Crystal structure of nucleotide-free dynamin

Dynamin is a mechanochemical GTPase that oligomerizes around the neck of clathrin-coated pits and catalyses vesicle scission in a GTP-hydrolysis-dependent manner. The molecular details of oligomerization and the mechanism of the mechanochemical coupling are currently unknown. Here we present the crystal structure of human dynamin 1 in the nucleotide-free state with a four-domain architecture comprising the GTPase domain, the bundle signalling element, the stalk and the pleckstrin homology domain. Dynamin 1 oligomerized in the crystals via the stalks, which assemble in a criss-cross fashion. The stalks further interact via conserved surfaces with the pleckstrin homology domain and the bundle signalling element of the neighbouring dynamin molecule. This intricate domain interaction rationalizes a number of disease-related mutations in dynamin 2 and suggests a structural model for the mechanochemical coupling that reconciles previous models of dynamin function

Complex speech-language therapy interventions for stroke-related aphasia: The RELEASE study incorporating a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis

Background: People with language problems following stroke (aphasia) benefit from speech and language therapy. Optimising speech and language therapy for aphasia recovery is a research priority. Objectives: The objectives were to explore patterns and predictors of language and communication recovery, optimum speech and language therapy intervention provision, and whether or not effectiveness varies by participant subgroup or language domain. Design: This research comprised a systematic review, a meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis of individual participant data. Setting: Participant data were collected in research and clinical settings. Interventions: The intervention under investigation was speech and language therapy for aphasia after stroke. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were absolute changes in language scores from baseline on overall language ability, auditory comprehension, spoken language, reading comprehension, writing and functional communication. Data sources and participants: Electronic databases were systematically searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts and SpeechBITE (searched from inception to 2015). The results were screened for eligibility, and published and unpublished data sets (randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, registries) with at least 10 individual participant data reporting aphasia duration and severity were identified. Existing collaborators and primary researchers named in identified records were invited to contribute electronic data sets. Individual participant data in the public domain were extracted. Review methods: Data on demographics, speech and language therapy interventions, outcomes and quality criteria were independently extracted by two reviewers, or available as individual participant data data sets. Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were used to generate hypotheses. Results: We retrieved 5928 individual participant data from 174 data sets across 28 countries, comprising 75 electronic (3940 individual participant data), 47 randomised controlled trial (1778 individual participant data) and 91 speech and language therapy intervention (2746 individual participant data) data sets. The median participant age was 63 years (interquartile range 53-72 years). We identified 53 unavailable, but potentially eligible, randomised controlled trials (46 of these appeared to include speech and language therapy). Relevant individual participant data were filtered into each analysis. Statistically significant predictors of recovery included age (functional communication, individual participant data: 532, n = 14 randomised controlled trials) and sex (overall language ability, individual participant data: 482, n = 11 randomised controlled trials; functional communication, individual participant data: 532, n = 14 randomised controlled trials). Older age and being a longer time since aphasia onset predicted poorer recovery. A negative relationship between baseline severity score and change from baseline (p < 0.0001) may reflect the reduced improvement possible from high baseline scores. The frequency, duration, intensity and dosage of speech and language therapy were variously associated with auditory comprehension, naming and functional communication recovery. There were insufficient data to examine spontaneous recovery. The greatest overall gains in language ability [14.95 points (95% confidence interval 8.7 to 21.2 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and functional communication [0.78 points (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.1 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Spontaneous Communication] were associated with receiving speech and language therapy 4 to 5 days weekly; for auditory comprehension [5.86 points (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 10.0 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test], the greatest gains were associated with receiving speech and language therapy 3 to 4 days weekly. The greatest overall gains in language ability [15.9 points (95% confidence interval 8.0 to 23.6 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and functional communication [0.77 points (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.2 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Spontaneous Communication] were associated with speech and language therapy participation from 2 to 4 (and more than 9) hours weekly, whereas the highest auditory comprehension gains [7.3 points (95% confidence interval 4.1 to 10.5 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test] were associated with speech and language therapy participation in excess of 9 hours weekly (with similar gains notes for 4 hours weekly). While clinically similar gains were made alongside different speech and language therapy intensities, the greatest overall gains in language ability [18.37 points (95% confidence interval 10.58 to 26.16 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and auditory comprehension [5.23 points (95% confidence interval 1.51 to 8.95 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test] were associated with 20-50 hours of speech and language therapy. Network meta-analyses on naming and the duration of speech and language therapy interventions across language outcomes were unstable. Relative variance was acceptable (< 30%). Subgroups may benefit from specific interventions. Limitations: Data sets were graded as being at a low risk of bias but were predominantly based on highly selected research participants, assessments and interventions, thereby limiting generalisability. Conclusions: Frequency, intensity and dosage were associated with language gains from baseline, but varied by domain and subgroup

Videogame-based group therapy to improve self-awareness and social skills after traumatic brain injury

[EN] Background: This study determines the feasibility of different approaches to integrative videogame-based group therapy for improving self-awareness, social skills, and behaviors among traumatic brain injury (TBI) victims and retrieves participant feedback. Methods: Forty-two adult TBI survivors were included in a longitudinal study with a pre- and post-assessments. The experimental intervention involved weekly one-hour sessions conducted over six months. Participants were assessed using the Self-Awareness Deficits Interview (SADI), Patient Competency Rating Scale (PCRS), the Social Skills Scale (SSS), the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe), the System Usability Scale (SUS). Pearson's chi-squared test (χ 2 ) was applied to determine the percentage of participants who had changed their clinical classification in these tests. Feedback of the intervention was collected through the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). Results: SADI results showed an improvement in participant perceptions of deficits (χ 2 = 5.25, p < 0.05), of their implications (χ 2 = 4.71, p < 0.05), and of long-term planning (χ 2 = 7.86, p < 0.01). PCRS results confirm these findings (χ 2 = 5.79, p < 0.05). SSS results were also positive with respect to social skills outcomes (χ 2 = 17.52, p < 0.01), and FrSBe results showed behavioral improvements (χ 2 = 34.12, p < 0.01). Participants deemed the system accessible (80.43 ± 8.01 out of 100) and regarded the intervention as interesting and useful (5.74 ± 0.69 out of 7). Conclusions: Integrative videogame-based group therapy can improve self-awareness, social skills, and behaviors among individuals with chronic TBI, and the approach is considered effective and motivating.This study was funded in part by Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of Spain (Project TEREHA, IDI-20110844; and NeuroVR, TIN2013-44741-R), by Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia of Spain (Projects Consolider-C, SEJ2006-14301/PSIC; and "CIBER of Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition, an initiative of ISCIII"), and by the Excellence Research Program PROMETEO (Generalitat Valenciana. Conselleria de Educacion, 2008-157).Llorens Rodríguez, R.; Noé Sebastián, E.; Ferri, J.; Alcañiz Raya, ML. (2015). Videogame-based group therapy to improve self-awareness and social skills after traumatic brain injury. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 12(37):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0029-1S191237Sherer M, Bergloff P, Levin E, High Jr WM, Oden KE, Nick TG. Impaired awareness and employment outcome after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1998;13(5):52–61.Sherer M, Hart T, Nick TG. Measurement of impaired self-awareness after traumatic brain injury: a comparison of the patient competency rating scale and the awareness questionnaire. Brain Inj. 2003;17(1):25–37.Simmond M, Fleming J. Occupational therapy assessment of self-awareness following traumatic brain injury: a literature review. Br J Occup Ther. 2003;66:447–53.Bogod NM, Mateer CA, MacDonald SWS. Self-awareness after traumatic brain injury: a comparison of measures and their relationship to executive functions. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003;9(03):450–8.Stuss DT, Levine B. Adult clinical neuropsychology: lessons from studies of the frontal lobes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:401–33.Ham TE, Bonnelle V, Hellyer P, Jilka S, Robertson IH, Leech R, et al. The neural basis of impaired self-awareness after traumatic brain injury. Brain. 2014;137(Pt 2):586–97.Prigatano GP, Schacter DL. Awareness of Deficit After Brain Injury: Clinical and Theoretical Issues. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.Katz N, Fleming J, Keren N, Lightbody S, Hartman-Maeir A. Unawareness and/or denial of disability: implications for occupational therapy intervention. Can J Occup Ther. 2002;69(5):281–92.Fleming JM, Strong J, Ashton R. Self-awareness of deficits in adults with traumatic brain injury: how best to measure? Brain Inj. 1996;10(1):1–15.Goverover Y, Johnston MV, Toglia J, Deluca J. Treatment to improve self-awareness in persons with acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 2007;21(9):913–23.Bach LJ, David AS. Self-awareness after acquired and traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2006;16(4):397–414.Prigatano GP. Behavioral Limitations TBI patients tend to underestimate: a replication and extension to patients with lateralized cerebral dysfunction. Clin Neuropsychol. 1996;10(2):191–201.Sherer M, Boake C, Levin E, Silver BV, Ringholz G, High WM. Characteristics of impaired awareness after traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1998;4(04):380–7.Sveen U, Mongs M, Roe C, Sandvik L, Bautz-Holter E. Self-rated competency in activities predicts functioning and participation one year after traumatic brain injury. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(1):45–55.Crosson B, Barco PP, Velozo CA, Bolesta MM, Cooper PV, Werts D, et al. Awareness and compensation in postacute head injury rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1989;4(3):46–54.Toglia J, Kirk U. Understanding awareness deficits following brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation. 2000;15(1):57–70.Schrijnemaekers AC, Smeets SM, Ponds RW, van Heugten CM, Rasquin S. Treatment of unawareness of deficits in patients with acquired brain injury: a systematic review. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014;29(5):E9–30.Tate R, Kennedy M, Ponsford J, Douglas J, Velikonja D, Bayley M, et al. INCOG recommendations for management of cognition following traumatic brain injury, part III: executive function and self-awareness. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014;29(4):338–52.Chittum WR, Johnson K, Chittum JM, Guercio JM, McMorrow MJ. Road to awareness: an individualized training package for increasing knowledge and comprehension of personal deficits in persons with acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 1996;10(10):763–76.Zhou J, Chittum R, Johnson K, Poppen R, Guercio J, McMorrow MJ. The utilization of a game format to increase knowledge of residuals among people with acquired brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1996;11(1):51–61.Ownsworth TL, McFarland K, Mc Young R. Self-awareness and psychosocial functioning following acquired brain injury: an evaluation of a group support programme. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2000;10(5):465–84.Lundqvist A, Linnros H, Orlenius H, Samuelsson K. Improved self-awareness and coping strategies for patients with acquired brain injury–a group therapy programme. Brain Inj. 2010;24(6):823–32.Schmidt J, Lannin N, Fleming J, Ownsworth T. Feedback interventions for impaired self-awareness following brain injury: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(8):673–80.Schmidt J, Fleming J, Ownsworth T, Lannin NA. Video feedback on functional task performance improves self-awareness after traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(4):316–24.McGraw-Hunter M, Faw GD, Davis PK. The use of video self-modelling and feedback to teach cooking skills to individuals with traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. Brain Inj. 2006;20(10):1061–8.Ownsworth T, Quinn H, Fleming J, Kendall M, Shum D. Error self-regulation following traumatic brain injury: a single case study evaluation of metacognitive skills training and behavioural practice interventions. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2010;20(1):59–80.Lucas SE, Fleming JM. Interventions for improving self-awareness following acquired brain injury. Aust Occup Ther J. 2005;52(2):160–70.Malec JF, Brown AW, Leibson CL, Flaada JT, Mandrekar JN, Diehl NN, et al. The mayo classification system for traumatic brain injury severity. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24(9):1417–24.Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.Nakase-Thompson R, Manning E, Sherer M, Yablon SA, Gontkovsky SL, Vickery C. Brief assessment of severe language impairments: initial validation of the Mississippi aphasia screening test. Brain Inj. 2005;19(9):685–91.Prigatano GP, Fordyce DJ. Neuropsychological rehabilitation after brain injury. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1986.Gismero E. EHS, Escala de habilidades sociales. TEA: Madrid; 2000.Reid-Arndt SA, Nehl C, Hinkebein J. The Frontal Systems Behaviour Scale (FrSBe) as a predictor of community integration following a traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2007;21(13–14):1361–9.Brooke J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In Usability evaluation in industry. PW Jordan, et al. Editors. Taylor and Francis; 1996Plant RW, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. J Pers. 1985;53(3):435–49.Cheng SK, Man DW. Management of impaired self-awareness in persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2006;20(6):621–8.Ownsworth T, Fleming J, Shum D, Kuipers P, Strong J. Comparison of individual, group and combined intervention formats in a randomized controlled trial for facilitating goal attainment and improving psychosocial function following acquired brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(2):81–8.Ownsworth T, Fleming J, Desbois J, Strong J, Kuipers P. A metacognitive contextual intervention to enhance error awareness and functional outcome following traumatic brain injury: a single-case experimental design. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12(1):54–63.Fleming JM, Lucas SE, Lightbody S. Using occupation to facilitate self-awareness in people who have acquired brain injury: a pilot study. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(1):44–55.McDonald S, Tate R, Togher L, Bornhofen C, Long E, Gertler P, et al. Social skills treatment for people with severe, chronic acquired brain injuries: a multicenter trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(9):1648–59.Schefft BK, Malec JF, Lehr BK, Kanfer FH. The role of self-regulation therapy with the brain-injured client. In: Maurish ME, Moses JA, editors. Clinical neuropsychology: theoretical foundations for practitioners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997. p. 237–82.Pollens RD, McBratnie BP, Burton PL. Beyond cognition: executive functions in closed head injury. Cogn Rehabil. 1988;6(5):26–32.Carbery H, Burd B. Social aspects of cognitive retraining in an outpatient group setting for head trauma patients. Cogn Rehabil. 1983;1:5–7.Bennett TL, Raymond MJ. Emotional consequences and psychotherapy for individuals with mild brain injury. Appl Neuropsychol. 1997;4(1):55–61.Delmonico RL, Hanley-Peterson P, Englander J. Group psychotherapy for persons with traumatic brain injury: management of frustration and substance abuse. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1998;13(6):10–22.Alexy WD, Foster M, Baker A. Audio-visual feedback: an exercise in self-awareness for the head injured patient. Cogn Rehabil. 1983;1(6):8–10.Ranseen JD, Bohaska LA, Schmitt FA. An investigation of anosognosia following traumatic head injury. Int J Clin Neuropsychol. 1990;12(1):29–36.Sasse N, Gibbons H, Wilson L, Martinez-Olivera R, Schmidt H, Hasselhorn M, et al. Self-awareness and health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013;28(6):464–72.Malec JF, Testa JA, Rush BK, Brown AW, Moessner AM. Self-assessment of impairment, impaired self-awareness, and depression after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007;22(3):156–66.Fleming JM, Ownsworth T. A review of awareness interventions in brain injury rehabilitation. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2006;16(4):474–500

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca