Suchergebnisse

The COVID-19 pandemic is expanding at an unprecedented rate. As a result, diagnostic services are stretched to their limit, and there is a clear need for the provision of additional diagnostic capacity. Academic laboratories, many of which are closed due to governmental lockdowns, may be in a position to support local screening capacity by adapting their current laboratory practices. Here, we describe the process of developing a SARS-Cov2 diagnostic workflow in a conventional academic Containment Level 2 laboratory. Our outline includes simple SARS-Cov2 deactivation upon contact, the method for a quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase PCR detecting SARS-Cov2, a description of process establishment and validation, and some considerations for establishing a similar workflow elsewhere. This was achieved under challenging circumstances through the collaborative efforts of scientists, clinical staff, and diagnostic staff to mitigate to the ongoing crisis. Within 14 days, we created a validated COVID-19 diagnostics service for healthcare workers in our local hospital. The described methods are not exhaustive, but we hope may offer support to other academic groups aiming to set up something comparable in a short time frame.

Abstract
Internally displaced persons are often excluded from HIV molecular epidemiology surveillance due to structural, behavioral, and social barriers in access to treatment. We test a field-based molecular epidemiology framework to study HIV transmission dynamics in a hard-to-reach and highly stigmatized group, internally displaced people who inject drugs (IDPWIDs). We inform the framework by Nanopore generated HIV pol sequences and IDPWID migration history. In June–September 2020, we recruited 164 IDPWID in Odesa, Ukraine, and obtained 34 HIV sequences from HIV-infected participants. We aligned them to publicly available sequences (N = 359) from Odesa and IDPWID regions of origin and identified 7 phylogenetic clusters with at least 1 IDPWID. Using times to the most recent common ancestors of the identified clusters and times of IDPWID relocation to Odesa, we infer potential post-displacement transmission window when infections likely to happen to be between 10 and 21 months, not exceeding 4 years. Phylogeographic analysis of the sequence data shows that local people in Odesa disproportionally transmit HIV to the IDPWID community. Rapid transmissions post-displacement in the IDPWID community might be associated with slow progression along the HIV continuum of care: only 63% of IDPWID were aware of their status, 40% of those were in antiviral treatment, and 43% of those were virally suppressed. Such HIV molecular epidemiology investigations are feasible in transient and hard-to-reach communities and can help indicate best times for HIV preventive interventions. Our findings highlight the need to rapidly integrate Ukrainian IDPWID into prevention and treatment services following the dramatic escalation of the war in 2022.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues. ; The David and Claudia Harding Foundation for provided funding for the BioRISC project. Arcadia provided support in the form of salaries for authors WS. and CR. TM and HS are affiliated with Opencell. KM is affiliated with Biosecure Ltd. The funders did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section."

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-2 (IL-2) has an essential role in the expansion and function of CD4+ regulatory T cells (Tregs). Tregs reduce tissue damage by limiting the immune response following infection and regulate autoreactive CD4+ effector T cells (Teffs) to prevent autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes (T1D). Genetic susceptibility to T1D causes alterations in the IL-2 pathway, a finding that supports Tregs as a cellular therapeutic target. Aldesleukin (Proleukin; recombinant human IL-2), which is administered at high doses to activate the immune system in cancer immunotherapy, is now being repositioned to treat inflammatory and autoimmune disorders at lower doses by targeting Tregs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To define the aldesleukin dose response for Tregs and to find doses that increase Tregs physiologically for treatment of T1D, a statistical and systematic approach was taken by analysing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single doses of subcutaneous aldesleukin in the Adaptive Study of IL-2 Dose on Regulatory T Cells in Type 1 Diabetes (DILT1D), a single centre, non-randomised, open label, adaptive dose-finding trial with 40 adult participants with recently diagnosed T1D. The primary endpoint was the maximum percentage increase in Tregs (defined as CD3+CD4+CD25highCD127low) from the baseline frequency in each participant measured over the 7 d following treatment. There was an initial learning phase with five pairs of participants, each pair receiving one of five pre-assigned single doses from 0.04 × 106 to 1.5 × 106 IU/m2, in order to model the dose-response curve. Results from each participant were then incorporated into interim statistical modelling to target the two doses most likely to induce 10% and 20% increases in Treg frequencies. Primary analysis of the evaluable population (n = 39) found that the optimal doses of aldesleukin to induce 10% and 20% increases in Tregs were 0.101 × 106 IU/m2 (standard error [SE] = 0.078, 95% CI = -0.052, 0.254) and 0.497 × 106 IU/m2 (SE = 0.092, 95% CI = 0.316, 0.678), respectively. On analysis of secondary outcomes, using a highly sensitive IL-2 assay, the observed plasma concentrations of the drug at 90 min exceeded the hypothetical Treg-specific therapeutic window determined in vitro (0.015-0.24 IU/ml), even at the lowest doses (0.040 × 106 and 0.045 × 106 IU/m2) administered. A rapid decrease in Treg frequency in the circulation was observed at 90 min and at day 1, which was dose dependent (mean decrease 11.6%, SE = 2.3%, range 10.0%-48.2%, n = 37), rebounding at day 2 and increasing to frequencies above baseline over 7 d. Teffs, natural killer cells, and eosinophils also responded, with their frequencies rapidly and dose-dependently decreased in the blood, then returning to, or exceeding, pretreatment levels. Furthermore, there was a dose-dependent down modulation of one of the two signalling subunits of the IL-2 receptor, the β chain (CD122) (mean decrease = 58.0%, SE = 2.8%, range 9.8%-85.5%, n = 33), on Tregs and a reduction in their sensitivity to aldesleukin at 90 min and day 1 and 2 post-treatment. Due to blood volume requirements as well as ethical and practical considerations, the study was limited to adults and to analysis of peripheral blood only. CONCLUSIONS: The DILT1D trial results, most notably the early altered trafficking and desensitisation of Tregs induced by a single ultra-low dose of aldesleukin that resolves within 2-3 d, inform the design of the next trial to determine a repeat dosing regimen aimed at establishing a steady-state Treg frequency increase of 20%-50%, with the eventual goal of preventing T1D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN27852285; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01827735. ; JDRF (Grant ID: 9-2011-253), Wellcome Trust (Grant IDs: 091157, 089989, 097997/Z/11/Z), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, European Union's 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) (Grant ID: 241447 (NAIMIT)), Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust (Grant ID: 13/JTA), Medical Research Council (Grant ID: G0800860), The Cambridge Institute for Medical Research (CIMR) is in receipt of a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (Grant ID: 100140) ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Public Library of Science via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002139

Monitoring the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reconstructing transmission chains has become a major public health focus for many governments around the world. The modest mutation rate and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 prevents the reconstruction of transmission chains from consensus genome sequences, but within-host genetic diversity could theoretically help identify close contacts. Here we describe the patterns of within-host diversity in 1181 SARS-CoV-2 samples sequenced to high depth in duplicate. 95.1% of samples show within-host mutations at detectable allele frequencies. Analyses of the mutational spectra revealed strong strand asymmetries suggestive of damage or RNA editing of the plus strand, rather than replication errors, dominating the accumulation of mutations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Within- and between-host diversity show strong purifying selection, particularly against nonsense mutations. Recurrent within-host mutations, many of which coincide with known phylogenetic homoplasies, display a spectrum and patterns of purifying selection more suggestive of mutational hotspots than recombination or convergent evolution. While allele frequencies suggest that most samples result from infection by a single lineage, we identify multiple putative examples of co-infection. Integrating these results into an epidemiological inference framework, we find that while sharing of within-host variants between samples could help the reconstruction of transmission chains, mutational hotspots and rare cases of superinfection can confound these analyses.

Monitoring the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reconstructing transmission chains has become a major public health focus for many governments around the world. The modest mutation rate and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 prevents the reconstruction of transmission chains from consensus genome sequences, but within-host genetic diversity could theoretically help identify close contacts. Here we describe the patterns of within-host diversity in 1181 SARS-CoV-2 samples sequenced to high depth in duplicate. 95.1% of samples show within-host mutations at detectable allele frequencies. Analyses of the mutational spectra revealed strong strand asymmetries suggestive of damage or RNA editing of the plus strand, rather than replication errors, dominating the accumulation of mutations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Within- and between-host diversity show strong purifying selection, particularly against nonsense mutations. Recurrent within-host mutations, many of which coincide with known phylogenetic homoplasies, display a spectrum and patterns of purifying selection more suggestive of mutational hotspots than recombination or convergent evolution. While allele frequencies suggest that most samples result from infection by a single lineage, we identify multiple putative examples of co-infection. Integrating these results into an epidemiological inference framework, we find that while sharing of within-host variants between samples could help the reconstruction of transmission chains, mutational hotspots and rare cases of superinfection can confound these analyses. ; This work was funded by COG-UK, supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute;

Understanding SARS-CoV-2 transmission in higher education settings is important to limit spread between students, and into at-risk populations. In this study, we sequenced 482 SARS-CoV-2 isolates from the University of Cambridge from 5 October to 6 December 2020. We perform a detailed phylogenetic comparison with 972 isolates from the surrounding community, complemented with epidemiological and contact tracing data, to determine transmission dynamics. We observe limited viral introductions into the university; the majority of student cases were linked to a single genetic cluster, likely following social gatherings at a venue outside the university. We identify considerable onward transmission associated with student accommodation and courses; this was effectively contained using local infection control measures and following a national lockdown. Transmission clusters were largely segregated within the university or the community. Our study highlights key determinants of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and effective interventions in a higher education setting that will inform public health policy during pandemics. ; DA is a Wellcome Clinical PhD Fellow and gratefully supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant number: 222903/Z/21/Z). BW receives funding from the University of Cambridge and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. IG is a Wellcome Senior Fellow and is supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant number: 207498/Z/17/Z and 206298/B/17/Z). EMH is supported by a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Fellowship: MR/S00291X/1. CJRI acknowledges Medical Research Council (MRC) funding (ref: MC_UU_00002/11). NJM is supported by the MRC (CSF MR/P008801/1) and NHSBT (WPA15-02). AJP gratefully acknowledge the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC); their research was funded by the BBSRC Institute Strategic Programme Microbes in the Food Chain BB/R012504/1 and its constituent project BBS/E/F/000PR10352, also Quadram Institute Bioscience BBSRC funded Core Capability Grant (project number BB/CCG1860/1). LdP and OGP were supported by the Oxford Martin School. This research was supported by the NIHR Cambridge BRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium is supported by funding from the MRC part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. The Cambridge Covid-19 testing Centre is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Monitoring the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reconstructing transmission chains has become a major public health focus for many governments around the world. The modest mutation rate and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 prevents the reconstruction of transmission chains from consensus genome sequences, but within-host genetic diversity could theoretically help identify close contacts. Here we describe the patterns of within-host diversity in 1181 SARS-CoV-2 samples sequenced to high depth in duplicate. 95.1% of samples show within-host mutations at detectable allele frequencies. Analyses of the mutational spectra revealed strong strand asymmetries suggestive of damage or RNA editing of the plus strand, rather than replication errors, dominating the accumulation of mutations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Within- and between-host diversity show strong purifying selection, particularly against nonsense mutations. Recurrent within-host mutations, many of which coincide with known phylogenetic homoplasies, display a spectrum and patterns of purifying selection more suggestive of mutational hotspots than recombination or convergent evolution. While allele frequencies suggest that most samples result from infection by a single lineage, we identify multiple putative examples of co-infection. Integrating these results into an epidemiological inference framework, we find that while sharing of within-host variants between samples could help the reconstruction of transmission chains, mutational hotspots and rare cases of superinfection can confound these analyses.

Understanding SARS-CoV-2 transmission in higher education settings is important to limit spread between students, and into at-risk populations. In this study, we sequenced 482 SARS-CoV-2 isolates from the University of Cambridge from 5 October to 6 December 2020. We perform a detailed phylogenetic comparison with 972 isolates from the surrounding community, complemented with epidemiological and contact tracing data, to determine transmission dynamics. We observe limited viral introductions into the university; the majority of student cases were linked to a single genetic cluster, likely following social gatherings at a venue outside the university. We identify considerable onward transmission associated with student accommodation and courses; this was effectively contained using local infection control measures and following a national lockdown. Transmission clusters were largely segregated within the university or the community. Our study highlights key determinants of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and effective interventions in a higher education setting that will inform public health policy during pandemics. ; DA is a Wellcome Clinical PhD Fellow and gratefully supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant number: 222903/Z/21/Z). BW receives funding from the University of Cambridge and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. IG is a Wellcome Senior Fellow and is supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant number: 207498/Z/17/Z and 206298/B/17/Z). EMH is supported by a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Fellowship: MR/S00291X/1. CJRI acknowledges Medical Research Council (MRC) funding (ref: MC_UU_00002/11). NJM is supported by the MRC (CSF MR/P008801/1) and NHSBT (WPA15-02). AJP gratefully acknowledge the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC); their research was funded by the BBSRC Institute Strategic Programme Microbes in the Food Chain BB/R012504/1 and its constituent project BBS/E/F/000PR10352, also Quadram Institute Bioscience BBSRC funded Core Capability Grant (project number BB/CCG1860/1). LdP and OGP were supported by the Oxford Martin School. This research was supported by the NIHR Cambridge BRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium is supported by funding from the MRC part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. The Cambridge Covid-19 testing Centre is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.