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

T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
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."

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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

OBJECTIVES/GOALS:

Strong evidence has implicated oxidative stress (OS) as a disease mechanism in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The study aim was to assess whether a C>T single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (rs1800668), which reduces the activity of glutathione peroxidase 1 (GPX1), is associated with brain OS in patients with ME/CFS.

METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:

Study population: The study enrolled 20 patients with ME/CFS diagnosed according to Canadian Consensus Criteria, and 11 healthy control (HC) subjects.
Genotyping: DNA was extracted from whole blood samples, amplified by PCR, and purified. Sanger sequencing was used for genotyping.
1H MRS: Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H MRS) was used to measure levels of glutathione (GSH)— a primary tissue antioxidant and OS marker— in a 3x3x2 cm3 occipital cortex (OCC) voxel. GSH spectra were recorded in 15 minutes with the standard J-editing technique. The resulting GSH peak area was normalized to tissue water level in the voxel.

Statistical Analysis: T-tests were used to compare OCC GSH levels between ME/CFS and HC groups, and between the study’s genotype groups (group 1: CC, group 2: combined TC and TT).

RESULTS/ ANTICIPATED RESULTS:

Clinical characteristics: ME/CFS and HC groups were comparable on age and BMI but not on sex (p = 0.038). Genotype frequencies: Genotype frequencies in the ME/CFS group were 0.55 (CC), 0.25 (TC) and 0.2 (TT); and 0.636 (CC), 0.364 (TC), and 0 (TT) in the HC group.

GSH levels: There was a trend-level lower mean OCC GSH in ME/CFS than in HC (0.0015 vs 0.0017; p = 0.076). GSH levels by genotype group interaction: Within the ME/CFS group but not in the combined ME/CFS and HC group or HC group alone, GSH levels were lower in the TC and TT genotypes than in CC genotypes (0.00143 vs 0.00164; p = 0.018).

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.
 
Trish said:
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

OBJECTIVES/GOALS:

Strong evidence has implicated oxidative stress (OS) as a disease mechanism in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The study aim was to assess whether a C>T single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (rs1800668), which reduces the activity of glutathione peroxidase 1 (GPX1), is associated with brain OS in patients with ME/CFS.

METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:

Study population: The study enrolled 20 patients with ME/CFS diagnosed according to Canadian Consensus Criteria, and 11 healthy control (HC) subjects.
Genotyping: DNA was extracted from whole blood samples, amplified by PCR, and purified. Sanger sequencing was used for genotyping.
1H MRS: Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H MRS) was used to measure levels of glutathione (GSH)— a primary tissue antioxidant and OS marker— in a 3x3x2 cm3 occipital cortex (OCC) voxel. GSH spectra were recorded in 15 minutes with the standard J-editing technique. The resulting GSH peak area was normalized to tissue water level in the voxel.

Statistical Analysis: T-tests were used to compare OCC GSH levels between ME/CFS and HC groups, and between the study’s genotype groups (group 1: CC, group 2: combined TC and TT).

RESULTS/ ANTICIPATED RESULTS:

Clinical characteristics: ME/CFS and HC groups were comparable on age and BMI but not on sex (p = 0.038). Genotype frequencies: Genotype frequencies in the ME/CFS group were 0.55 (CC), 0.25 (TC) and 0.2 (TT); and 0.636 (CC), 0.364 (TC), and 0 (TT) in the HC group.

GSH levels: There was a trend-level lower mean OCC GSH in ME/CFS than in HC (0.0015 vs 0.0017; p = 0.076). GSH levels by genotype group interaction: Within the ME/CFS group but not in the combined ME/CFS and HC group or HC group alone, GSH levels were lower in the TC and TT genotypes than in CC genotypes (0.00143 vs 0.00164; p = 0.018).

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.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Wasn’t sure whether the forum wanted the whole thing on the forum.
 
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".
 
Creekside said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
DokaGirl said:
But, maybe we would be looking at much more powerful antioxidants via prescription.
Click to expand...

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.

DokaGirl said:
Perhaps even something brand new.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
Creekside said:
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".
Click to expand...

I think antioxidants are somewhat helpful for me.
 
Mij said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom