LymeNet Flash: CDC, IGeneX, Clongen and MDL bands

This is topic CDC, IGeneX, Clongen and MDL bands in forum Medical Questions at LymeNet Flash.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/112161

Posted by ChuckG (Member # 19093) on :

I am personally responsible for any errors. [bonk]

What this demonstrates is that IGeneX isn't the only lab that tests for 31 and 34. And MDL tests for more bands.

The "1"s ("1"s were used, rather than T(rue) of F(alse) because I did it in Excel and so could use SUM function rather than counting them) to indicate that the band is tested for by the lab at the top of the column. So in the CDC column there is a 1 at 18 and nothing at 20 and 22 and a 1 again at 23.

It follows that the absence of a 1 indicates the lab doesn't test for that band.

code:

kDa 	CDC	IGeneX	MDL	Clongen
18	1	1	1	1
20			1	
22		1		
23	1	1	1	1
28	1	1	1	1
30	1	1	1	1
31		1	1	1
34		1	1	1
35			1	
37			1	
39	1	1	1	1
41	1	1	1	1
45	1	1	1	1
58	1	1	1	1
60				1
66	1	1	1	1
73		1		
83	1	1	1	1
Totals	10	14	15	13

Even though IGeneX lists bands 22 and 73 on my last report, 11/02/09, my database with 326 IgG and IgM IGeneX results shows not a single +. Only IGeneX ** bands report INDs.

I can not make any statement regarding results for any other lab, of course.

Like IGeneX, MDL and Clongen test for bands that aren't part of their official results.

MDL has an "Alternative Criteria" for both IgG and IgM. I may post this. Tis interesting.

LymeMD reports that Stony Brook, which manufactures its own kits, also tests for 37 and 72. Can't find any reference to other bands they test for.

[ 10-27-2011, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: ChuckG ]

Posted by susank (Member # 22150) on :

Chuck - I appreciate your research.

Dumb question - what do the "1's" represent?

To add: I understand now that Chuck edited his post to add explanation. Thanks!

[ 10-27-2011, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: susank ]

Posted by seibertneurolyme (Member # 6416) on :

Susan,

Pretty sure each 1 means that that lab tests for that band.

Bea Seibert

Posted by lou (Member # 81) on :

Well, what I remember hearing some time ago is that Stony Brook used to have a good lyme test but they changed criteria to produce fewer positives, so now there are not many reasons to use them.

And MDL seems to have changed too. Some time ago I tested positive for a number of things, next time I was tested it was all negative. Very puzzling.

Can't evaluate your information, not sure what it tells us if those labs testing for many bands still produce negative results in people with every sign of lyme disease.

There have been several published articles showing that the same material sent to many labs produced different results.

And the WB is still an antibody test, so if your immune system is no longer producing antibodies..... Or they are complexed with antigen, you will get a negative result, regardless of what lab does the test.

Posted by lou (Member # 81) on :

Chuck, I have a technical question for you but your private message function is disabled. So am posting it here, since it sounds like you understand lab stuff.

Here is a recent study that uses metagenomics to determine what kind of bacteria are found in the European species of the lyme carrying tick. They looked for KNOWN pathogens, so they don't find unknown ones, presumably, and they don't find protozoans like babesia etc. Could it be used for non-bacterial pathogens?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025604

And here is another study that suggests this technique can also identify unknown bacteria. So, how would this work? I don't understand how, if the genome information were not in a database to compare it with.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630750/

It sounded from your comments about running BLAST, that you have a background in this field, which is why I am asking you. Not too many specialists in this field in my neighborhood.

[ 10-28-2011, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: lou ]

Posted by ChuckG (Member # 19093) on :

lou

I looked, very superficially, at the first study when it came out. Expected it to show up here. Didn't. That was one "dirty" tick!

They could have used a different method of sequencing to handle Eukaryotes.

quote:
And here is another study that suggests this technique can also identify unknown bacteria. So, how would this work? I don't understand how, if the genome information were not in a database to compare it with.

Actually both studies identified "unknown bacteria". Because they don't know what they are going to find until they look.

They sequence the DNA snippets. Search the DNA database(s) for the best match. Then try to "best" match the matches thereby moving up the DNA phylogenetic tree. Roughly.

This roughly is what was done to find lyme in Iceman. Probably.

It is not unlike the human genome study. That is the early part of the matching.

quote:
It sounded from your comments about running BLAST, that you have a background in this field, which is why I am asking you. Not too many specialists in this field in my neighborhood.

Lyme Western Blots are my current retirement hobby which led me into BLASTP. My background is far removed from the biological sciences. Mostly electronics.

I was going to reactivate messaging a while back but couldn't figure out how. I'll get it done.