27 research outputs found

    Reduced Lentivirus Susceptibility in Sheep with TMEM154 Mutations

    Get PDF
    Visna/Maedi, or ovine progressive pneumonia (OPP) as it is known in the United States, is an incurable slow-acting disease of sheep caused by persistent lentivirus infection. This disease affects multiple tissues, including those of the respiratory and central nervous systems. Our aim was to identify ovine genetic risk factors for lentivirus infection. Sixty-nine matched pairs of infected cases and uninfected controls were identified among 736 naturally exposed sheep older than five years of age. These pairs were used in a genome-wide association study with 50,614 markers. A single SNP was identified in the ovine transmembrane protein (TMEM154) that exceeded genome-wide significance (unadjusted p-value 3×10−9). Sanger sequencing of the ovine TMEM154 coding region identified six missense and two frameshift deletion mutations in the predicted signal peptide and extracellular domain. Two TMEM154 haplotypes encoding glutamate (E) at position 35 were associated with infection while a third haplotype with lysine (K) at position 35 was not. Haplotypes encoding full-length E35 isoforms were analyzed together as genetic risk factors in a multi-breed, matched case-control design, with 61 pairs of 4-year-old ewes. The odds of infection for ewes with one copy of a full-length TMEM154 E35 allele were 28 times greater than the odds for those without (p-value<0.0001, 95% CI 5–1,100). In a combined analysis of nine cohorts with 2,705 sheep from Nebraska, Idaho, and Iowa, the relative risk of infection was 2.85 times greater for sheep with a full-length TMEM154 E35 allele (p-value<0.0001, 95% CI 2.36–3.43). Although rare, some sheep were homozygous for TMEM154 deletion mutations and remained uninfected despite a lifetime of significant exposure. Together, these findings indicate that TMEM154 may play a central role in ovine lentivirus infection and removing sheep with the most susceptible genotypes may help eradicate OPP and protect flocks from reinfection

    LRRK2 Biology from structure to dysfunction: research progresses, but the themes remain the same

    Get PDF
    Since the discovery of leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) as a protein that is likely central to the aetiology of Parkinson's disease, a considerable amount of work has gone into uncovering its basic cellular function. This effort has led to the implication of LRRK2 in a bewildering range of cell biological processes and pathways, and probable roles in a number of seemingly unrelated medical conditions. In this review we summarise current knowledge of the basic biochemistry and cellular function of LRRK2. Topics covered include the identification of phosphorylation substrates of LRRK2 kinase activity, in particular Rab proteins, and advances in understanding the activation of LRRK2 kinase activity via dimerisation and association with membranes, especially via interaction with Rab29. We also discuss biochemical studies that shed light on the complex LRRK2 GTPase activity, evidence of roles for LRRK2 in a range of cell signalling pathways that are likely cell type specific, and studies linking LRRK2 to the cell biology of organelles. The latter includes the involvement of LRRK2 in autophagy, endocytosis, and processes at the trans-Golgi network, the endoplasmic reticulum and also key microtubule-based cellular structures. We further propose a mechanism linking LRRK2 dimerisation, GTPase function and membrane recruitment with LRRK2 kinase activation by Rab29. Together these data paint a picture of a research field that in many ways is moving forward with great momentum, but in other ways has not changed fundamentally. Many key advances have been made, but very often they seem to lead back to the same places

    Estimating the cost of vaccine development against epidemic infectious diseases: a cost minimisation study

    No full text
    Summary: Background: The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was established in 2016, to develop vaccines that can contribute to preparedness for outbreaks of epidemic infectious diseases. Evidence on vaccine development costs for such diseases is scarce. Our goal was to estimate the minimum cost for achieving vaccine research and development preparedness targets in a portfolio of 11 epidemic infectious diseases, accounting for vaccine pipeline constraints and uncertainty in research and development preparedness outcomes. Methods: We assembled a pipeline of 224 vaccine candidates from preclinical through to phase 2 for 11 priority epidemic infectious diseases. We used a linear regression model to identify drivers of development costs from preclinical through to end of phase 2a. Drawing from published estimates of vaccine research and development probabilities of success, we simulated costs for advancing these 224 vaccine candidates through to the end of phase 2a. We combined these findings to determine minimum costs for progressing at least one vaccine through to the end of phase 2a per epidemic infectious disease by means of a stochastic optimisation model. Findings: The cost of developing a single epidemic infectious disease vaccine from preclinical trials through to end of phase 2a is US31–68million(US31–68 million (US14–159 million range), assuming no risk of failure. We found that previous licensure experience and indirect costs are upward drivers of research and development costs. Accounting for probability of success, the average cost of successfully advancing at least one epidemic infectious disease vaccine through to the end of phase 2a can vary from US84–112million(84–112 million (23 million–295millionrange)startingfromphase2to295 million range) starting from phase 2 to 319–469 million (137million–137 million–1·1 billion range) starting from preclinical. This cost includes the cumulative cost of failed vaccine candidates through the research and development process. Assuming these candidates and funding were made available, progressing at least one vaccine through to the end of phase 2a for each of the 11 epidemic infectious diseases would cost a minimum of 2⋅8–3⋅7billion(2·8–3·7 billion (1·2 billion–$8·4 billion range). Interpretation: Our analysis provides new evidence on vaccine research and development pipelines and associated costs for 11 epidemic infectious diseases, highlighting both funding needs and research and development gaps for achieving vaccine research and development preparedness targets. Funding: This work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through the Global Health and Vaccination Programme GLOBVAC

    Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

    No full text
    Summary: Background: In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings: Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation: In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention. Funding: Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund grant (105605/Z/14/Z) and Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) funding from the Australian Government
    corecore