Initial Results of the International Efforts in Screening New Agents against Candida auris

This article belongs to the Special Issue Biology, Immunology, Epidemiology, and Therapy of Fungal Infections: A Themed Issue Dedicated to Professor David A. Stevens.Background: Candida auris is an emergent fungal pathogen and a global concern, mostly due to its resistance to many currently available antifungal drugs. Objective: Thus, in response to this challenge, we evaluated the in vitro activity of potential new drugs, diphenyl diselenide (PhSe)2 and nikkomycin Z (nikZ), alone and in association with currently available antifungals (azoles, echinocandins, and polyenes) against Candida auris. Methods: Clinical isolates of C. auris were tested in vitro. (PhSe)2 and nikZ activities were tested alone and in combination with amphotericin B, fluconazole, or the echinocandins, micafungin and caspofungin. Results: (PhSe)2 alone was unable to inhibit C. auris, and antagonism or indifferent effects were observed in the combination of this compound with the antifungals tested. NikZ appeared not active alone either, but frequently acted cooperatively with conventional antifungals. Conclusion: Our data show that (PhSe)2 appears to not have a good potential to be a candidate in the development of new drugs to treat C. auris, but that nikZ is worthy of further study.his work was accomplished with support from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil, within the scope of the Capes-PrInt Program—Financing Code 001info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A reply to ‘A meta-database of Holocene sediment cores for England: missing data’ (Tooley 2015)

We welcome the response of Tooley (2015) to our article describing a new meta-database of Holocene sediment cores for England. In our article we describe the online publication of this meta-database, arising from systematic meta-search. We define its scope and the meta-data it contains, before providing the data themselves (in the Electronic Supplementary Material online). We note that Prof. Tooley describes the idea of such a database as important and valuable, and we welcome the constructive approach he adopts throughout his article

Overconfidence in Labor Markets

This chapter reviews how worker overconfidence affects labor markets. Evidence from psychology and economics shows that in many situations, most people tend to overestimate their absolute skills, overplace themselves relative to others, and overestimate the precision of their knowledge. The chapter starts by reviewing evidence for overconfidence and for how overconfidence affects economic choices. Next, it reviews economic explanations for overconfidence. After that, it discusses research on the impact of worker overconfidence on labor markets where wages are determined by bargaining between workers and firms. Here, three key questions are addressed. First, how does worker overconfidence affect effort provision for a fixed compensation scheme? Second, how should firms design compensation schemes when workers are overconfident? In particular, will a compensation scheme offered to an overconfident worker have higher-or lower-powered incentives than that offered to a worker with accurate self-perception? Third, can worker overconfidence lead to a Pareto improvement? The chapter continues by reviewing research on the impact of worker overconfidence on labor markets where workers can move between firms and where neither firms nor workers have discretion over wage setting. The chapter concludes with a summary of its main findings and a discussion of avenues for future research

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Polymycovirus Infection Sensitizes <i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i> for Antifungal Effects of Nikkomycin Z

Infection with Aspergillus fumigatus polymycovirus 1 (AfuPmV-1) weakens resistance of Aspergillus fumigatus common reference strain Af293 biofilms in intermicrobial competition with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We compared the sensitivity of two infected and one virus-free Af293 strains to antifungal drugs. All three were comparably sensitive to drugs affecting fungal membranes (voriconazole, amphotericin) or cell wall glucan synthesis (micafungin, caspofungin). In contrast, forming biofilms of virus-free Af293 were much more resistant than AfuPmV-1-infected Af293 to nikkomycin Z (NikZ), a drug inhibiting chitin synthase. The IC50 for NikZ on biofilms was between 3.8 and 7.5 µg/mL for virus-free Af293 and 0.94–1.88 µg/mL for infected strains. The IC50 for the virus-free A. fumigatus strain 10AF was ~2 µg/mL in most experiments. NikZ also modestly affected the planktonic growth of infected Af293 more than the virus-free strain (MIC 50%, 2 and 4 µg/mL, respectively). Virus-free Af293 biofilm showed increased metabolism, and fungus growing as biofilm or planktonically showed increased growth compared to infected; these differences do not explain the resistance of the virus-free fungus to NikZ. In summary, AfuPmV-1 infection sensitized A. fumigatus to NikZ, but did not affect response to drugs commonly used against A. fumigatus infection. Virus infection had a greater effect on NikZ inhibition of biofilm than planktonic growth

A meta-database of Holocene sediment cores for England

Extracting sediment cores for palaeoecological and archaeological investigations has occurred extensively across England since the early 20th century. Surprisingly, there has been comparatively little collation of these valuable publications and potential sources of data; for example, a search on the European Pollen Database (1st Aug 2014 edition) found just 118 core sites for the whole of Great Britain. Here, using a combination of systematic meta-searching and knowledge of the unpublished (‘grey’) literature, we have assembled a meta-database of some 763 sediment cores for palaeoecological records, documented across 273 scientific studies. The majority of these (>90 %) were sediment cores upon which pollen analyses had been performed, but other types of evidence, such as plant macrofossil and faunal records were also identified. We are making this meta-database publicly available, in the hope that it will assist further investigations into Holocene vegetation history, palaeoecology, geoarchaeology and environmental change