Immunosignature Analysis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).

A random-sequence peptide microarray can interrogate serum antibodies in a broad, unbiased fashion to generate disease-specific immunosignatures. This approach has been applied to cancer detection, diagnosis of infections, and interrogation of vaccine response. We hypothesized that there is an immunosignature specific to ME/CFS and that this could aid in the diagnosis. We studied two subject groups meeting the Canadian Consensus Definition of ME/CFS. ME/CFS (n = 25) and matched control (n = 25) sera were obtained from a Canadian study. ME/CFS (n = 25) sera were obtained from phase 1/2 Norwegian trials (NCT01156909). Sera from six healthy controls from the USA were included in the analysis. Canadian cases and controls were tested for a disease immunosignature. By combining results from unsupervised and supervised analyses, a candidate immunosignature with 654 peptides was able to differentiate ME/CFS from controls. The immunosignature was tested and further refined using the Norwegian and USA samples. This resulted in a 256-peptide immunosignature with the ability to separate ME/CFS cases from controls in the international data sets. We were able to identify a 256-peptide signature that separates ME/CFS samples from healthy controls, suggesting that the hit-and-run hypothesis of immune dysfunction merits further investigation. By extending testing of both our signature and one previously reported in the literature to larger cohorts, and further interrogating the specific peptides we and others have identified, we may deepen our understanding of the origins of ME/CFS and work towards a clinically meaningful diagnostic biomarker.

Lyme Disease Diagnosed by Alternative Methods: A Phenotype Similar to That of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients reporting a diagnosis of Lyme disease can be described as having alternatively diagnosed chronic Lyme syndrome (ADCLS), in which diagnosis is based on laboratory results from a nonreference Lyme specialty laboratory using in-house criteria. Patients with ADCLS report symptoms similar to those reported by patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). METHODS: We performed a case-control study comparing patients with ADCLS and CFS to each other and to both healthy controls and controls with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Subjects completed a history, physical exam, screening laboratory tests, 7 functional scales, reference serology for Lyme disease using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, reference serology for other tick-associated pathogens, and cytokine expression studies. RESULTS: The study enrolled 13 patients with ADCLS (12 of whom were diagnosed by 1 alternative US laboratory), 25 patients with CFS, 25 matched healthy controls, and 11 SLE controls. Baseline clinical data and functional scales indicate significant disability among ADCLS and CFS patients and many important differences between these groups and controls, but no significant differences between each other. No ADCLS patient was confirmed as having positive Lyme serology by reference laboratory testing, and there was no difference in distribution of positive serology for other tick-transmitted pathogens or cytokine expression across the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In British Columbia, a setting with low Lyme disease incidence, ADCLS patients have a similar phenotype to that of CFS patients. Disagreement between alternative and reference laboratory Lyme testing results in this setting is most likely explained by false-positive results from the alternative laboratory.