Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and Cancer Related Fatigue (CRF): two "fatigue" syndromes with overlapping symptoms and possibly related aetiologies

In July 2010, at the Muscle Fatigue Meeting, I presented an overview of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Cancer Related Fatigue, emphasizing a critical interpretation of the potential association between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Cancer Related Fatigue and a newly discovered retrovirus: Xenotropic Murine Related Virus. Since this association was hotly debated at that time, I suggested at the Meeting that it was wrong and most likely due to the identification of the wrong virus culprit. Today, 20 months after the Meeting, the first part of our prediction has turned out to be correct, as Xenotropic Murine Related Virus was shown to be a laboratory-created artefact. Still, the potential association of fatigue-syndromes with an infection (most likely viral) is sustained by a plethora of evidence and this overview will initially summarize data suggesting prior viral infection(s). The principal hypothesized mechanisms for both peripheral and central Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Cancer Related Fatigue will be then summarized, also indicating plausible associations and triggering factors. All evidence accrued so far suggests that further research work should be performed in this interesting area and in order to identify an infectious agent for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Cancer Related Fatigue. One candidate RNA virus, Micro-Foci inducing Virus, will be described in this overview.

The tale of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus

In 2006, a new retrovirus was isolated from prostate cancer patient tissue. Named xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), this was potentially the third class of retrovirus to be pathogenic in humans. XMRV made a more dramatic impact on the wider scientific community, and indeed the media, in 2009 when it was reported to be present in a remarkably high proportion of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome as well as a significant, albeit smaller, proportion of healthy controls. The apparent strong link to disease and the fear of a previously unknown retrovirus circulating in the general population lead to a surge in XMRV research. Subsequent studies failed to find an association of XMRV with disease and, in most cases, failed to find the virus in human samples. In 2011, the case against XMRV and human disease strengthened, ending with several decisive publications revealing the origin of the virus and demonstrating contamination of samples. In this review, we outline the passage of research on XMRV and its potential association with disease from its isolation to the present day, where we find ourselves at the end of a turbulent story.

Xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV) does not cause chronic fatigue

The xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV), a gammaretrovirus, was discovered in prostate cancer tumours by Virochip technology in 2006. It was subsequently detected in chronic fatigue patients in 2009. The association between XMRV and chronic fatigue has proved to be controversial. No study has confirmed these findings and many have refuted them. Here, we present the evidence for our contention that XMRV is not a human pathogen.

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus is not associated with chronic fatigue syndrome in patients from different areas of the us in the 1990s

BACKGROUND

In 2009, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) was reported in 67% of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) compared to 4% of controls. Since then numerous reports failed to detect XMRV in other cohorts of CFS patients, and some studies suggested that XMRV sequences in human samples might be due to contamination of these samples with mouse DNA.

RESULTS

We determined the prevalence of XMRV in patients with CFS from similar areas in the United States as the original 2009 study, along with patients with chronic inflammatory disorders and healthy persons. Using quantitative PCR, we initially detected very low level signals for XMRV DNA in 15% of patients with CFS; however, the frequency of PCR positivity was no different between patients with CFS and controls. Repeated attempts to isolate PCR products from these reactions were unsuccessful. These findings were supported by our observations that PHA and IL-2 stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with apparently low levels of XMRV, which induced virus replication in the 2009 report, resulted in the disappearance of the signal for XMRV DNA in the cells. Immunoprecipitation of XMRV-infected cell lysates using serum from patients from whom we initially detected low levels of XMRV DNA followed by immunoblotting with antibodies to XMRV gp70 protein failed to detect antibody in the patients, although one control had a weak level of reactivity. Diverse murine leukemia virus (MLV) sequences were obtained by nested PCR with a similar frequency in CFS patients and controls. Finally, we did not detect XMRV sequences in patients with several chronic inflammatory disorders including rheumatoid arthritis, Bechet's disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no definitive evidence for XMRV DNA sequences or antibody in our cohort of CFS patients, which like the original 2009 study, included patients from diverse regions of the United States. In addition, XMRV was not detected in a cohort of patients with chronic inflammatory disorders.