Exploring the Genetic Contribution to Oxidative Stress in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2023, Hampilos et al

Abstract (only):

Exploring the Genetic Contribution to Oxidative Stress in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Nicholas Henry Hampilos1 , Arnaud Germain2 , Xiangling Mao1 , Maureen R. Hanson2 , Dikoma C. Shungu1 1 Weill Cornell Medicine 2 Cornell University

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...encephalomyelitischronic-fatigue-syndrome.pdf

"DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study found that the presence of a C>T SNP in GPX1 is associated with lower mean GSH levels and, hence, brain oxidative stress, in ME/CFS patients. If validated in a larger cohort, this finding may support targeted antioxidant therapy based on their genotype as a potentially effective treatment for patients with ME/CFS."

 

Wonder where the full paper is, given this is just the abstract. Perhaps it's not out yet.

 

Web view: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ue-syndrome/E006619A1543DC159EC835759B2F6BD0#

 

Thanks. Wasn’t sure whether the forum wanted the whole thing on the forum.

 

Quite a small study, so would be interested in seeing a larger one.

 

It may be a presentation for a meeting so there may not be a full paper in existence or even planned at this point.

 

Ummm, if antioxidants were an effective treatment for ME, wouldn't some of us have noticed that by now? Theories are great, but many of us consume a variety of antioxidants, some intentionally in mega-doses, so the observed lack of improvement kind of shoots down theories with the conclusion that "antioxidants will help".

 

I had the same thought. But, maybe we would be looking at much more powerful antioxidants via prescription. Perhaps even something brand new.

It would be interesting to see further studies.

 

I'm guessing that the UK GWAS study fits that criteria i.e. if "glutathione peroxidase 1 (GPX1)" is relevant.

@DokaGirl

 

I think there are pretty potent ones even without prescriptions. Furthermore, antioxidants are not an 'only does good for the body' component; too much antioxidant is bad for us. Our bodies evolved with endogenously produced oxidants, and they play important roles in cellular signalling, removal of bad cells, etc.

I'm no expert on this, but I think antioxidants are pretty simple: molecules that bind to available oxygen ions. Antioxidants will vary with how quickly they react, how they move in the body, how the body deals with the reaction products, etc, but they still all have the same result: the oxygen bond is no longer available for binding elsewhere. I don't see much opportunity for a new one to be significantly 'better'.

 

I think antioxidants are somewhat helpful for me.

 

My understanding is that antioxidants are very tightly regulated in our body and it doesn't take much to throw it off balance which in turn causes a negative effect.

 

Yes, antioxidants help me. Not all of them though.

 

Historically, I think that there was a somewhat naive view of body chemistry, that said simply that pro-oxidant activity = bad and antioxidant activity = good, and even more naively that a body can be treated as a single chemical unit and pouring in more of the good stuff must have a beneficial effect.

The reality is chemistry in higher animals is very complex and what is good or bad is defined by exactly what inputs are available at a specific location and specific time to facilitate a specific process. Genetic variation is interesting because it can distinguish between individuals who are more efficient at providing the optimal input for a given location/time in a given process and those individuals who are less efficient, however a magic potion of removing inefficiencies has so far eluded those researching a large number of disease where free radicals are implicated. Stimulation of in cell behaviour seems likely to be a more promising route that simply bunging higher levels of vitamins into the digestive or circulatory systems.