Geoenvironmental Site Characterization to Treatment: Lead Contaminated Firing Range Case Study

The methodologies employed and the results obtained during the performance of a comprehensive geoenvironmental site characterization case study are presented. The study demonstrates the need to integrate research tools from various disciplines including geotechnical, analytical and mineralogical specialties in order to develop a thorough understanding of both the nature and extent of the environmental issues associated with the site and the most viable alternatives for its remediation. Particle size distribution coupled with contaminant fractionation studies and mineralogical and micromorphological analyses were performed on the soil samples collected onsite to identify the metals present, their concentrations and the mechanisms of transformation. Lead fragments found in the soil samples were analyzed by means of X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Quantitative phase analysis studies showed that the fine soil fractions contained considerable amounts of lead carbonates, which owing to their colloidal nature could not be readily removed using gravitational methods. To mitigate this deficiency, a bench-scale chemical treatment experiment based on dissolution of the Pb was performed. Although the study is still in progress, the benefits derived from using the multi-disciplinary approach for site characterization described herein warrant consideration by others who may face similar challenges in the future

APOBEC3G and APOBEC3F Require an Endogenous Cofactor to Block HIV-1 Replication

APOBEC3G (A3G)/APOBEC3F (A3F) are two members of APOBEC3 cytidine deaminase subfamily. Although they potently inhibit the replication of vif-deficient HIV-1, this mechanism is still poorly understood. Initially, A3G/A3F were thought to catalyze C-to-U transitions on the minus-strand viral cDNAs during reverse transcription to disrupt the viral life cycle. Recently, it was found more likely that A3G/A3F directly interrupts viral reverse transcription or integration. In addition, A3G/A3F are both found in the high-molecular-mass complex in immortalized cell lines, where they interact with a number of different cellular proteins. However, there has been no evidence to prove that these interactions are required for A3G/A3F function. Here, we studied A3G/A3F-restricted HIV-1 replication in six different human T cell lines by infecting them with wild-type or vif-deficient HIV-1. Interestingly, in a CEM-derived cell line CEM-T4, which expresses high levels of A3G/A3F proteins, the vif-deficient virus replicated as equally well as the wild-type virus, suggesting that these endogenous antiretroviral genes lost anti-HIV activities. It was confirmed that these A3G/A3F genes do not contain any mutation and are functionally normal. Consistently, overexpression of exogenous A3G/A3F in CEM-T4 cells still failed to restore their anti-HIV activities. However, this activity could be restored if CEM-T4 cells were fused to 293T cells to form heterokaryons. These results demonstrate that CEM-T4 cells lack a cellular cofactor, which is critical for A3G/A3F anti-HIV activity. We propose that a further study of this novel factor will provide another strategy for a complete understanding of the A3G/A3F antiretroviral mechanism

Omicron BA.1-containing mRNA-1273 boosters compared with the original COVID-19 vaccine in the UK: a randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 μg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 μg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6-4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5-4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8-6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8-6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45-1·95) and 1·53 (1·41-1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9-3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9-3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3-2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5-3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96-1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74-0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. FUNDING: Moderna

Omicron BA.1-containing mRNA-1273 boosters compared with the original COVID-19 vaccine in the UK: a randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled trial

Background The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial. Methods In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 μg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 μg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing. Findings Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6–4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5–4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8–6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8–6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45−1·95) and 1·53 (1·41−1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9–3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9–3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3–2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5–3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96–1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74–0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events. Interpretation Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. Funding Moderna

XRN1 Is a Species-Specific Virus Restriction Factor in Yeasts

In eukaryotes, the degradation of cellular mRNAs is accomplished by Xrn1 and the cytoplasmic exosome. Because viral RNAs often lack canonical caps or poly-A tails, they can also be vulnerable to degradation by these host exonucleases. Yeast lack sophisticated mechanisms of innate and adaptive immunity, but do use RNA degradation as an antiviral defense mechanism. One model is that the RNA of yeast viruses is subject to degradation simply as a side effect of the intrinsic exonuclease activity of proteins involved in RNA metabolism. Contrary to this model, we find a highly refined, species-specific relationship between Xrn1p and the "L-A" totiviruses of different Saccharomyces yeast species. We show that the gene XRN1 has evolved rapidly under positive natural selection in Saccharomyces yeast, resulting in high levels of Xrn1p protein sequence divergence from one yeast species to the next. We also show that these sequence differences translate to differential interactions with the L-A virus, where Xrn1p from S. cerevisiae is most efficient at controlling the L-A virus that chronically infects S. cerevisiae, and Xrn1p from S. kudriavzevii is most efficient at controlling the L-A-like virus that we have discovered within S. kudriavzevii. All Xrn1p orthologs are equivalent in their interaction with another virus-like parasite, the Ty1 retrotransposon. Thus, the activity of Xrn1p against totiviruses is not simply an incidental consequence of the enzymatic activity of Xrn1p, but rather Xrn1p co-evolves with totiviruses to maintain its potent antiviral activity and limit viral propagation in Saccharomyces yeasts. Consistent with this, we demonstrated that Xrn1p physically interacts with the Gag protein encoded by the L-A virus, suggesting a host-virus interaction that is more complicated than just Xrn1p-mediated nucleolytic digestion of viral RNAs