Rapamycin Blocks Production of KSHV/HHV8: Insights into the Anti-Tumor Activity of an Immunosuppressant Drug

Infection with Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV/HHV8) often results in the development of fatal tumors in immunocompromised patients. Studies of renal transplant recipients show that use of the immunosuppressant drug rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, both prevents and can induce the regression of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), an opportunistic tumor that arises within a subset of this infected population. In light of rapamycin's marked anti-KS activity, we tested whether the drug might directly inhibit the KSHV life cycle. We focused on the molecular switch that triggers this predominantly latent virus to enter the lytic (productive) replication phase, since earlier work links this transition to viral persistence and tumorigenesis.In latently infected human B cell lines, we found that rapamycin inhibited entry of the virus into the lytic replication cycle, marked by a loss of expression of the lytic switch protein, replication and transcription activator (RTA). To test for viral-specific effects of rapamycin, we focused our studies on a B cell line with resistance to rapamycin-mediated growth inhibition. Using this line, we found that the drug had minimal effect on cell cycle profiles, cellular proliferation, or the expression of other cellular or latent viral proteins, indicating that the RTA suppression was not a result of global cellular dysregulation. Finally, treatment with rapamycin blocked the production of progeny virions.These results indicate that mTOR plays a role in the regulation of RTA expression and, therefore, KSHV production, providing a potential molecular explanation for the marked clinical success of rapamycin in the treatment and prevention of post-transplant Kaposi's sarcoma. The striking inhibition of rapamycin on KSHV lytic replication, thus, helps explain the apparent paradox of an immunosuppressant drug suppressing the pathogenesis of an opportunistic viral infection

Evolution of Symbiotic Bacteria in the Distal Human Intestine

The adult human intestine contains trillions of bacteria, representing hundreds of species and thousands of subspecies. Little is known about the selective pressures that have shaped and are shaping this community's component species, which are dominated by members of the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes divisions. To examine how the intestinal environment affects microbial genome evolution, we have sequenced the genomes of two members of the normal distal human gut microbiota, Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides distasonis, and by comparison with the few other sequenced gut and non-gut Bacteroidetes, analyzed their niche and habitat adaptations. The results show that lateral gene transfer, mobile elements, and gene amplification have played important roles in affecting the ability of gut-dwelling Bacteroidetes to vary their cell surface, sense their environment, and harvest nutrient resources present in the distal intestine. Our findings show that these processes have been a driving force in the adaptation of Bacteroidetes to the distal gut environment, and emphasize the importance of considering the evolution of humans from an additional perspective, namely the evolution of our microbiomes

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19 : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and$1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4$2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7$1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7–8·8) or $1132 (1119–1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5–0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0–25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and$1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4$2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7$1519 (1448–1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all

Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026

Background The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic; characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness. Methods In this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need. Findings In 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US$9·2 trillion (95$7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2–7·4) in 2019; 293·7 times the $24·8 billion (95$43·1 billion in development assistance was provided to maintain or improve health. The pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in development assistance targeted towards health; in 2020 and 2021, $1·8 billion in DAH contributions was provided towards pandemic preparedness in LMICs, and$37·8 billion was provided for the health-related COVID-19 response. Although the support for pandemic preparedness is 12·2% of the recommended target by the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP), the support provided for the health-related COVID-19 response is 252·2% of the recommended target. Additionally, projected spending estimates suggest that between 2022 and 2026, governments in 17 (95% UI 11–21) of the 137 LMICs will observe an increase in national government health spending equivalent to an addition of 1% of GDP, as recommended by the HLIP. Interpretation There was an unprecedented scale-up in DAH in 2020 and 2021. We have a unique opportunity at this time to sustain funding for crucial global health functions, including pandemic preparedness. However, historical patterns of underfunding of pandemic preparedness suggest that deliberate effort must be made to ensure funding is maintained

Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026

Background The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic; characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness. Methods In this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need. Findings In 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US$9·2 trillion (95$7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2–7·4) in 2019; 293·7 times the $24·8 billion (95$43·1 billion in development assistance was provided to maintain or improve health. The pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in development assistance targeted towards health; in 2020 and 2021, $1·8 billion in DAH contributions was provided towards pandemic preparedness in LMICs, and$37·8 billion was provided for the health-related COVID-19 response. Although the support for pandemic preparedness is 12·2% of the recommended target by the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP), the support provided for the health-related COVID-19 response is 252·2% of the recommended target. Additionally, projected spending estimates suggest that between 2022 and 2026, governments in 17 (95% UI 11–21) of the 137 LMICs will observe an increase in national government health spending equivalent to an addition of 1% of GDP, as recommended by the HLIP. Interpretation There was an unprecedented scale-up in DAH in 2020 and 2021. We have a unique opportunity at this time to sustain funding for crucial global health functions, including pandemic preparedness. However, historical patterns of underfunding of pandemic preparedness suggest that deliberate effort must be made to ensure funding is maintained

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and$1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4$2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7$1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

DOES TRUNK ENDURANCE AND HIP STRENGTH RELATE TO LOWER EXTREMITY ASYMMETRY IN ADOLESCENT LONG-DISTANCE RUNNERS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of maturation on the relationship between joint asymmetry and side-to-side hip strength differences in adolescent runners. Uninjured adolescent runners (n = 63) were recruited for the study. Participants completed hip strength and three-dimensional testing and were stratified by maturity level. Results demonstrate inconclusive results of the effect of maturation on the relationship between side-to-side joint asymmetry and hip strength differences. This lack of clarity highlights the need for prospective study on running patterns in maturing adolescent runners

Cadence In Youth Long-Distance Runners Is Predicted By Leg Length and Running Speed

Background: Lower cadence has been previously associated with injury in long-distance runners. Variations in cadence may be related to experience, speed, and anthropometric variables. It is unknown what factors, if any, predict cadence in healthy youth long-distance runners. Research question: Are demographic, anthropometric and/or biomechanical variables able to predict cadence in healthy youth long-distance runners. Methods: A cohort of 138 uninjured youth long-distance runners (M = 62, F = 76; Mean ± SD; age = 13.7 ± 2.7; mass = 47.9 ± 13.6 kg; height = 157.9 ± 14.5 cm; running volume = 19.2 ± 20.6 km/wk; running experience: males = 3.5 ± 2.1 yrs, females = 3.3 ± 2.0 yrs) were recruited for the study. Multiple linear regression (MLR) models were developed for total sample and for each sex independently that only included variables that were significantly correlated to self-selected cadence. A variance inflation factor (VIF) assessed multicollinearity of variables. If VIF≥ 5, variable(s) were removed and the MLR analysis was conducted again. Results: For all models, VIF was \u3e 5 between speed and normalized stride length, therefore we removed normalized stride length from all models. Only leg length and speed were significantly correlated (p \u3c .001) with cadence in the regression models for total sample (R2 = 51.9 %) and females (R2 = 48.2 %). The regression model for all participants was Cadence = −1.251 *Leg Length + 3.665 *Speed + 254.858. The regression model for females was Cadence = −1.190 *Leg Length + 3.705 *Speed + 249.688. For males, leg length, cadence, and running experience were significantly predictive (p \u3c .001) of cadence in the model (R2 = 54.7 %). The regression model for males was Cadence = −1.268 *Leg Length + 3.471 *Speed – 1.087 *Running Experience + 261.378. Significance: Approximately 50 % of the variance in cadence was explained by the individual’s leg length and running speed. Shorter leg lengths and faster running speeds were associated with higher cadence. For males, fewer years of running experience was associated with a higher cadence