetic-study/ https://nanoporetech.com/news/oxford-nanopore-action-for-me-and-university-of-edinburgh-launch-groundbreaking-study-into-the-genetics-of-me

Is this because of analysis time or the need to get more samples? https://megenetics.org.uk/our-projects/sequence-me-long-covid/ What are the pros/cons from a scientific or funding perspective of including a new cohort of LC patients? Would it be possible to do analysis of existing ME/CFS...

Agree. It’s a point I’ve repeatedly made. I had a good job, now I can’t do it. If there is a moral duty to get people back into work there’s a moral duty to invest in treatments so they can and in adequate care and support until those treatments are available.

Will you be looking at stratified analysis by severity to see if this changes the genetic signals found or the strength of them? The Data Analysis plan seemed to indicate 2k was enough to do this for co-morbidities.

I suppose you could say they’re a bit like seagulls. Good at regurgitation but you wouldn’t depend on them for reliable deduction. Well crafted promote definitely help, out of the box their system prompts can give a tendency to be sycophantic, although there are some recent examples of Gemini...

They're trying to hold onto relevance and shouting BACME BACME while their backing and funding is at risk of being removed.

Yeah, and in turn LLMs are good at reading wikipedia. Meta-pedia? I guess that’s another name for Llama!

Absolutely this. These tools can create plausible sounding results from anything. They’re great when used responsibly, for anything which is verifiable, as they can be trained and trained to ensure they behave. That’s why they often make good information retrieval, summarising, code...

There’s more information in the Data Analysis Plan which may help https://www.decodeme.org.uk/our-gwas-data-analysis-plan/ Check the section of the PDF on Ancestry https://www.decodeme.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-15_DecodeME_Data_Analysis_Plan_v2_final.pdf

I’d skip the AI stuff for speculative answers like this. Probably safe to say we don’t know yet and read the great blog post https://www.decodeme.org.uk/x-marks-the-spot/ Or listen to it if that’s easier for you https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZqX2W5Z4yR8YkHhWUzzghs07AaMamsl6mW7

This seems pretty fair and well edited. The way they have pieced this together is quite entertaining with some selective quoting used to skip the more questionable claims by certain people…

Really well put. I hadn’t made that distinction in my own head but it’s really important.

And increased ZNFX1 equates to decreased inflammation or inflammatory signals? So is this something ‘anti-inflammatory’ popping up again? NLRP3 is apparently expressed predominantly in macrophages. And more ZNFX1 would suppress/inhibit activation here?

I think I see what you mean. Learning about these genes there seems to be a lot about what is let into or out of cells, cleanup and communication between them (particularly neurons). So in a complex and busy environment having your doormen and your maintenance crews behave just a little ‘off’...

I think I may have misunderstood what @chillier was saying and repeated it but with more and probably less useful words!

There seems to be lots of things around cell transport and vesicles and synapses cropping up. So could this be not so much about pathogen entry but just subtle differences in neurotransmitter behaviour? One of the many little probabilities shifting slightly which when combined under certain...

Molecular neurobiology and pain genetics, that’s the ticket! https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-sciences/divisions/wolfson-institute-biomedical-research

Indeed. It is annoying that such rigour is being ignored with empty arguments and in some ways it would be nice to have them corrected in reporting. But tbh for now I don’t think it’s the message people are hearing and I don’t think Chris and co should worry too much about it in their media...

I’d add that the project very clearly did not disclose its criteria for exclusion. This caused a problem with reducing numbers for the GWAS but also with parts of the ME/CFS community because people were not being asked for saliva samples and they did not know why. This is key for the argument...