Re: Stat-1 paper by Knox et al.

[Guest guest]

rich thanks for this post

it's seems like a significant study and result.

i have a question for anybody who may understand this better than me.

the thing i am wondering about is the results. they express the

result as a percentage. i'm assuming that each result indicates how

many people in each group (PWC and Control) have any PBMCs that

express these STAT1 proteins.

is this right? it does not indicate the level of these cells. it

simply shows IF each person tested has ANY cells expressing the

particular STAT1 profile.

also, did DeMeirleir find the same immune profile?

finally, what is the difference between a cell that is

STAT1-91/84+

STAT1-56+

STAT1-51+

and one that is:

STAT1-91/84-

STAT1-56+

STAT1-51+

thanks

bill

> > > > does anybody know when we can expect updates about the CFS

> > > conference

> > > > in Wisconsin this weekend?

> > > >

> > > > thanks

> > > > bill

[Guest guest]

Hi, Bill.

>

> rich thanks for this post

You're welcome.

> it's seems like a significant study and result.

I think it is significant, too. I think it means that a subset of

PWCs is unable to respond to interferon activation as well as

normal, and thus would not be able to mount as effective a response

to viral infections as normal.

>

> i have a question for anybody who may understand this better than

me.

>

> the thing i am wondering about is the results. they express the

> result as a percentage. i'm assuming that each result indicates

how

> many people in each group (PWC and Control) have any PBMCs that

> express these STAT1 proteins.

>

> is this right? it does not indicate the level of these cells. it

> simply shows IF each person tested has ANY cells expressing the

> particular STAT1 profile.

That's essentially correct. They put 10(5) cells from each subject

into the wells, and they looked for the various combinations of

STAT1 peptides by electrophoresis. The results show the percentage

of people in each group that showed the various detectable peptide

combinations.

> also, did DeMeirleir find the same immune profile?

Konny mentioned in her talk that Englebienne et al. had found that

the higher the ratio of the low-molecular weight RNase-L to the

normal type RNase-L, the lower the STAT1, so I think this means that

they would be generally in agreement, though Konny et al. did not

measure RNase-L in this study.

>

> finally, what is the difference between a cell that is

> STAT1-91/84+

> STAT1-56+

> STAT1-51+

>

> and one that is:

>

> STAT1-91/84-

> STAT1-56+

> STAT1-51+

The plus and minus signs after the name of the peptide indicate that

it was either detected to be present (plus) or it was not detected

to be present (minus).

>

> thanks

> bill

[Guest guest]

rich

that's a big help for in understanding this topic.

one more question (more of a clarification, actually)

is it fair to say that the Knox study did not actually test STAT 1

levels?

that is to say we don't know how deficient certain PWCs are, we just

know that some of us have less of these proteins than the controls.

thanks

bill

> >

> > rich thanks for this post

>

>

> You're welcome.

>

>

> > it's seems like a significant study and result.

>

> I think it is significant, too. I think it means that a subset of

> PWCs is unable to respond to interferon activation as well as

> normal, and thus would not be able to mount as effective a response

> to viral infections as normal.

> >

> > i have a question for anybody who may understand this better than

> me.

> >

> > the thing i am wondering about is the results. they express the

> > result as a percentage. i'm assuming that each result indicates

> how

> > many people in each group (PWC and Control) have any PBMCs that

> > express these STAT1 proteins.

> >

> > is this right? it does not indicate the level of these cells. it

> > simply shows IF each person tested has ANY cells expressing the

> > particular STAT1 profile.

>

>

> That's essentially correct. They put 10(5) cells from each subject

> into the wells, and they looked for the various combinations of

> STAT1 peptides by electrophoresis. The results show the percentage

> of people in each group that showed the various detectable peptide

> combinations.

>

>

> > also, did DeMeirleir find the same immune profile?

>

> Konny mentioned in her talk that Englebienne et al. had found that

> the higher the ratio of the low-molecular weight RNase-L to the

> normal type RNase-L, the lower the STAT1, so I think this means

that

> they would be generally in agreement, though Konny et al. did not

> measure RNase-L in this study.

>

> >

> > finally, what is the difference between a cell that is

> > STAT1-91/84+

> > STAT1-56+

> > STAT1-51+

> >

> > and one that is:

> >

> > STAT1-91/84-

> > STAT1-56+

> > STAT1-51+

>

> The plus and minus signs after the name of the peptide indicate

that

> it was either detected to be present (plus) or it was not detected

> to be present (minus).

> >

> > thanks

> > bill

[Guest guest]

Bill,

What they showed were electrophoresis results. The particular bands

were either not there, or they were there. There did appear to be

some differences in darkness of the bands that did show up, but they

did not discuss any attempts to analyze that. So I can't say for

sure if they got that kind of information or not, but it was pretty

clear when bands were missing.

Rich

>

> rich

>

> that's a big help for in understanding this topic.

>

> one more question (more of a clarification, actually)

>

> is it fair to say that the Knox study did not actually test STAT 1

> levels?

>

> that is to say we don't know how deficient certain PWCs are, we

just

> know that some of us have less of these proteins than the controls.

>

>

> thanks

> bill

[Guest guest]

Hi guys,

I'm certainly no scientist, and most of the technical stuff flies WAY

over my head (especially my foggy brained head) but to me, the

study seemed to conclude that only 31-32% of CFS patients had

this STAT abnormality.

In other words, 1/3 of patients had this problem, whereas the

majority did not.

Am I misinterpreting this?

Dan

> >

> > rich

> >

> > that's a big help for in understanding this topic.

> >

> > one more question (more of a clarification, actually)

> >

> > is it fair to say that the Knox study did not actually test STAT 1

> > levels?

> >

> > that is to say we don't know how deficient certain PWCs are,

we

> just

> > know that some of us have less of these proteins than the

controls.

> >

> >

> > thanks

> > bill