Disturbed flow increases endothelial inflammation and permeability via a Frizzled-4-ß-catenin-dependent pathway.

Multidirectional or disturbed flow promotes endothelial dysfunction and is associated with early atherogenesis. Here we investigated the role of Wnt signalling in flow-mediated endothelial dysfunction. The expression of Frizzled-4 was higher in cultured human aortic endothelial cells (ECs) exposed to disturbed flow compared to that seen for undisturbed flow, obtained using an orbital shaker. Increased expression was also detected in regions of the porcine aortic arch exposed to disturbed flow. The increased Frizzled-4 expression in cultured ECs was abrogated following knockdown of R-spondin-3. Disturbed flow also increased the nuclear localisation and activation of ß-catenin, an effect that was dependent on Frizzled-4 and R-spondin-3. Inhibition of ß-catenin using the small-molecule inhibitor iCRT5 or knockdown of Frizzled-4 or R-spondin-3 resulted in reduced expression of pro-inflammatory genes in ECs exposed to disturbed flow, as did inhibition of WNT5A signalling. Inhibition of the canonical Wnt pathway had no effect. Inhibition of ß-catenin also reduced endothelial paracellular permeability; this was associated with altered junctional and focal adhesion organisation and cytoskeletal remodelling. These data suggest the presence of an atypical Frizzled-4-ß-catenin pathway that promotes endothelial dysfunction in response to disturbed flow.

The Association Between Antibody Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Post-COVID-19 Syndrome in Healthcare Workers.

It is currently unknown how post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) may affect those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This longitudinal study includes healthcare staff who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March and April 2020, with follow-up of their antibody titers and symptoms. More than half (21 of 38) had PCS after 7-8 months. There was no statistically significant difference between initial reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction titers or serial antibody levels between those who did and those who did not develop PCS. This study highlights the relative commonality of PCS in healthcare workers and this should be considered in vaccination scheduling and workforce planning to allow adequate frontline staffing numbers.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infections in Critical Care Staff: Beware the Risks Beyond the Bedside.

OBJECTIVES: Critical care workers were considered to be at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection from patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Staff symptoms, previous swab testing, and antibody prevalence were correlated with patient admissions to investigate this assumption. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large critical care department in a tertiary-care teaching hospital in London, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Staff working in critical care. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants completed a questionnaire and provided a serum sample for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody testing over a 3-day period in April 2020. We compared the timing of symptoms in staff to the coronavirus disease 2019 patient admissions to critical care. We also identified factors associated with antibody detection. Of 625 staff 384 (61.4%) reported previous symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those swabbed (29.8%). Overall, 21% (131/625) had detectable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody, of whom 9.9% (13/131) had been asymptomatic. The peak onset of symptoms among staff occurred 2 weeks before the peak in coronavirus disease 2019 patient admissions. Staff who worked in multiple departments across the hospital were more likely to be seropositive. Staff with a symptomatic household contact were also more likely to be seropositive at 31.3%, compared with 16.2% in those without (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Staff who developed coronavirus disease 2019 were less likely to have caught it from their patients in critical care. Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection. These findings indicate that personal protective equipment was effective at preventing transmission from patients. However, staff also need to maintain protective measures away from the bedside.

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. METHODS: Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. FINDINGS: 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). INTERPRETATION: LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.

Detection and quantification of antibody to SARS CoV 2 receptor binding domain provides enhanced sensitivity, specificity and utility.

Accurate and sensitive detection of antibody to SARS-CoV-2 remains an essential component of the pandemic response. Measuring antibody that predicts neutralising activity and the vaccine response is an absolute requirement for laboratory-based confirmatory and reference activity. The viral receptor binding domain (RBD) constitutes the prime target antigen for neutralising antibody. A double antigen binding assay (DABA), providing the most sensitive format has been exploited in a novel hybrid manner employing a solid-phase S1 preferentially presenting RBD, coupled with a labelled RBD conjugate, used in a two-step sequential assay for detection and measurement of antibody to RBD (anti-RBD). This class and species neutral assay showed a specificity of 100 % on 825 pre COVID-19 samples and a potential sensitivity of 99.6 % on 276 recovery samples, predicting quantitatively the presence of neutralising antibody determined by pseudo-type neutralization and by plaque reduction. Anti-RBD is also measurable in ferrets immunised with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and in humans immunised with both AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines. This assay detects anti-RBD at presentation with illness, demonstrates its elevation with disease severity, its sequel to asymptomatic infection and its persistence after the loss of antibody to the nucleoprotein (anti-NP). It also provides serological confirmation of prior infection and offers a secure measure for seroprevalence and studies of vaccine immunisation in human and animal populations. The hybrid DABA also displays the attributes necessary for the detection and quantification of anti-RBD to be used in clinical practice. An absence of detectable anti-RBD by this assay predicates the need for passive immune prophylaxis in at-risk patients.

SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for possible use in national covid-19 seroprevalence surveys (React 2): diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Sensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing. INTERVENTIONS: Laboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs. CONCLUSIONS: One new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.

Bioluminescence-Driven Optogenetics.

Bioluminescence-based technologies are among the most commonly used methods to quantify and visualise physiology at the cellular and organismal levels. However, the potential of bioluminescence beyond reporter technologies remains largely unexplored. Here, we provide an overview of the emerging approaches employing bioluminescence as a biological light source that triggers physiological events and controls cell behaviour and discuss its possible future application in synthetic biology.

Stability of serum, plasma and urine osmolality in different storage conditions: Relevance of temperature and centrifugation.

BACKGROUND: Osmolality reflects the concentration of all dissolved particles in a body fluid, and its measurement is routinely performed in clinical laboratories for the differential diagnosis of disorders related with the hydrolytic balance regulation, the renal function and in small-molecule poisonings. The aim of the study was to assess the stability of serum, plasma and urine osmolality through time and under different common storage conditions, including delayed centrifugation. METHODS: Blood and urine samples were collected, and classified into different groups according to several preanalytical variables: serum or plasma lithium-heparin tubes; spun or unspun; stored at room temperature (RT), at 4°C or frozen at -21°C. Aliquots from each group were assayed over time, for up to 14days. Statistical differences were based on three different international performance criteria. RESULTS: Whole blood stability was higher in the presence of anticoagulant. Serum osmolality was stable for 2days at RT and 8days at 4°C, while plasma was less stable when refrigerated. Urine stability was 5days at RT, 4days at 4°C and >14days when frozen. DISCUSSION: Osmolality may be of great interest for the management of several conditions, such as in case of a delay in the clinical suspicion, or in case of problems in sample collection or processing. The ability to obtain reliable results for samples kept up to 14days also offers the possibility to retrospectively assess baseline values for patients which may require it.