Open Medicine Foundation (OMF)

I am not sure if this was discussed somewhere else but I am curious about a study that appears on the OMF website :

https://www.omf.ngo/genetic-and-metabolic-markers-of-bh4-deficiency-in-long-covid/

“We have determined that individuals with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are more likely to have pathogenic variants in BH4 synthesis genes compared to the general population, and we have also identified a corroborating metabolic signature that predicts BH4 deficiency”

Could someone link to the ME studies where such variants are included ?

I know @mariovitali discussed this hypothesis long ago.

 
Last edited:
@Aroa To be fair : BH4 has been mentioned by others before I did. What I found was an SNP on a gene called Sepiapterin (SPR) and this was shared with Stanford. Additionaly, the software I use has identified BH4 as a "major research target", in other words it confirmed the relevance of BH4 to ME/CFS before Stanford decided to conduct a study about it
 
Last edited:
Andy said:
As far as I can see there are none. There is nothing on the forum, and Google doesn't find anything either. My guess therefore would be that it is unpublished data that they are talking about.
Click to expand...
"We have determined" isn't exactly precise language - does it mean in vivo research carried out by OMF itself, or does it mean OMF researchers have carried out systemic studies of previously published work ?

I'm not encouraged by a following sentence which seems to indicate a lack of scientific objectivity: "If we are successful, we will show that ME/CFS and Long Covid have a common underlying disease mechanism that includes deficiency of BH4." A negative finding would be just as scientifically valid.

Search on BH4 & ME & CFS on Google Scholar gives these (first two pages only):


1. [PDF] The NO/ONOO-vicious cycle mechanism as the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis
ML Pall - Hauppauge (NY): Nova Science Publishers, 2009 - researchgate.net
… in the de novo pathway for the synthesis of BH4. Thus high dose IV ascorbate will be expected to increase the availability of BH4 by stimulating its synthesis via the de novo pathway. …

2. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: the human herpesviruses are back!
ME Ariza - Biomolecules, 2021 - mdpi.com
… synthesis of tetrahydropterin (BH4), a substrate required for serotonin and dopamine synthesis by … down-regulated key genes involved with dopamine and serotonin synthesis as well as …

3. Marginal BH4 deficiencies, iNOS, and self-perpetuating oxidative stress in post-acute sequelae of Covid-19
WA Villaume - Medical Hypotheses, 2022 - Elsevier
… of other syndromes such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), … mutations of GCH1 and related genes lead to marginal deficiencies of BH4 that are typically …

4.Nitric oxide synthase partial uncoupling as a key switching mechanism for the NO/ONOO–cycle
ML Pall - Medical hypotheses, 2007 - Elsevier
… cases of illnesses including chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple … The combination of high NOS activity and BH4 depletion will … and there is evidence that genetic predisposition plays an …

All looks pretty speculative with no obvious line of priority to research.

Edit: 2. above discussed here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/artic...uman-herpesviruses-are-back-2021-ariza.18888/
 
Last edited:
From the Open Medicine Foundation website:

OMF & Patient-Led Research Collaborative
Pioneering Progress for ME/CFS and Long COVID

https://www.omf.ngo/pioneering-progress-for-me-cfs-and-long-covid/
OMF said:
Open Medicine Foundation (OMF) is dedicated to finding diagnostic tools, treatments, and a cure for ME/CFS and related multi-system chronic complex diseases (msCCDs). Our current Long COVID and ME/CFS research is providing us with valuable insights into post-infection disease. We hope to use this knowledge to find solutions for all those affected by these debilitating illnesses.

In late 2022, OMF was honored to be awarded with three research grants from Patient Led Research Collaborative (PLRC). These research projects will investigate three key areas: sleep, drug repurposing, and multi-omics of ME/CFS and Long COVID.

These studies will provide further understanding of the complex mechanisms underlying these diseases and may help us identify new treatment options.
...

The Patient-Led Research Collaborative is a group of Long COVID patients who are also researchers of their own condition. Born out of the Body Politic support group, PLRC published the first research on Long COVID in April 2020. Since then, the collaborative has published peer-reviewed papers in the Lancet and Nature, as well as working with the CDC, WHO and NIH.
Click to expand...

The Patient-Led Research Collaborative website is here - https://patientresearchcovid19.com/
 
I think they may have delivered some false hope but also some real hope.

Hope for progress from research helps keep me going: it has helped me avoiding ever becoming depressed. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in my lifetime, maybe there won’t be, who knows, but the hope that there might be keeps me going. I think hope can be useful.

And if there is little or no research going on, it’s harder to have hope.
 
Last edited:
Re hope, some earlier discussion back here:
Hutan said:
I see the tag line of OMF is 'Leading Research. Delivering Hope'. I'm not sure how long that has been there.

As Mango said a while back, for many of us, hope that doesn't harm needs to be based in reality. Hope is lost if there is no credible evidence of progress.

I would hope that the aim of OMF is in fact not to deliver hope, but, eventually, to deliver knowledge.
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe tall tales from anyone, and the OMF won't achieve anything magical few years. But they're one of the biggest research charities and fairly prolific. Hopefully their treatment trials, which they announced at the end of last year, will get off the ground. I'm not expecting the world, but promising preliminary results may allow bigger studies to get funded.
 
OMF (and the research they fund) seem not to be tied to any one line of research. So the fact that one (or more) line of research they have previously funded hasn’t led to clear progress doesn’t mean another angle may not work.

But if people prefer to fund another research group, feel free. What concerns me is some people may not donate to, or fundraise for, any research. I don’t think not funding research privately is a good strategy if one wants research progress.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like OMF has lost a lot of momentum compared to the earlier years (despite having more money than ever). It feels like the research coming out is the bare minimum to show they are doing something. They may be doing a lot more behind the scenes, but if they don't publish anything or let anybody know then it's kind of pointless isn't it? Medical research is a collaborative effort, it's not like you see the lone scientist doing experiments in his secret labs for years and then suddenly he comes out with the cure for cancer.

It is sad for me personally but it is what it is. I don't have much hope seeing all the research that came out from the past 10 years (not just OMF), even despite all the long covid money i don't see anything substantial ever happening. The tide can always turn of course, and if some people have a lot of hope, more power to them!
 
I think we need to be clear about the distinction between OMF and the small team at Stanford led by Ron Davis. OMF funds other researchers scattered around the world as well. Also some research was delayed by the pandemic, and some people Ron was working with have moved elsewhere. And research can take years to complete and publish. I think the mistake they made in the early days was promising more than they could deliver. ME has turned out to be a much harder problem than they realised as new researchers in the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom