What could be the mechanism behind virus latency?

AllenJB

Established Member (Voting Rights)
Martin Lerner MD proposed that the reason why patients could have negative blood tests for virus yet still be infected was because the virus(es) that infected them became abortive and therefore unable to reproduce. What could cause this change?
 
Last edited:
When you have develop an environment custom-tailored for defending against bacteria (increased sanitation, frequent antibiotic use) then you lose the ability for native viral control. There is only a finite amount of the immune system, you just exchange acute fatal risk for a small chance of chronic illness.

Also, viral illnesses can cause permanent neuron death, so latency does not particularly matter. Unlike somatic cells, neurons are not synthesized as quickly or efficiently.
 
Everyone of us harbor latent viruses, even healthy persons. For example herpesviruses stay latent in the body, forever, once you are infected. Medicine in general has done a poor job at explaining how pathogens work, at least from my experience, since even the medicine students I have talked with are often surprised when I point out that many pathogens stay in the body forever once you catch them.

This is easy to understand so far. The idea about an abortive infection is more complicated and isn't simply just a latent infection, but one where a virus continues to make viral proteins inside the cell which, according to this idea, causes cellular dysfunction. To understand this complex hypothesis more in detail you should read the relevant papers.
 
Everyone of us harbor latent viruses, even healthy persons. For example herpesviruses stay latent in the body, forever, once you are infected. Medicine in general has done a poor job at explaining how pathogens work, at least from my experience, since even the medicine students I have talked with are often surprised when I point out that many pathogens stay in the body forever once you catch them.

This is easy to understand so far. The idea about an abortive infection is more complicated and isn't simply just a latent infection, but one where a virus continues to make viral proteins inside the cell which, according to this idea, causes cellular dysfunction. To understand this complex hypothesis more in detail you should read the relevant papers.

Sorry, I confused latency with abortive. I meant to say what mechanisms cause abortive viral infections.
 
Sorry, I confused latency with abortive. I meant to say what mechanisms cause abortive viral infections.

As far as I remember this is just a speculation by Lerner without any substantive evidence.
Cells have a variety f mechanisms for disrupting different phases of viral replication. There might be a way to produce an 'abortive' state but I don't think we have any evidence it occurs in any known clinical situation.
 
As far as I remember this is just a speculation by Lerner without any substantive evidence.
Cells have a variety f mechanisms for disrupting different phases of viral replication. There might be a way to produce an 'abortive' state but I don't think we have any evidence it occurs in any known clinical situation.

I think it's a good hypothesis considering that EBV is very common. Two different herpes viruses could very well interfere with each other's replication because of similar but incompatible molecular RNA. Sort of a Frankenstein's monster creation with broken virions that are sterile.

Another consideration is superinfection due to lack of antibody generation from high nagalase disabling GcMAF. This could allow viruses to spread to tissues they normally couldn't invade.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a good hypothesis considering that EBV is very common. Two different herpes viruses could very well interfere with each other's replication because of similar but incompatible molecular RNA. Sort of a Frankenstein's monster creation with broken virions that are sterile.

Everyone has EBV replicating at low level, but what has that got to do with 'abortive' colonisation? I don't really see why this idea is at all likely - just because a physician has dreamt it up at some point. I have not heard of viruses competing in the way you suggest.

Another consideration is superinfection due to lack of antibody generation from high nagalase disabling GcMAF. This could allow viruses to spread to tissues they normally couldn't invade.

Again, this sounds pure speculation. I spent my life studying antibody regulation and I cannot see nagalase being important.

All the evidence we have is that PWME do not have persistent viruses any more than other people - and to me that makes sense clinically. These virus theories by and large do not come from immunologists but from individual cphysicians with pet theories.
 
Everyone has EBV replicating at low level, but what has that got to do with 'abortive' colonisation? I don't really see why this idea is at all likely - just because a physician has dreamt it up at some point. I have not heard of viruses competing in the way you suggest.

Again, this sounds pure speculation. I spent my life studying antibody regulation and I cannot see nagalase being important.

All the evidence we have is that PWME do not have persistent viruses any more than other people - and to me that makes sense clinically. These virus theories by and large do not come from immunologists but from individual cphysicians with pet theories.

Not pure speculation.

In addition to adenoviruses, which are capable of completely helping adenovirus-associated virus (AAV) multiplication, only herpesviruses are known to provide any AAV helper activity, but this activity has been thought to be partial (i.e., AAV DNA, RNA, and protein syntheses are induced, but infectious particles are not assembled). In this study, however, we show that herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and type 2 (HSV-2) are in fact complete AAV helpers and that AAV type 2 (AAV2) infectivity yields can approach those obtained when coinfections are carried out with a helper adenovirus.

-Buller, 1981. https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/40/1/241.full.pdf

In EBV and HIV coinfection:

Interaction of herpesviruses with HIV can alter the outcome of both infections
The emergence of human immunodeficiency virus - acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV-AIDS) 40 years ago seems to have altered the relationship of several herpesviruses with their host. Indeed, co-infection involving HIV and herpesviruses are frequent. Kaposi sarcomas on the skin caused by HHV-8 or KSHV readily became evident in HIV infected individuals in the pre-treatment era (Sepkowitz, 2001). Another common problem in the pre-treatment era was retinitis caused by HCMV infection, a lesion almost never seen in treated AIDS patients (Salzberger et al., 2005). Enhanced expression of proinflammatory molecules such as IL-1β, TNF-α, CCR5, vCXCL1, vCXCL2 in concurrently infected individuals facilitated the recruitment of more inflammatory cells that precipitated HCMV retinitis (Safdar et al., 2002; Heiden et al., 2007; Lichtner et al., 2015). Similarly individuals receiving profound iatrogenic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve acceptance of graft tissues also tend to develop severe HCMV infections (Dowling et al., 1976). Zostriform infection (commonly known as shingles) caused by the reactivation of VZV infection is usually a problem of aged individuals but untreated younger AIDS patients also exhibit severe manifestation (Buchbinder et al., 1992; Leppard and Naburi, 1998). There are instances where co-infection of herpesvirus and HIV can aggravate the outcome of HIV infections (Kucera et al., 1990; Regezi et al., 1996; Tobian and Quinn, 2009). Multiple explanations have been proposed. For example, genital ulcers caused by herpesviruses (particularly HSV 2) may disrupt the integrity of the mucosa which can facilitate HIV infection of infiltrating T cells and macrophages (Kucera et al., 1990; Tobian and Quinn, 2009). Although HIV can infect resting immune cells, activated CD4+ T cells are more prone to infection (Okoye and Picker, 2013). Episodic reactivation of HSV expands activated CD4+ T cell population which can be easily infected by HIV (Okoye and Picker, 2013). With the loss of T cells, host's susceptibility to HSV and other opportunistic infections increases (Bartlett et al., 2012; Okoye and Picker, 2013).
-Sehrawat, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5981231/

Let's say you are right and there is no interaction. Another hypothesis would be that coinfection allowing viral penetration into abnormal cell types could itself be the cause of the abortive infection and you don't need the different products to compete. This is supported by Smith et al.

The C6 cell line, derived from a rat astroeytoma (8), has been shown to be restrictive for ttSV-1 replication
(2, 16, 19, 22). It has also been demonstrated that HSV-infected C6 cells, which
fail to support ItSV-t replication in vitro, initiate a chronic HSV infection when
implanted in animals (22).
-Smith, 1982. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01314164

As for nagalase I don't think CFS nagalase level has ever been explored.

Nagalase is an extracellular matrix-degrading enzyme that is (increased) secreted by cancerous cells in the process of tumor invasion. It also is an intrisic component of the envelope protein of various virions, such as HIV, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes zoster and the influenza virus. Thus, it is also secreted from virus-infected cells..1,3,4,10
-Yamamoto N. and Urade M. Pathogenic significance of alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase activity found in the hemagglutinin of influenza virus..Microbes Infect 2005 Apr;7(4):674-81. Epub 2005 Mar 22.
-Yamamoto N. Pathogenic significance of alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase activity found in the envelope glycoprotein gp160 of human immunodeficiency virus Type 1. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2006 Mar;22(3):262-71.
 
Last edited:
Not pure speculation.



-Buller, 1981. https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/40/1/241.full.pdf

In EBV and HIV coinfection:


-Sehrawat, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5981231/

Let's say you are right and there is no interaction. Another hypothesis would be that coinfection allowing viral penetration into abnormal cell types could itself be the cause of the abortive infection and you don't need the different products to compete. This is supported by Smith et al.


-Smith, 1982. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01314164

Yes, there are a scattering of odd results from a few researchers with pet ideas - but there always are.

Why bother theorising about viruses anyway? If the problem was really persistent virus there would be some well-documented cases where that got out of control and overt. My thought is to look for new explanations rather than raking over again and again ideas from isolated physicians from thirty years ago.
 
Why bother theorising about viruses anyway?

It has been something I have been exploring in my own history. I've had bizarre results like being EBV+ in 2007 with acute mono-nucleosis then having it go negative after HSV6 infection. I also have had success triggering apoptosis using blockers of viral apoptosis inhibition and this has greatly decreased ME associated muscle pain, weakness, Raynaud's disease and periostitis.
 
I also have had success triggering apoptosis using blockers of viral apoptosis inhibition and this has greatly decreased ME associated muscle pain, weakness, Raynaud's disease and periostitis.
Can you explain further what you mean?
 
It's a proof of concept for the theory. If ME is a coinfection due to abortive viruses then allowing the infected cells to die should improve the disease.

Apoptosis occurs when the cells undergo automatic death. Normally this is blocked from inhibition by the viruses. For example, epstein barr virus upregulates Nf-kb which is proinflammatory and blocks caspase 3. HSV6 blocks caspase 8.

A treatment has to find a way around the blocks to trigger cell death.

Apoptosis feels like a localized burning pain then the area goes numb, becomes hypersensitive and twitchy, has localized skin itching then normalizes. Brain fog lessens. Muscles get more exercise tolerance. Localized pain stops.

The reason why ME patients have lots of muscle fasciculation early on that wanes is a symptom of their bodies fighting through apoptosis. However, with increasing viral load the response is overcome and they are stuck with chronic inflammation of all the infected tissue (cold, painful muscles, tendons, fascia and nerves).
 
Last edited:
If the problem was really persistent virus there would be some well-documented cases where that got out of control and overt.

You'd think, but maybe not. Definitions and thresholds can form built-in impediments which only autopsies may overcome - and even then you'd have to be deliberately searching for the right agent with the right tools. Certainly this has been the case with Lyme disease; it's dragged down, in part, by a hidden history characterized by post-mortem case studies which identified viable spirochetes after the patients death, but defied diagnoses while the patients lived due in large part to crappy metrics and myopic clinicians.
 
I don't see a mechanism for an abortive infection becoming more virulent during a period of low immunity like you do with Herpes Zoster or EBV solo infections. Since that is the basis of viral infection recurrences it explains why we don't see them with ME.
 
Apoptosis feels like a localized burning pain then the area goes numb, becomes hypersensitive and twitchy, has localized skin itching then normalizes. Brain fog lessens. Muscles get more exercise tolerance. Localized pain stops.

How can we know that it is apoptosis causing these sensations. I'm having trouble making sense of this. Apoptosis is cell death which happens all the time all over the body as cells die off and are renewed. Why aren't we feeling all those sensations everywhere all the time?

I understand that in localised situations like a wound or abscess there are a lot of cells dying at once, and local nerve cells are affected by the chemicals produced, and we feel localised pain etc, but most cells aren't dying in a big cluster like that.

If you take something that stops viruses blocking cell death, surely you are just returning the body to a normal rate of cell death. Why would that cause localised inflammation or the sensations you describe?
 
How can we know that it is apoptosis causing these sensations.

I think this is a relevant question. The whole point about apoptosis is that it is silent, without any irritant response. Every day the bone marrow hosts a shedload of apoptotic red cells 'dying' and the rest of the body hosts a shed load of apoptotic white cells 'dying' and for those lucky enough not to have ME (or in my case sciatica) there is not a trace of a symptom.
 
Every day the bone marrow hosts a shedload of apoptotic red cells 'dying' and the rest of the body hosts a shed load of apoptotic white cells 'dying' and for those lucky enough not to have ME (or in my case sciatica) there is not a trace of a symptom.
When red cells die at abnormal rates, we feel the very real downstream effects as anemia.
 
Back
Top Bottom