To the Editor,
We read the contribution by Hunter et al., titled “Development and validation of blood-based diagnostic biomarkers for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) using EpiSwitch® 3-dimensional genomic regulatory immuno-genetic profiling” in this journal, initially impressed for the large collection of data. They actually presented a novel, genome-wide epigenetic profiling approach using EpiSwitch® technology to identify potential diagnostic biomarkers for ME/CFS [1]. The use of 3D chromatin conformation signatures provides a fresh perspective on disease-specific gene regulation, moving beyond conventional transcriptomics and methylation analyses. In general, the diagnostic model demonstrates impressive sensitivity (92%) and specificity (98%) in distinguishing ME/CFS patients from controls, suggesting real clinical potential [1]. Moreover, the application of advanced machine learning techniques adds analytical robustness, while pathway analysis identifies biologically plausible immune-related mechanisms. This integrative approach sets a promising foundation for future biomarker-driven diagnostics and personalized therapy stratification in ME/CFS. Fundamentally, they presented a retrospective case-control analysis aiming to identify diagnostic epigenetic markers for ME/CFS using 3D chromatin conformation profiling (EpiSwitch®). However, while the authors make bold claims regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, the paper suffers from multiple scientific weaknesses and methodological ambiguities that undermine its validity and translational relevance.
First, the article repeatedly asserts that “immune dysregulation” is a hallmark of ME/CFS, citing elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines and natural killer (NK) cell dysfunction. However, whereas the authors cite updated papers with a presumptive relationship with the issue, a critical omission here is the lack of citation of early foundational immunological studies in ME/CFS [2]. Notably absent is the 1994 work by Tirelli et al. in the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, which documented, for the first time, immunological abnormalities in CFS patients and could serve as an important historical anchor for claims of immune dysregulation [2]. This omission raises concerns about reporting bias and selective citation to frame the narrative around newer, possibly more aligned findings with the current study methodology [2, 3].
Additionally, the paper refers to “ME/CFS inclusion criteria” as requiring severe CFS with patients being “housebound,” but fails to specify which diagnostic criteria were used, whether the Fukuda, Canadian Consensus, International Consensus, or IOM/NAM criteria [1]. This lack of precision is critical, as different case definitions yield different cohorts in terms of clinical features and biological signatures. Using “severe housebound” as a criterion, without reference to a validated clinical definition or stratification tool (e.g., Bell Disability Scale), introduces subjectivity and undermines the reproducibility of patient selection. The term “housebound” is not a recognized diagnostic stratifier and suggests imprecise cohort construction.
Further ambiguity arises when the authors discuss the control group. They state that controls had “none of the four key CFS symptoms present or in the past” and “preferably an existing history of glandular fever or COVID.” The phrase “preferably” is ambiguous and methodologically problematic [1]. Did the control group actually include individuals with prior infectious mononucleosis or COVID-19, and if so, how were these illnesses verified? The phrase “preferably” suggests either inconsistency in selection or retrospective rationalization, both of which compromise the clarity and control of variables in the study. Furthermore, it is scientifically incoherent to describe individuals as controls (i.e., free from ME/CFS) while also including those with a known post-infectious risk profile, potentially biasing the control group with latent post-viral immunogenetic changes [1].
There is further conceptual confusion when the authors state that the ME/CFS network reveals some overlap with pathways involved in multiple sclerosis (MS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While such overlaps are plausible and worth exploring, the authors do not sufficiently explain the biological rationale for this claim or its relevance to ME/CFS pathophysiology [1]. They reference IL-2, IL-10, CD4, and TLR pathways as shared elements, but these are highly pleiotropic and non-specific immunological signals.
The mere presence of these markers in ME/CFS does not imply mechanistic similarity to MS or RA. Without longitudinal or functional studies, this comparison becomes speculative and possibly misleading, especially given the known heterogeneity of ME/CFS and the distinct immunopathology of autoimmune diseases like MS.
Read the rest of this letter HERE.
Source: Tirelli U, Franzini M, Chirumbolo S. Wheat and chaff in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in clinics and laboratory. J Transl Med. 2026 Jan 5;24(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12967-025-07397-z. PMID: 41491817. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12967-025-07397-z (Full text)