A nanoelectronics-blood-based diagnostic biomarker for ME/CFS (2019) Esfandyarpour, Davis et al

Ron Davis talks about ME patients having the symptoms of Mast Cell Activation in the piece above, and that they can be treated.

Is anyone having treatment for mast cell activation? I have written in another thread that I think I may have developed this and would be grateful for any comments. Does anyone know what treatments he’s referring to?

https://www.s4me.info/threads/due-t...en-could-mcas-be-in-the-mix.9897/#post-179242

ETA: ME added

 

JAMA: Biomarker Test for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome affects at least 2 million people in the United States. Despite its prevalence, there’s no laboratory test for the disease, and its diagnosis is based on symptoms like exhaustion, unrefreshing sleep, and light sensitivity. For patients with this debilitating condition, getting a diagnosis is often a long and expensive process. Now, a long-awaited biomarker-based test for the mysterious disease could be on the horizon.

 

Thanks for the article.

Perhaps related to a request yesterday to return for yet another blood draw at Stanford. I don't know anything more, however. (I always eat a cookie after a blood draw)

Edit: The blood draw turned out instead to be for a metabolic trap study.

 

Stanford Medicine Twitter have reposted the article about this study.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1211573408556896258

 

Any ideas how long the process will take until I can get the test privately or go to my GP and ask for it? I should imagine a very long time, no?

 

It would need to be independently validated first. That will take years.

 

Following a question by @FMM1 on another thread I thought I would go looking to see if there was any updated info on the Nanoneedle work.

It was one of the applications to NIH that was reported on in the summer of 2019.

https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2019/08/06/harvard-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-hub-hidden-gem/

This was an update from Ron Davis on PR in Dec 2019

The full statement about the work can be found here.
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/nanoneedle-update-finding-whats-in-the-blood.78592/

I assume it didn't get accepted for NIH funding as no news on the application since then. With NIH funding Dr. Esfandyarpour would have very good motivation to assign students to work on it and progress could be accelerated. I have no idea if anybody is assigned to do the work described although it does seem from the update that someone is working on it. Maybe the application can be resubmitted?

This is Dr. Esfandyarpour's bio at UCI Engineering school for those interested.
https://engineering.uci.edu/users/rahim-esfandyarpour

This is a description of his research group. I see no pictures of the nanoneedle, and no mention of it as a specific project. Biggest emphasis is on wearable sensors for health.......
https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/esfandyarpourlab/

There is/was an opening in his group which is for a post doc to work on Organ-on-chip work which is a joint project with Stanford. It is not for nanoneedle.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rahi...tdoc-opening-ugcPost-6631684996530868224-y4KB

And there was another Phd student advert 5 months ago, for a position starting in the fall 2020. Perhaps this will include nanoneedle work?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rahi...ing-to-uci-activity-6602064237529567232-lpMv/

 

Thanks Wigglethemouse. So, basically, the late January news is all we can be accurately sure of at this point. Is this correct? Or perhaps there is more news and we don't really know.....I'm surprised that if NIH didn't grant cash that we would not have heard...this sort of news usually get posted somewhere. All the patients that I know in the severe category are suffering added distress and renewed insomnia because they realise that Covid has turned everything upside down, and they are worried/frightened that ME advancements might be stalled even if researchers are trying their hardest to carry on.

 

The last new NIH grant approvals for ME in NIH reporter system appeared in January. Of the top of my head Leonnard Jason R01 to extend his study of post IM, and R21 for Abdullah

Okay, here are the details
MAINTENANCE AND INCIDENCE OF ME/CFS FOLLOWING MONO (Jason)
Budget Start Date: 1-JAN-2020 R01
https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=9886879&icde=31258613

APPLICATION OF LIPIDOMICS TO IDENTIFY BIOMARKERS OF IMMUNE AND MITOCHONDRIAL DISTURBANCES IN CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (ABDULLAH).
Budget Start Date: 1-DEC-2019 R21
https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_details.cfm?aid=9841376&icde=31258613

 

Could sodium chloride be effecting the sodium channels

 

Merged thread

The Robert G. Fenley Writing Awards: News Releases – Silver goes to “Biomarker for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Identified” By Hanae Armitage Stanford

https://www.aamc.org/professional-d...-g-fenley-writing-awards-news-releases-silver

 

This is great news. Okay, it is still in a pilot phase, but:

"With blood samples from 40 people — 20 with chronic fatigue syndrome and 20 without — the test yielded precise results, accurately flagging all chronic fatigue syndrome patients and none of the healthy individuals"

The results could not have had a better starting point than this.

 

1. I initially found myself wondering how valuable is this, unless we can be confident it discriminates between ME/CFS and other serious illnesses it might be confused with? To be a true biomarker it would have to uniquely and unambiguously identify ME/CFS. However ...
2. Given ME/CFS is currently diagnosed by excluding other serious illnesses it might be confused with, then if despite this a patient also shows clear biomedical abnormality, then - as Sherlock might have said - what is left must be ME/CFS. The biomarker would not have to discriminate, because the exclusion diagnosis has already done so. No matter how improbable the GET-brigade might find that truth to be.
3. The patient group who might fall down the cracks with this, could be those with a serious illness that can be confused with ME/CFS, but who go on to develop ME/CFS later on. If the biomarker did not uniquely single out ME/CFS, the patient's symptoms might severely worsen but be assumed simply a deterioration of the pre-existing condition.
4. So a biomarker only reliably discriminating ME/CFS from healthy people would nonetheless be a huge step forward, combined with existing diagnostic methods, confirming a real physical illness. This would help a significant majority of pwME, whose first diagnosis is that of ME/CFS.
5. A biomarker unique to ME/CFS would be the icing on the cake. People already suffering from one of the other illnesses, could then get a clear diagnosis if they then later developed ME/CFS.
   
6. Most importantly of course, this biomarker would have to not show up in people with mental illness such as depression etc. who do not also suffer from ME/CFS, which some psychiatrists seek to attribute ME/CFS to. If we could have a biomarker that truly did single out ME/CFS uniquely and unambiguously, then it might even transpire that some people diagnosed solely with depression etc., might in fact prove to have both ME/CFS and depression.

 

Merged thread

Difference Between the Nanoneedle and Other Impedance Analyzers?

What’s the difference between the nanoneedle and off-the-shelf impedance analyzers? Can off-the-shelf counterparts separate ME/CFS PBMCs with ME/CFS plasma from those with healthy plasma? And while utilizing the salt-stress test?

Here’s a summary of how 2 impedance analyzers work:

• Nanoneedle: “The assay detects any impedance modulation due to the presence and/or interactions of biomolecules of interest at the active sensing region of the sensors [1].”
  
• xCELLigence RTCA: “Changes in morphology, adherence and cell numbers lead to impedance shifts reflected as cell index (CI) alterations which are dynamically recorded using the instrument [2].”

I’m not quite sure how similar these are. Maybe cell numbers and adherence mean the same as “presence and/or interactions of biomolecules,” which the nanoneedle uses to measure impedance. It’s also of interest that the xCELLigence system can measure changes in morphology. Maybe this could be used to replicate Prusty’s findings [3] about changes in mitochondrial morphology.

So, could this be a viable avenue of searching for the “something in the blood?”

 

I have never really understood what the nano needle is trying to measure. At one point I thought I could see what it would do but I have forgotten. It uses very small electrodes very close together so presumably it is measuring impedance across individual cells. That would normally involve a microscope and putting electrodes in a specific place in relation to a cell but as far as I can see it is done in troughs or wells without visualising cells.

The result will surely depend entirely on what size the instrument is, how far apart the electrodes are, and what sort of cell preparation is used. To talk of measuring impedance for cells is a bit like measuring impedance for a radio - it will depend entirely on where in the radio you attach your test wires.

 

xCELLigence RTCA S16 Real Time Cell Analyzer – 16 well
https://www.aceabio.com/products/rtca-s16/

A nanoelectronics-blood-based diagnostic biomarker for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/21/10250

The Stanford device has thousands of sensors (needles) but I can't tell how many sensors the xCELLigence devices have, other than "a set of gold microelectrodes" per well. Whether the Stanford device has many more sensors than the xCELLigence I don't know.

 

Could it be that by having a large number of closely spaced sensors, then the technology may be relying on statistical probability of enough cells being suitably placed, without needing to micro-manoeuvre sensors onto individual cells?

 

I guess that is the hope. But if you were checking batteries for voltage you would want to make sure your electrodes are positioned at either end, not just touching the batteries. I would expect cells to be similar. The relevance of any impedance measurement will depend on what it is impedance across.