Comment on: Antiviral pathway activation in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and acute infection. [Clin Infect Dis. 2001]
SIR—We read the very engaging report by Gow et al. [1] with the utmost interest. However, we feel that this article raises more questions than clear-cut answers regarding the hypothesis that motivated the study—that is, that the previously reported activation of the antiviral pathway in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) might be linked to infection rather than to CFS specifically. To verify their hypothesis, Gow and colleagues used PCR to measure the genetic expression of 3 IFN-regulated genes—namely, the latent ribonuclease (RNase L), RNA-regulated protein kinase (PKR), 2,5 synthetase, and the RNase L inhibitor (RLI)—in patients with acute infection (in their study, severe gastroenteritis; group 1), patients with CFS (group 2), and healthy control subjects (group 3).
First, surprisingly enough, although they recognized that acute infection is supposed to induce the expression of the genes selected for their study (see figure 1 of [1]), Gow and colleagues failed to find any significant increase in the expression of 2 major genes (RNase L and 2,5 synthetase) in group 1, as compared with groups 2 and 3; they observed only increased mRNA for PKR and RLI. Although it is recognized that genetic expression of PKR, RNase L, and 2,5 synthetase is under the control of interferon, RLI is definitely not [2]. Upregulation of RLI genetic expression with a normal genetic expression of both 2,5 synthetase and RNase L (although PKR is overexpressed!) during acute infection, as was observed in the study of Gow et al. [1], would indicate not only that RNase L is not activated (normal expression of RNase L and, more importantly, of 2,5 synthetase), but that it is further inhibited by an overexpressed RLI [2]. Such a scenario, if verified, would be in complete disagreement with the current understanding of the IFN pathway [3]. Therefore, we cannot help but wonder how Gow and colleagues reconcile their observations with the acute infection status of study group 1. In our view, this inconsistency severely undermines their conclusions.
You can read the rest of this comment here: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/10/1420.long
Source: De Meirleir K, Suhadolnik RJ, Lebleu B, Englebienne P. Antiviral pathway activation in chronic fatigue syndrome and acute infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2002 May 15;34(10):1420-1; author reply 1421-2. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/10/1420.long (Full article)