Accuracy of gastrocnemius muscles forces in walking and running goats predicted by one-element and two-element Hill-type models

Hill-type models are commonly used to estimate muscle forces during human and animal movement —yet the accuracy of the forces estimated during walking, running, and other tasks remains largely unknown. Further, most Hill-type models assume a single contractile element, despite evidence that faster and slower motor units, which have different activation-deactivation dynamics, may be independently or collectively excited. This study evaluated a novel, two-element Hill-type model with “differential” activation of fast and slow contractile elements. Model performance was assessed using a comprehensive data set (including measures of EMG intensity, fascicle length, and tendon force) collected from the gastrocnemius muscles of goats during locomotor experiments. Muscle forces predicted by the new two-element model were compared to the forces estimated using traditional one-element models and to the forces measured in vivo using tendon buckle transducers. Overall, the two-element model resulted in the best predictions of in vivo gastrocnemius force. The coefficient of determination, r2, was up to 26.9% higher and the root mean square error, RMSE, was up to 37.4% lower for the two-element model than for the one-element models tested. All models captured salient features of the measured muscle force during walking, trotting, and galloping (r2 = 0.26 to 0.51), and all exhibited some errors (RMSE = 9.63 to 32.2% of the maximum in vivo force). These comparisons provide important insight into the accuracy of Hill-type models. The results also show that incorporation of fast and slow contractile elements within muscle models can improve estimates of time-varying, whole muscle force during locomotor tasks.Organismic and Evolutionary Biolog

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

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

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2,3,4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

The relationship between volitional activation and muscle properties in incomplete spinal cord injury

Purpose: Following a motor incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI), there is decreased volitional activation and changes in composition, architecture, and stiffness of affected muscles. We investigated the relationship between muscle properties and volitional activation. Methods: The relationship between central activation ratio (CAR), maximum volitional torque (MVT), and muscle properties was assessed in the gastrocnemius of 6 participants with iSCI. Results: No significant relationship was found between CAR and muscle properties, while a significant relationship was found between CAR and MVT. Conclusion: Our findings suggest there may be no relationship between volitional activation and muscle; thus, certain patients with iSCI may benefit from therapies targeted at neural control

HLA antibody affinity determination: From HLA-specific monoclonal antibodies to donor HLA specific antibodies (DSA) in patient serum

Organs transplanted across donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) are associated with a variety of clinical outcomes, including a high risk of acute kidney graft rejection. Unfortunately, the currently available assays to determine DSA characteristics are insufficient to clearly discriminate between potentially harmless and harmful DSA. To further explore the hazard potential of DSA, their concentration and binding strength to their natural target, using soluble HLA, may be informative. There are currently a number of biophysical technologies available that allow the assessment of antibody binding strength. However, these methods require prior knowledge of antibody concentrations. Our objective within this study was to develop a novel approach that combines the determination of DSA-affinity as well as DSA-concentration for patient sample evaluation within one assay. We initially tested the reproducibility of previously reported affinities of human HLA-specific monoclonal antibodies and assessed the technology-specific precision of the obtained results on multiple platforms, including surface plasmon resonance (SPR), bio-layer interferometry (BLI), Luminex (single antigen beads; SAB), and flow-induced dispersion analysis (FIDA). While the first three (solid-phase) technologies revealed comparable high binding-strengths, suggesting measurement of avidity, the latter (in-solution) approach revealed slightly lower binding-strengths, presumably indicating measurement of affinity. We believe that our newly developed in-solution FIDA-assay is particularly suitable to provide useful clinical information by not just measuring DSA-affinities in patient serum samples but simultaneously delivering a particular DSA-concentration. Here, we investigated DSA from 20 pre-transplant patients, all of whom showed negative CDC-crossmatch results with donor cells and SAB signals ranging between 571 and 14899 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI). DSA-concentrations were found in the range between 11.2 and 1223 nM (median 81.1 nM), and their measured affinities fall between 0.055 and 24.7 nM (median 5.34 nM; 449-fold difference). In 13 of 20 sera (65%), DSA accounted for more than 0.1% of total serum antibodies, and 4/20 sera (20%) revealed a proportion of DSA even higher than 1%. To conclude, this study strengthens the presumption that pre-transplant patient DSA consists of various concentrations and different net affinities. Validation of these results in a larger patient cohort with clinical outcomes will be essential in a further step to assess the clinical relevance of DSA-concentration and DSA-affinity.ISSN:2059-231