Understanding the iInteractions of hydrogen peroxide with macromolecules and microbial components

The bactericidal mechanism of hydrogen peroxide is poorly understood, with most evidence being obtained from studies involving greatly reduced concentrations aimed at investigating the effects of stress. Current theory suggests that this mechanism is based on the oxidation of protein, DNA and lipids within the cell by the production of free hydroxyl radicals through the interaction of hydrogen peroxide and intracellular iron. The mechanism of vapour phase hydrogen peroxide treatment remains unstudied, despite evidence that it may be different to the liquid phase. This study aimed to investigate the effects of bactericidal treatments of liquid and vapour phase hydrogen peroxide on the macromolecular components of a model organism, Escherichia coli strain K12. A set of treatment conditions producing a range of reductions in colony forming units was identified, and the effects of these conditions on the protein, DNA and lipid constituents of the cells assayed. No effect on the lipid contents and membrane integrity of treated cells was found. Liquid hydrogen peroxide was found to reduce the thiol content of cytoplasmic protein, but this was not found to be a major mechanism of bactericidal action. Extensive fragmentation of DNA was found to result by treatment with both phases, the degree of which was correlated with a reduction in colony forming unit counts. No effect on bactericidal action was found on addition of a hydroxyl radical scavenger or an inhibitor of protein synthesis, showing that DNA damage was due to the primary action of hydrogen peroxide, and that this damage was not caused by the production of free radicals within the cell. A modifed mechanism of hydrogen peroxide bactericidal action is proposed, whereby lethality is due solely to DNA damage caused by the production of ferryl radicals by the interaction of hydrogen peroxide and iron associated with the DNA backbone

HPV16 and HPV18 seropositivity and DNA detection among men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional study conducted in a sexual health clinic in London.

OBJECTIVES: Men who have sex with men (MSM) have an increased risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and related diseases compared with men who have sex exclusively with women. From April 2018, there has been a phased roll-out of HPV vaccination offered to MSM aged up to 45 years old who are attending sexual health clinics and HIV clinics in England. The vaccine is most effective if delivered prior to HPV infection. We estimated the proportion of MSM with no current vaccine-type infection and no serological evidence of prior infection, in a study undertaken prior to vaccine introduction. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 484 MSM aged 18-40 years old who attended a sexual health clinic in London between 2010 and 2012. We estimated the prevalence of current and past infection by testing for HPV DNA in anogenital samples and for serum antibodies to HPV16 and HPV18. RESULTS: The median age was 30 years (IQR 25-35). The prevalence of HPV16 and HPV18 DNA was 13.2% and 6.2%, respectively. Seropositivity for HPV16 and HPV18 was 28.5% and 17.1%, respectively, with 11.4% seropositive for both types. Seropositivity for the same HPV type was strongly associated with anogenital DNA detection. 279 MSM (57.6%) tested negative for both HPV16 and HPV18 serology and were DNA negative for these two types; only 5 MSM (1.0%) were seropositive and DNA positive for both HPV types. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to determine both the prevalence of HPV DNA in anogenital samples and HPV seroprevalence among MSM attending a sexual health clinic in the UK. Over half of MSM in this study had no evidence of a previous or current infection with either of the high-risk HPV types included in the quadrivalent vaccine, which supports the rationale for opportunistic HPV vaccination of MSM attending sexual health clinics

Antibody correlates of protection against Delta infection after vaccination: A nested case-control within the UK-based SIREN study

Objectives: To investigate serological correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) infection after two vaccinations.// Methods: We performed a case-control study, where cases were Delta infections after the second vaccine dose and controls were vaccinated, never infected participants, matched by age, gender and region. Sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibody levels (anti-S) and neutralising antibody titres (nAbT), using live virus microneutralisation against Ancestral, Delta and Omicron (BA.1, B.1.1.529). We modelled the decay of anti-S and nAbT for both groups, inferring levels at matched calendar times since the second vaccination. We assessed differences in inferred antibody titres between groups and used conditional logistic regression to explore the relationship between titres and odds of infection.// Results: In total, 130 sequence-confirmed Delta cases and 318 controls were included. Anti-S and Ancestral nAbT decayed similarly between groups, but faster in cases for Delta nAbT (p = 0.02) and Omicron nAbT (p = 0.002). At seven days before infection, controls had higher anti-S levels (p 40 were associated with reduced odds of Delta infection (89%, [69–96%]; p 100 (p = 0.009) and >400 (p = 0.007).// Conclusions: We have identified correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 Delta, with potential implications for vaccine deployment, development, and public health response

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among Blood Donors and Changes after Introduction of Public Health and Social Measures, London, UK.

We describe results of testing blood donors in London, UK, for severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG before and after lockdown measures. Anonymized samples from donors 17-69 years of age were tested using 3 assays: Euroimmun IgG, Abbott IgG, and an immunoglobulin receptor-binding domain assay developed by Public Health England. Seroprevalence increased from 3.0% prelockdown (week 13, beginning March 23, 2020) to 10.4% during lockdown (weeks 15-16) and 12.3% postlockdown (week 18) by the Abbott assay. Estimates were 2.9% prelockdown, 9.9% during lockdown, and 13.0% postlockdown by the Euroimmun assay and 3.5% prelockdown, 11.8% during lockdown, and 14.1% postlockdown by the receptor-binding domain assay. By early May 2020, nearly 1 in 7 donors had evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Combining results from the Abbott and Euroimmun assays increased seroprevalence by 1.6%, 2.3%, and 0.6% at the 3 timepoints compared with Euroimmun alone, demonstrating the value of using multiple assays

Serum HCoV-spike specific antibodies do not protect against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents

SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are generally asymptomatic or mild and rarely progress to severe disease and hospitalization. Why this is so remains unclear. Here we explore the potential for protection due to pre-existing cross-reactive seasonal coronavirus antibodies and compare the rate of antibody decline for nucleocapsid and spike protein in serum and oral fluid against SARS-CoV-2 within the pediatric population. No differences in seasonal coronaviruses antibody concentrations were found at baseline between cases and controls, suggesting no protective effect from pre-existing immunity against seasonal coronaviruses. Antibodies against seasonal betacoronaviruses were boosted in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In serum, anti-nucleocapsid antibodies fell below the threshold of positivity more quickly than anti-spike protein antibodies. These findings add to our understanding of protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2 within the pediatric population, which is important when considering pediatric SARS-CoV-2 immunization policies

Antibody correlates of protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection prior to vaccination : a nested case-control within the SIREN study

Funding: This study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency, the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care (with contributions from the governments in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland), the National Institute for Health Research, and grant from the UK Medical Research Council (grant number MR/W02067X/1). This work was supported by the Francis Crick Institute which receives its core funding from Cancer Research UK (CC2087, CC1283), the UK Medical Research Council (CC2087, CC1283), and the Wellcome Trust (CC2087, CC1283).Objectives To investigate serological differences between SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases and contemporary controls, to identify antibody correlates of protection against reinfection. Methods We performed a case-control study, comparing reinfection cases with singly infected individuals pre-vaccination, matched by gender, age, region and timing of first infection. Serum samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S), anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (anti-N), live virus microneutralisation (LV-N) and pseudovirus microneutralisation (PV-N). Results were analysed using fixed effect linear regression and fitted into conditional logistic regression models. Results We identified 23 cases and 92 controls. First infections occurred before November 2020; reinfections occurred before February 2021, pre-vaccination. Anti-S levels, LV-N and PV-N titres were significantly lower among cases; no difference was found for anti-N levels. Increasing anti-S levels were associated with reduced risk of reinfection (OR 0·63, CI 0·47-0·85), but no association for anti-N levels (OR 0·88, CI 0·73-1·05). Titres >40 were correlated with protection against reinfection for LV-N Wuhan (OR 0·02, CI 0·001–0·31) and LV-N Alpha (OR 0·07, CI 0·009–0·62). For PV-N, titres >100 were associated with protection against Wuhan (OR 0·14, CI 0·03–0·64) and Alpha (0·06, CI 0·008–0·40). Conclusions Before vaccination, protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was directly correlated with anti-S levels, PV-N and LV-N titres, but not with anti-N levels. Detectable LV-N titres were sufficient for protection, whilst PV-N titres >100 were required for a protective effect. Trial registration number ISRCTN11041050Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Social and occupational factors associated with psychological distress and disorder among disaster responders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: When disasters occur, there are many different occupational groups involved in rescue, recovery and support efforts. This study aimed to conduct a systematic literature review to identify social and occupational factors affecting the psychological impact of disasters on responders. METHODS: Four electronic literature databases (MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO® and Web of Science) were searched and hand searches of reference lists were carried out. Papers were screened against specific inclusion criteria (e.g. published in peer-reviewed journal in English; included a quantitative measure of wellbeing; participants were disaster responders). Data was extracted from relevant papers and thematic analysis was used to develop a list of key factors affecting the wellbeing of disaster responders. RESULTS: Eighteen thousand five papers were found and 111 included in the review. The psychological impact of disasters on responders appeared associated with pre-disaster factors (occupational factors; specialised training and preparedness; life events and health), during-disaster factors (exposure; duration on site and arrival time; emotional involvement; peri-traumatic distress/dissociation; role-related stressors; perceptions of safety, threat and risk; harm to self or close others; social support; professional support) and post-disaster factors (professional support; impact on life; life events; media; coping strategies). CONCLUSIONS: There are steps that can be taken at all stages of a disaster (before, during and after) which may minimise risks to responders and enhance resilience. Preparedness (for the demands of the role and the potential psychological impact) and support (particularly from the organisation) are essential. The findings of this review could potentially be used to develop training workshops for professionals involved in disaster response. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0120-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Accuracy of UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC) “AbC-19 Rapid Test” for detection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in key workers: test accuracy study

Abstract: Objective: To assess the accuracy of the AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design: Test accuracy study. Setting: Laboratory based evaluation. Participants: 2847 key workers (healthcare staff, fire and rescue officers, and police officers) in England in June 2020 (268 with a previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result (median 63 days previously), 2579 with unknown previous infection status); and 1995 pre-pandemic blood donors. Main outcome measures: AbC-19 sensitivity and specificity, estimated using known negative (pre-pandemic) and known positive (PCR confirmed) samples as reference standards and secondly using the Roche Elecsys anti-nucleoprotein assay, a highly sensitive laboratory immunoassay, as a reference standard in samples from key workers. Results: Test result bands were often weak, with positive/negative discordance by three trained laboratory staff for 3.9% of devices. Using consensus readings, for known positive and negative samples sensitivity was 92.5% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 95.1%) and specificity was 97.9% (97.2% to 98.4%). Using an immunoassay reference standard, sensitivity was 94.2% (90.7% to 96.5%) among PCR confirmed cases but 84.7% (80.6% to 88.1%) among other people with antibodies. This is consistent with AbC-19 being more sensitive when antibody concentrations are higher, as people with PCR confirmation tended to have more severe disease whereas only 62% (218/354) of seropositive participants had had symptoms. If 1 million key workers were tested with AbC-19 and 10% had actually been previously infected, 84 700 true positive and 18 900 false positive results would be projected. The probability that a positive result was correct would be 81.7% (76.8% to 85.8%). Conclusions: AbC-19 sensitivity was lower among unselected populations than among PCR confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the scope for overestimation of assay performance in studies involving only PCR confirmed cases, owing to “spectrum bias.” Assuming that 10% of the tested population have had SARS-CoV-2 infection, around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives. Study registration: ISRCTN 56609224