The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 1880-1914 : a study of trade union government, politics, and industrial policy

In 1880 the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) consisted of largely autonomous local trade societies seeking unilaterally to regulate the terns and conditions under which engineering craftsmen were employed. The Executive Council (which spent most of its time administering the system of centralised benefits) consisted of part-time members drawn from, and elected by, the London members. In 1892 the first full-time Executive Council was elected as part of a general reform of the Society's government; the reforms did not change the A. S. E. 's craft character rather they were designed to improve the execution of traditional policies. As the climax of a long campaign for the eight-hour day the Executive Council called a strike of its London members in 1897. The ensuing dispute, which the Employers extended to all districts, lasted thirty weeks, and was ended on the terms laid down by the recently formed Engineering Employers' Federation (EEF). Under the terms of settlement the A. S. E. accepted a procedure for avoiding disputes and Management's right to prerogative over matters Which previously it had claimed unilateral control. The Society disaffiliated from the T. U. C. because of the Parliamentary Committee's failure to tobilize trade union support for the engineers eight-hour struggle. Affiliation was made to the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) in the false hope that this Federation would augment the A. S. E. 'a industrial strength. It is convenient to discuss the A. S. E. 's reaction to the 1897-98 defeat and its consequences under headings which indicate the main themes. Technical change From the mid-1880's something approaching a revolution occurred in machine technology based upon improved high speed steels. The establishment of the EEF and the sustained attack upon craft methods of production can be largely explained by the employers' determination to fully exploit the new technology. Government Constitutional authority within the A. S. E. was divided between the Executive Council, a lay Delegate Meeting, and a lay Final Appeal Court. There was no policy making body. The Society was governed according to the rule book which was unaffected by the terms under which the 1697-98 dispute was settled. Consequently it was difficult for the Executive Council to develop collective bargaining and to restrain district committees, from acting in breach of the agreement, but within the rules of the Society. Both the Delegate Meeting and the Final Appeal Court tended to defend local as against central decision making authority. The Executive Council's action in 1903, withdrawing benefit from members of the Clyde striking against a wages reduction, led to a serious weakening in their authority. Three Executive Councilmen were defeated when seeking re-election, the Final Appeal Court partially over-ruled the Executive's benefit decision, and the 1904 Delegate Meeting limited the Council's right to intervene in district matters. In 1912 after a complicated dispute the Delegate Meeting dismissed the Executive Council from office. This assertion of authority by a rank and file body was not overtly influenced by syndicalist ow industrial unionist ideas. Industrial Policy The Executive Ceuneil intermittently and uncertainly tried to develep collective bargaining to replace lest unilateral regulation while powerful district committees attempted to retain their previous methods of operation. In 1902 the Executive concluded the Carlisle agreement for controlling the introduction of the premium bonus. This proved to be an unpopular agreement and probably discredited collective bargaining. The Executive elected in 1913, to replace the one dismissed by the 1912 Delegate Meeting, after a ballot vote of members, ended the Carlisle Agreement and the general agreement with the EEF. Eventually the York memorandum was approved by the members, which although it incorporated provisions which speeded up the procedure for avoiding disputes, continued those aspects which to many ASE members, were the humiliating terms under which the Society had been defeated. After 1898 with the Society formally precluded from negotiations on management matters an informal system of work place, industrial relations began to develop based upon district committees and the widespread appointment of shop stewards. Polities During these years the A. S. E. became involved in politics for the first time. All ballets on political questions were very small. The A. S. E. affiliated to the Labour Party but neither the Independent Labour Party (ILP) nor the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) were active within the Society. George Barnes (General Secretary 1896-1908) was an influential supporter of the Socialist trade union alliance upon which the Labour Party was established. In 1914 the A. S. E. members voted against raising a political levy under the 1913 trade union act. From the turn of the century most officials and active members supported the Labour Party and it was sometimes argued that the Society's problems (which were industrial) could be solved by political action. How, was never clear. The developing sympathy among A. S. E. members for a view of trade union democracy which favoured control exercised through district or workshop organisation casts some light on the development of the shop stewards movement during the War

Two novel human cytomegalovirus NK cell evasion functions target MICA for lysosomal degradation

NKG2D plays a major role in controlling immune responses through the regulation of natural killer (NK) cells, αβ and γδ T-cell function. This activating receptor recognizes eight distinct ligands (the MHC Class I polypeptide-related sequences (MIC) A andB, and UL16-binding proteins (ULBP)1–6) induced by cellular stress to promote recognition cells perturbed by malignant transformation or microbial infection. Studies into human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) have aided both the identification and characterization of NKG2D ligands (NKG2DLs). HCMV immediate early (IE) gene up regulates NKGDLs, and we now describe the differential activation of ULBP2 and MICA/B by IE1 and IE2 respectively. Despite activation by IE functions, HCMV effectively suppressed cell surface expression of NKGDLs through both the early and late phases of infection. The immune evasion functions UL16, UL142, and microRNA(miR)-UL112 are known to target NKG2DLs. While infection with a UL16 deletion mutant caused the expected increase in MICB and ULBP2 cell surface expression, deletion of UL142 did not have a similar impact on its target, MICA. We therefore performed a systematic screen of the viral genome to search of addition functions that targeted MICA. US18 and US20 were identified as novel NK cell evasion functions capable of acting independently to promote MICA degradation by lysosomal degradation. The most dramatic effect on MICA expression was achieved when US18 and US20 acted in concert. US18 and US20 are the first members of the US12 gene family to have been assigned a function. The US12 family has 10 members encoded sequentially through US12–US21; a genetic arrangement, which is suggestive of an ‘accordion’ expansion of an ancestral gene in response to a selective pressure. This expansion must have be an ancient event as the whole family is conserved across simian cytomegaloviruses from old world monkeys. The evolutionary benefit bestowed by the combinatorial effect of US18 and US20 on MICA may have contributed to sustaining the US12 gene family

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Targeting the MAPK7/MMP9 axis for metastasis in primary bone cancer

Metastasis is the leading cause of cancer related death. This multistage process involves contribution from both tumour cells and the tumour stroma to release metastatic cells into the circulation. Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) survive circulatory cytotoxicity, extravasate and colonise secondary sites effecting metastatic outcome. Reprogramming the transcriptomic landscape is a metastatic hallmark but detecting underlying master regulators that drive pathological gene expression is a key challenge, especially in childhood cancer. Here we used whole tumour plus single cell RNA sequencing in primary bone cancer and CTCs to perform weighted gene co-expression network analysis to systematically detect coordinated changes in metastatic transcript expression. This approach with comparisons applied to data collected from cell line models, clinical samples and xenograft mouse models revealed MAPK7/MMP9 signalling as a driver for primary bone cancer metastasis. RNAi knockdown of MAPK7 reduces proliferation, colony formation, migration, tumour growth, macrophage residency/polarisation and lung metastasis. Parallel to these observations were reduction of activated interleukins IL1B, IL6, IL8 plus mesenchymal markers VIM and VEGF in response to MAPK7 loss. Our results implicate a newly discovered, multidimensional MAPK7/MMP9 signalling hub in primary bone cancer metastasis that is clinically actionable

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults