Reactivated EBV, HHV6, HAdV in Sputum from ME/CFS Patients: Are autoAbs to IFN-I Impairing Antiviral Immunity?, 2025, Hannestad et al.

John Mac

John Mac

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Now published - link here
*************


Preprint
Full title: Reactivated EBV, HHV6, HAdV in Sputum from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients: Are autoAbs to IFN-I Impairing Antiviral Immunity?

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202502.0185/v1

Abstract
An exhausted antiviral immune response is observed in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID. In this study, potential mechanisms behind this exhaustion were investigated.

First, the viral load of EBV, HAdV, human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6), and SARS-CoV-2 was determined in sputum samples (n=29) derived from ME/CFS patients (n=13), healthy controls (n=10), elderly healthy controls (n=4), and immunosuppressed controls (n=2).

Secondly, autoAbs to type I interferon (IFN-I) in sputum were analyzed to possibly explain impaired viral immunity.

We found that ME/CFS patients released EBV at a significantly higher level compared to controls (p=0.0256).

HHV6 was present in ~50% of all participants at the same level.

HAdV was detected in two cases with immunosuppression and severe ME/CFS, respectively.

HCMV and SARS-CoV-2 were found only in immunosuppressed controls.

Notably, anti-IFN-I autoAbs in ME/CFS and controls did not differ, except in severe ME/CFS with high levels.

We conclude that ME/CFS patients, compared to controls, have a significantly higher load of EBV. IFN-I autoAbs cannot explain IFN-I dysfunction, with the possible exception of severe cases showing elevated autoAbs, also reported in severe SARS-CoV-2. We forward that additional mechanisms, such as viral evasion of IFN-I effect, may be present in ME/CFS, which demands further studies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Despite there being I imagine many confounding factors and the sample size being small, the fact controls were age matched, and the diagnosis was CCC seems a good sign. I have two questions.
1) Is this a new finding? I find it hard to believe this hasn’t been tested before.
2) What does this mean. Is this evidence towards the often repeated “immune exhaustion”?
 
Yann04 said:
1) Is this a new finding? I find it hard to believe this hasn’t been tested before.
Click to expand...
I believe there must have been dozens of studies looking at EBV in saliva (they did so themselvels as well: https://www.s4me.info/threads/saliv...with-me-cfs-2022-apostolou-et-al.30094/page-2). Not sure about sputum or why it would be different. Unfortunately the discussion in the paper isn't very revealing. Whilst EBV has been studied hundreds of times they simply quote the one study that had positive results, which doesn't inspire much confidence. I would guess they didn't perform any statistical corrections (indeed that appears to be the case).

The main results appear to be in table 1. Most ME/CFS patients here have a positive "PCR EBV sputum test", all elderly controls do as well and also half of the rest of controls. I think that would mean that a "PCR EBV sputum test" doesn't mean much given that its positive in so many people that are healthy. The rest of the findings aren't statistically significant.
 
Last edited:
If @forestglip feels up to it he might re-run the analysis. The fact that they mention a p-value in the abstract but don't mention the high likelihood of a type 1 error in the discussions isn't very confidence inspiring to me (if I understood what they did correctly). I think even with a very mild correction the results could actually still border on being significant.
 
Last edited:
EndME said:
If @forestglip feels up to it he might re-run the analysis. The fact that they mention a p-value in the abstract but don't mention the high likelihood of a type 1 error in the discussions isn't very confidence inspiring to me (if I understood what they did correctly). I think even with a very mild correction the results could actually still border on being significant.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough to know how to test this. They don't say how they did it. The EBV values aren't normally distributed so I can't do a t-test between HD and ME/CFS, even after a log transform. Mann-whitney test gives p=0.12.

So yeah, I'm not the right person to ask.

Edit: Oh, they do say they used a Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxan rank): "Statistically significant difference was found between the HD and ME/CFS groups (p=0.0256) according to non-parametric Wilcoxon rank procedure"

So I don't know why my p value is so much higher.

Here's the data from the two groups if anyone wants to look. It's not the exact values, I pulled them from the Fig 2A image.
y,group
0.0,HD
0.0,HD
0.0,HD
0.0,HD
0.0,ME/CFS
0.0,ME/CFS
979.4303678029924,HD
1337.734981148877,ME/CFS
1800.1933328915295,HD
3408.471279891597,HD
3459.450271974564,ME/CFS
3781.741258813013,HD
5089.098735378267,ME/CFS
5730.8692866276415,ME/CFS
5903.579410448887,ME/CFS
10850.78086635713,ME/CFS
13160.666538816113,ME/CFS
60724.72694052544,ME/CFS
271993.38971227506,ME/CFS
579933.859083633,ME/CFS
878834.6197806812,HD
878834.6197806866,HD
1182649.960969652,ME/CFS
 
Last edited:
Oh, nevermind, I guess I misread the plot. Or they made some mistake. Tell me that doesn't look like two overlapping green dots at the very top, making it 6 total healthy donors with EBV:
upload_2025-2-4_13-7-33.png

But they say only 5 healthy donors had detectable EBV:
We found that ME/CFS patients more frequently (85%, 11/13) released EBV compared to HD (50%, 5/10) (Figure 1) and that the viral load, measured as the number of EBV copies/ml, was significantly elevated compared to age-matched controls (p=0.0256) (Figure 2A).
Click to expand...
Which matches with Fig 1 that only shows 5 had detected virus.

When I change one of the two dots I marked as really high to 0, Mann-Whitney gives me: p = 0.02556

So that's the p value without multiple test correction.
 
DMissa said:
p = 0.0256 is within P hacking range if a one tailed test is applied - type of test used needs to be clarified

Not saying they've done it, it is just a common flag when a significant test outcome is between 0.025 and 0.05 and the test used is not described
Click to expand...
They did mention it's Mann Whitney. Just in a place that seems slightly odd so I missed it at first, in the image captions.

I replicated it with a two tailed Mann Whitney.
 
forestglip said:
They did mention it's Mann Whitney. Just in a place that seems slightly odd so I missed it at first, in the image captions.

I replicated it with a two tailed Mann Whitney.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I deleted my comment right as I realised that they did describe it (just not next to the test outcomes as I expected, so I missed it) but then your reply just came through after that. I had edited in a thing acknowledging your comment which I only saw after I commented, but then I also realised I misread the paper so I deleted it to avoid a mess.

All good!! Appreciate your dilligence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom