An Investigation into the Potential of Targeting Escherichia coli rne mRNA with Locked Nucleic Acid (LNA) Gapmers as an Antibacterial Strategy

The increase in antibacterial resistance is a serious challenge for both the health and defence sectors and there is a need for both novel antibacterial targets and antibacterial strategies. RNA degradation and ribonucleases, such as the essential endoribonuclease RNase E, encoded by the rne gene, are emerging as potential antibacterial targets while antisense oligonucleotides may provide alternative antibacterial strategies. As rne mRNA has not been previously targeted using an antisense approach, we decided to explore using antisense oligonucleotides to target the translation initiation region of the Escherichia coli rne mRNA. Antisense oligonucleotides were rationally designed and were synthesised as locked nucleic acid (LNA) gapmers to enable inhibition of rne mRNA translation through two mechanisms. Either LNA gapmer binding could sterically block translation and/or LNA gapmer binding could facilitate RNase H-mediated cleavage of the rne mRNA. This may prove to be an advantage over the majority of previous antibacterial antisense oligonucleotide approaches which used oligonucleotide chemistries that restrict the mode-of-action of the antisense oligonucleotide to steric blocking of translation. Using an electrophoretic mobility shift assay, we demonstrate that the LNA gapmers bind to the translation initiation region of E. coli rne mRNA. We then use a cell-free transcription translation reporter assay to show that this binding is capable of inhibiting translation. Finally, in an in vitro RNase H cleavage assay, the LNA gapmers facilitate RNase H-mediated mRNA cleavage. Although the challenges of antisense oligonucleotide delivery remain to be addressed, overall, this work lays the foundations for the development of a novel antibacterial strategy targeting rne mRNA with antisense oligonucleotides

Commentary on the use of the reproduction number R during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Funder: NHS Global Digital Exemplar programmeFunder: James S. McDonnell Foundation; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/100000913Funder: NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of BristolFunder: Wellcome Trust; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/100004440Funder: Canadian Institutes for Health ResearchFunder: Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reproduction number [Formula: see text] has become a popular epidemiological metric used to communicate the state of the epidemic. At its most basic, [Formula: see text] is defined as the average number of secondary infections caused by one primary infected individual. [Formula: see text] seems convenient, because the epidemic is expanding if [Formula: see text] and contracting if [Formula: see text]. The magnitude of [Formula: see text] indicates by how much transmission needs to be reduced to control the epidemic. Using [Formula: see text] in a naïve way can cause new problems. The reasons for this are threefold: (1) There is not just one definition of [Formula: see text] but many, and the precise definition of [Formula: see text] affects both its estimated value and how it should be interpreted. (2) Even with a particular clearly defined [Formula: see text], there may be different statistical methods used to estimate its value, and the choice of method will affect the estimate. (3) The availability and type of data used to estimate [Formula: see text] vary, and it is not always clear what data should be included in the estimation. In this review, we discuss when [Formula: see text] is useful, when it may be of use but needs to be interpreted with care, and when it may be an inappropriate indicator of the progress of the epidemic. We also argue that careful definition of [Formula: see text], and the data and methods used to estimate it, can make [Formula: see text] a more useful metric for future management of the epidemic

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially