Regulation of<i>Sulfolobus solfataricus</i>uracil phosphoribosyl-transferase

n/

Stated preferences for attributes of a CYP2C19 pharmacogenetic test among the general population presented with a hypothetical acute coronary syndrome scenario

Background: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing identifies pharmacotherapeutic risks to permit personalized therapy. Identifying the genetic profile of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are considered for therapy with clopidogrel (P2Y12 receptor blockers) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) contributes to the treatment paradigm. Patient preferences would inform a collaborative framework and by extension inform healthcare policy formulation. Purpose: To quantify stated preferences (willingness to pay) for attributes of a novel point-of-care PGx (CYP2C19) test using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) from the general public in Ontario, Canada, and to identify starting point bias of the cost attribute. Methods: A web survey was created and included a questionnaire, decision board, and a DCE. DCE choice sets include the following attributes (levels): sample collection (blood, finger prick, and cheek swab), turnaround time for results (1 hr, 3 days, and 1 week), and cost in additional insurance premiums. The presence of starting point bias (cost attribute levels of $0,$1, $5 or$0, $2,$10) in the estimation of willingness to pay (WTP) was tested. Results: Estimates for turnaround time and cost attributes were statistically significant. Coefficients related to the starting point bias were also significant. Approximately 67% of survey participants chose the PGx test compared to status quo treatment options. WTP for a 1 hr turnaround time compared to a 1-week turnaround time was $10.77 (95% CI 9.58-12.25). Conclusion: This translational study shows preference for a point of care PGx test

Wild-Type Phosphoribosylpyrophosphate Synthase (PRS) from Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A Bacterial Class II PRS?

The 5-phospho-α-D-ribose 1-diphosphate (PRPP) metabolite plays essential roles in several biosynthetic pathways, including histidine, tryptophan, nucleotides, and, in mycobacteria, cell wall precursors. PRPP is synthesized from α-D-ribose 5-phosphate (R5P) and ATP by the Mycobacterium tuberculosis prsA gene product, phosphoribosylpyrophosphate synthase (MtPRS). Here, we report amplification, cloning, expression and purification of wild-type MtPRS. Glutaraldehyde cross-linking results suggest that MtPRS predominates as a hexamer, presenting varied oligomeric states due to distinct ligand binding. MtPRS activity measurements were carried out by a novel coupled continuous spectrophotometric assay. MtPRS enzyme activity could be detected in the absence of Pi. ADP, GDP and UMP inhibit MtPRS activity. Steady-state kinetics results indicate that MtPRS has broad substrate specificity, being able to accept ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP as diphosphoryl group donors. Fluorescence spectroscopy data suggest that the enzyme mechanism for purine diphosphoryl donors follows a random order of substrate addition, and for pyrimidine diphosphoryl donors follows an ordered mechanism of substrate addition in which R5P binds first to free enzyme. An ordered mechanism for product dissociation is followed by MtPRS, in which PRPP is the first product to be released followed by the nucleoside monophosphate products to yield free enzyme for the next round of catalysis. The broad specificity for diphosphoryl group donors and detection of enzyme activity in the absence of Pi would suggest that MtPRS belongs to Class II PRS proteins. On the other hand, the hexameric quaternary structure and allosteric ADP inhibition would place MtPRS in Class I PRSs. Further data are needed to classify MtPRS as belonging to a particular family of PRS proteins. The data here presented should help augment our understanding of MtPRS mode of action. Current efforts are toward experimental structure determination of MtPRS to provide a solid foundation for the rational design of specific inhibitors of this enzyme

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Binding of cations in Bacillus subtilis phosphoribosyldiphosphate synthetase and their role in catalysis

The binding sites for the two cations essential for the catalytic function of 5-phospho-d-ribosyl α-1-diphosphate (PRPP) synthases have been identified from the structure of the Bacillus subtilis phosphoribosyldiphosphate synthetase (PRPPsase) with bound Cd2+. The structure determined from X-ray diffraction data to 2.8-Å resolution reveals the same hexameric arrangement of the subunits that was observed in the complexes of the enzyme with the activator sulfate and the allosteric inhibitor ADP. Two cation binding sites were localized in each of the two domains of the subunits that compose the hexamer; each domain of the subunit has an associated cation. In addition to the bound Cd2+, the Cd2+-PRPPsase structure contains a sulfate ion in the regulatory site, a sulfate ion at the ribose-5-phosphate binding site, and an AMP moiety at the ATP binding site. Comparison of the Cd2+-PRPPsase to the structures of the PRPPsase complexed with sulfate and mADP reveals the structural rearrangement induced by the binding of the free cation, which is essential for the initiation of the reaction. The comparison to the cPRPP complex of glutamine phosphoribosylpyrophosphate amidotransferase from Escherichia coli, a type I phosphoribosyltransferase, provided information about the binding of PRPP. This strongly indicates that the binding of both substrates must lead to a stabilized conformation of the loop region, which remains unresolved in the known PRPPsase complex structures