A Fluorescence Polarization Activity-Based Protein Profiling Assay in the Discovery of Potent, Selective Inhibitors for Human Nonlysosomal Glucosylceramidase

Human nonlysosomal glucosylceramidase (GBA2) is one of several enzymes that controls levels of glycolipids and whose activity is linked to several human disease states. There is a major need to design or discover selective GBA2 inhibitors both as chemical tools and as potential therapeutic agents. Here, we describe the development of a fluorescence polarization activity-based protein profiling (FluoPol-ABPP) assay for the rapid identification, from a 350+ library of iminosugars, of GBA2 inhibitors. A focused library is generated based on leads from the FluoPol-ABPP screen and assessed on GBA2 selectivity offset against the other glucosylceramide metabolizing enzymes, glucosylceramide synthase (GCS), lysosomal glucosylceramidase (GBA), and the cytosolic retaining β-glucosidase, GBA3. Our work, yielding potent and selective GBA2 inhibitors, also provides a roadmap for the development of high-throughput assays for identifying retaining glycosidase inhibitors by FluoPol-ABPP on cell extracts containing recombinant, overexpressed glycosidase as the easily accessible enzyme source

A systematic review of progranulin concentrations in biofluids in over 7,000 people—assessing the pathogenicity of GRN mutations and other influencing factors

Background: Pathogenic heterozygous mutations in the progranulin gene (GRN) are a key cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), leading to significantly reduced biofluid concentrations of the progranulin protein (PGRN). This has led to a number of ongoing therapeutic trials aiming to treat this form of FTD by increasing PGRN levels in mutation carriers. However, we currently lack a complete understanding of factors that affect PGRN levels and potential variation in measurement methods. Here, we aimed to address this gap in knowledge by systematically reviewing published literature on biofluid PGRN concentrations. Methods: Published data including biofluid PGRN concentration, age, sex, diagnosis and GRN mutation were collected for 7071 individuals from 75 publications. The majority of analyses (72%) had focused on plasma PGRN concentrations, with many of these (56%) measured with a single assay type (Adipogen) and so the influence of mutation type, age at onset, sex, and diagnosis were investigated in this subset of the data. Results: We established a plasma PGRN concentration cut-off between pathogenic mutation carriers and non-carriers of 74.8 ng/mL using the Adipogen assay based on 3301 individuals, with a CSF concentration cut-off of 3.43 ng/mL. Plasma PGRN concentration varied by GRN mutation type as well as by clinical diagnosis in those without a GRN mutation. Plasma PGRN concentration was significantly higher in women than men in GRN mutation carriers (p = 0.007) with a trend in non-carriers (p = 0.062), and there was a significant but weak positive correlation with age in both GRN mutation carriers and non-carriers. No significant association was seen with weight or with TMEM106B rs1990622 genotype. However, higher plasma PGRN levels were seen in those with the GRN rs5848 CC genotype in both GRN mutation carriers and non-carriers. Conclusions: These results further support the usefulness of PGRN concentration for the identification of the large majority of pathogenic mutations in the GRN gene. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance of considering additional factors, such as mutation type, sex and age when interpreting PGRN concentrations. This will be particularly important as we enter the era of trials for progranulin-associated FTD.</p

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