41 research outputs found

    Identification of \u3ci\u3eVibrio\u3c/i\u3e Isolates by a Multiplex PCR Assay and \u3ci\u3erpoB\u3c/i\u3e Sequence Determination

    Get PDF
    Vibrio, a diverse genus of aquatic bacteria, currently includes 72 species, 12 of which occur in human clinical samples. Of these 12, three species—Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and Vibrio vulnificus—account for the majority of Vibrio infections in humans. Rapid and accurate identification of Vibrio species has been problematic because phenotypic characteristics are variable within species and biochemical identification requires 2 or more days to complete. To facilitate the identification of human-pathogenic species, we developed a multiplex PCR that uses species-specific primers to amplify gene regions in four species (V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, V. vulnificus, and V. mimicus). The assay was tested on a sample of 309 Vibrio isolates representing 26 named species (including 12 human pathogens) that had been characterized by biochemical methods. A total of 190 isolates that had been identified as one of the four target species all yielded results consistent with the previous classification. The assay identified an additional four V. parahaemolyticus isolates among the other 119 isolates. Sequence analysis based on rpoB was used to validate the multiplex results for these four isolates, and all clustered with other V. parahaemolyticus sequences. The rpoB sequences for 12 of 15 previously unidentified isolates clustered with other Vibrio species in a phylogenetic analysis, and three isolates appeared to represent unnamed Vibrio species. The PCR assay provides a simple, rapid, and reliable tool for identification of the major Vibrio pathogens in clinical samples, and rpoB sequencing provides an additional identification tool for other species in the genus Vibrio

    Functional Genomics Complements Quantitative Genetics in Identifying Disease-Gene Associations

    Get PDF
    An ultimate goal of genetic research is to understand the connection between genotype and phenotype in order to improve the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. The quantitative genetics field has developed a suite of statistical methods to associate genetic loci with diseases and phenotypes, including quantitative trait loci (QTL) linkage mapping and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, each of these approaches have technical and biological shortcomings. For example, the amount of heritable variation explained by GWAS is often surprisingly small and the resolution of many QTL linkage mapping studies is poor. The predictive power and interpretation of QTL and GWAS results are consequently limited. In this study, we propose a complementary approach to quantitative genetics by interrogating the vast amount of high-throughput genomic data in model organisms to functionally associate genes with phenotypes and diseases. Our algorithm combines the genome-wide functional relationship network for the laboratory mouse and a state-of-the-art machine learning method. We demonstrate the superior accuracy of this algorithm through predicting genes associated with each of 1157 diverse phenotype ontology terms. Comparison between our prediction results and a meta-analysis of quantitative genetic studies reveals both overlapping candidates and distinct, accurate predictions uniquely identified by our approach. Focusing on bone mineral density (BMD), a phenotype related to osteoporotic fracture, we experimentally validated two of our novel predictions (not observed in any previous GWAS/QTL studies) and found significant bone density defects for both Timp2 and Abcg8 deficient mice. Our results suggest that the integration of functional genomics data into networks, which itself is informative of protein function and interactions, can successfully be utilized as a complementary approach to quantitative genetics to predict disease risks. All supplementary material is available at http://cbfg.jax.org/phenotype

    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

    Get PDF
    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.

    Get PDF
    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

    Get PDF
    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

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

    Molecular Evolution of the Intimin Gene in O111 Clones of Pathogenic Escherichia coli

    No full text
    Intimin is an important virulence factor in two groups of enteric pathogens: enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC), which is a major cause of infant diarrhea in the developing world, and enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), which has caused large food-borne outbreaks of hemorrhagic colitis in the United States and other developed countries. Intimin is encoded on a 35-kb pathogenicity island called the locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE). At least five antigenic types have been described for the highly variable gene, and each type is generally characteristic of particular evolutionary lineages. We determined the nucleotide sequences of intimin and other LEE genes in two O111 clones that have not been amenable to typing. The sequences from both O111:H8 and O111:H9 differed from the Int-β that is typical of other clones in the same evolutionary lineage. The sequence from the O111:H8 strains was a mosaic of divergent segments that alternately clustered with Int-α, Int-β, or Int-γ. The sequence from the O111:H9 clone consistently showed a close relationship with that from E2348/69, a distantly related strain that expresses Int-α. The results suggest that there have been multiple acquisitions of the LEE in the EHEC 2/EPEC 2 clonal lineage, with a recent turnover in either O111:H8 or its close relatives. Amino acid substitutions that alter residue charge occurred more frequently than would be expected under random substitution in the extracellular domains of intimin, suggesting that diversifying selection has promoted divergence in this region of the protein. An N-terminal domain that presumably functions in the periplasm may also be under positive selection

    Identification of \u3ci\u3eVibrio\u3c/i\u3e Isolates by a Multiplex PCR Assay and \u3ci\u3erpoB\u3c/i\u3e Sequence Determination

    Get PDF
    Vibrio, a diverse genus of aquatic bacteria, currently includes 72 species, 12 of which occur in human clinical samples. Of these 12, three species—Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and Vibrio vulnificus—account for the majority of Vibrio infections in humans. Rapid and accurate identification of Vibrio species has been problematic because phenotypic characteristics are variable within species and biochemical identification requires 2 or more days to complete. To facilitate the identification of human-pathogenic species, we developed a multiplex PCR that uses species-specific primers to amplify gene regions in four species (V. cholerae, V. parahaemolyticus, V. vulnificus, and V. mimicus). The assay was tested on a sample of 309 Vibrio isolates representing 26 named species (including 12 human pathogens) that had been characterized by biochemical methods. A total of 190 isolates that had been identified as one of the four target species all yielded results consistent with the previous classification. The assay identified an additional four V. parahaemolyticus isolates among the other 119 isolates. Sequence analysis based on rpoB was used to validate the multiplex results for these four isolates, and all clustered with other V. parahaemolyticus sequences. The rpoB sequences for 12 of 15 previously unidentified isolates clustered with other Vibrio species in a phylogenetic analysis, and three isolates appeared to represent unnamed Vibrio species. The PCR assay provides a simple, rapid, and reliable tool for identification of the major Vibrio pathogens in clinical samples, and rpoB sequencing provides an additional identification tool for other species in the genus Vibrio

    Molecular Characterization of a Serotype O121:H19 Clone, a Distinct Shiga Toxin-Producing Clone of Pathogenic Escherichia coli

    No full text
    Most illnesses caused by Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) have been attributed to E. coli serotype O157:H7, but non-O157 STEC infections are now increasingly recognized as public health problems worldwide. The O121:H19 serotype is being isolated more frequently from clinical specimens and has been implicated in one waterborne outbreak. We used multilocus virulence gene profiling, a PCR-based assay, to characterize the virulence gene content of 24 isolates of serotype O121:H19 and nonmotile variants. We also performed multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and multilocus sequencing to establish the clonal relatedness of O121 isolates and to elucidate the relationship of O121 to common STEC clones. The 24 isolates were found to represent a single bacterial clone, as there was no allelic variation across 18 enzyme loci among the isolates. The complete nucleotide sequence of the intimin gene differed by four substitutions from that of the epsilon (Int-ɛ) allele of O103:H2 strain PMK5. The typical O121 virulence gene profile was similar to the profiles of enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) clones of E. coli: it included a Shiga toxin 2 gene (stx(2)), two genes on the EHEC plasmid (toxB and ehxA), and the gene encoding intimin (eae). Despite the similarities, putative virulence genes distributed on O islands—large chromosomal DNA segments present in the O157:H7 genome—were useful for discriminating among STEC serotypes and the O121:H19 clone had a composite profile that was distinct from the profiles of the other major EHEC clones of pathogenic E. coli. On the basis of sequencing analysis with 13 housekeeping genes, the O121:H19 clone did not fall into any of the four classical EHEC and enteropathogenic E. coli groups but instead was closely related to two eae-negative STEC strains
    corecore