Whose Lives Do We Flatten Along With “The Curve?”

Ganesh, A., Rato, J. M., Chennupati, V. M., Rojek, A., & Viswanathan, A. (2020). Public Health Responses to COVID-19: Whose Lives Do We Flatten Along With “The Curve?”. Frontiers in public health, 8, [564111]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.564111The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has received varying and evolving public health responses worldwide (1). Sweden remained largely open with health measures aimed most substantively at vulnerable groups, while South Korea implemented a large testing program, combined with extensive efforts to isolate infected people and trace/quarantine contacts. The United Kingdom (UK) considered various approaches before deciding on measures to isolate, quarantine, and promote social-distancing that were eased in mid-July (1); lockdown is now being re-implemented with a surging second wave (2). In contrast to early social-distancing measures in Canada to “flatten the curve,” American states adopted varying approaches, with many states having now relaxed their measures to differing extents (3). China adopted an aggressive approach of quarantining the affected Hubei province and isolating infected populations (4). India was under an ambitious 40-day lockdown, which was then extended until May-31 with districts designated as red/orange/green based on cumulative cases and doubling rate; red zones continued under full lockdown whereas orange/green zones had more relaxed measures (5). Gradual easing of restrictions (“unlock” 1.0 through 5.0) ensued, with lockdown measures nevertheless continuing in designated containment zones (6). Millions of people around the world still face public health measures of one form or another, raising the question: how stringent should government responses be in such pandemics (7), and how long can (or should) such measures continue?publishersversionpublishe

Novel HIV-1 Knockdown Targets Identified by an Enriched Kinases/Phosphatases shRNA Library Using a Long-Term Iterative Screen in Jurkat T-Cells

HIV-1 is a complex retrovirus that uses host machinery to promote its replication. Understanding cellular proteins involved in the multistep process of HIV-1 infection may result in the discovery of more adapted and effective therapeutic targets. Kinases and phosphatases are a druggable class of proteins critically involved in regulation of signal pathways of eukaryotic cells. Here, we focused on the discovery of kinases and phosphatases that are essential for HIV-1 replication but dispensable for cell viability. We performed an iterative screen in Jurkat T-cells with a short-hairpin-RNA (shRNA) library highly enriched for human kinases and phosphatases. We identified 14 new proteins essential for HIV-1 replication that do not affect cell viability. These proteins are described to be involved in MAPK, JNK and ERK pathways, vesicular traffic and DNA repair. Moreover, we show that the proteins under study are important in an early step of HIV-1 infection before viral integration, whereas some of them affect viral transcription/translation. This study brings new insights for the complex interplay of HIV-1/host cell and opens new possibilities for antiviral strategies

Evaluation of lipoprotein(a) in the prevention and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A survey among the Lipid Clinics Network

Background and aims: The European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lipid Clinics Network promoted a survey in order to identify and understand how and when lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is tested and clinically evaluated in lipid clinics throughout Europe, and the challenges that may prevent evaluation from being carried out. Methods: This survey was divided into three areas of inquiry: background and clinical setting information of clinicians, questions for doctors who claimed not to measure Lp(a), in order to understand what were the reasons for not ordering the test, and questions for doctors who measure Lp(a), to investigate the use of this value in the management of patients.Results: A total of 151 centres clinicians filled in the survey, out of 226 invited. The proportion of clinicians who declare to routinely measure Lp(a) in clinical practice was 75.5%. The most common reasons for not ordering the Lp(a) test were the lack of reimbursement or of treatment options, the non-availability of Lp(a) test, and the high cost of performing the laboratory test. The availability of therapies targeting this lipoprotein would result in a greater propensity of clinicians to start testing Lp(a). Among those who declared to routinely measure Lp(a), the Lp(a) measurement is mostly requested to further stratify patients' cardiovascular risk, and half of them recognized 50 mg/dL (approx. 110 nmol/L) as the threshold for increased cardiovascular risk due.Conclusions: These results warrant for a great deal of effort from scientific societies to address the barriers that limit the routine use of the measurement of Lp(a) concentration and to recognise the importance of Lp(a) as a risk factor