Exercise-induced changes in cerebrospinal fluid miRNAs in Gulf War Illness, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and sedentary control subjects, 2017, Baraniuk

Exercise – induced changes in cerebrospinal fluid miRNAs in Gulf War Illness, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and sedentary control subjects

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15383-9

By James Baraniuk and Narayan Shivapurkar.

 

Can someone comment as to the relevance of the results in relation to the potential patophysiology of ME?

They mention neurotoxicity in relation to GWI, but do not delve into any conclusions regarding ME.

 

The Venn diagram is good, and should perhaps become part of the standard educational toolkit. Showing how easy it is for some to conflate cause and effect.

 

Not sure why they excluded neurological and GI symptoms from the CFS group, however. Are they using Fukuda still?

 

Yes, CDC 1994

 

"The miRNA changes in the two GWI subtypes add to other differences caused by exercise. One subgroup developed jumps in heart rate of over 30 beats when standing up that lasted for two to three days after exercise. Magnetic resonance imaging showed they had smaller brainstems in regions that control heart rate, and did not activate their brains when doing a cognitive task. In contrast, the other subgroup did not have any heart rate or brainstem changes, but did recruit additional brain regions to complete a memory test. The two groups were as different from each other as they were from the control group."

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...ic-fatigue-syndrome-and-Gulf-War-Illness.aspx

 

Is this in Nature, as in the big science journal? Hard to tell from the website.

 

No. It's an open access journal Scientific Reports which is part of the Nature publishing group but the bar for publication is drastically lower than in Nature itself.

 

True. Are they actually deemed to be part of diagnostic criteria? (Not a disguised statement, I genuinely don't know). Or are they simply peripheral things that PwME are known to exhibit. Possibly a subtle distinction? The diagram is specifically about diagnostic criteria.

 

Interesting also that the diagram effectively shows CFS as a subset of GWI, in terms of diagnostic criteria. Could that very tentatively suggest chemical exposures might be a common theme, albeit the GWI victims probably encountered worse chemicals in worse doses?

 

Good point. Just shows the dangers of continuing use of CDC criteria. Neurological and GI symptoms are part and parcel of many people's presentations. IBS and food intolerances seem extremely common. Dysautonomia (which is a neurological symptom) seems almost universal.

 

The ICC and CCC both have neurological symptoms in their diagnostic criteria, and the ICC includes GI symptoms as well. SEID includes cognitive impairment, which would probably be classified as neurological.

 

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2017111015180009.html
Brain Chemistry Study Shows Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Gulf War Illness as Unique Disorders

 

Is this not the same illness that an eminent psychiatrist debunked? Seems it' s not all psychological after all.....

 

I am in the middle of packing to go away but from what I can see this looks like a very nice study. It is particularly interesting that ME/CFS and the two GWI types are distinct.

 

When you have time, I would like to hear what makes this study nice. Is it nice because of good methodology or because it answers an important question? It seems to tell us that in the brain too, the abnormalities may only appear with exertion. Does this study make it more or less likely that the origin of the problem is in the brain, rather than somewhere else?

 

The methodology and the general style of writing look professional to me. It reads like a scientist writing for other scientists rather than for referees. It is interesting that there are only two authors with Baraniuk as the first. If a senior scientist is the first author on data paper like this it means he has rolled up his sleeves and done it himself. That means a lot.

And if these findings are repeatable they are just the sort of thing we are looking for - different patterns of response to exercise. I also like the idea that everyone did the same exercise and then differences were looked for that could not be due to trying harder or not. It all seems well thought out.