RESUMO
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 underscores the need for strategies to rapidly develop neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that can function as prophylactic and therapeutic agents and to help guide vaccine design. Here, we demonstrate that engineering approaches can be used to refocus an existing neutralizing antibody to a related but resistant virus. Using a rapid affinity maturation strategy, we engineered CR3022, a SARS-CoV-1 neutralizing antibody, to bind SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain with >1000-fold improved affinity. The engineered CR3022 neutralized SARS-CoV-2 and provided prophylactic protection from viral challenge in a small animal model of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Deep sequencing throughout the engineering process paired with crystallographic analysis of an enhanced antibody elucidated the molecular mechanisms by which engineered CR3022 can accommodate sequence differences in the epitope between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2. The workflow described provides a blueprint for rapid broadening of neutralization of an antibody from one virus to closely related but resistant viruses.
RESUMO
In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 impacted Georgia, USA. Georgia announced state-wide shelter-in-place on April 2 and partially lifted restrictions on April 27. We analyzed daily incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases by reporting date, March 2-June 14, in Georgia, Metro Atlanta, and Dougherty County and estimate the time-varying reproduction number, Rt, using R package EpiEstim. The median Rt estimate in Georgia dropped from between 2 and 4 in mid-March, to <2 in late March, and around 1 from mid-April to mid-June. Regarding Metro Atlanta, Rt fluctuated above 1.5 in March and around 1 since April. In Dougherty County, the median Rt declined from around 2 in late March to 0.32 on April 26. In Spring 2020, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Georgia declined likely because of social distancing measures. However, as restrictions were relaxed in late April, community transmission continued with Rt fluctuating around 1 across Georgia, Metro Atlanta, and Dougherty County as of mid-June.
RESUMO
Building on research in anthropology and philosophy, one can make a distinction between type I and type II energy ethics as a framework for advancing public debate about energy. Type I holds energy production and use as a fundamental good and is grounded in the assumption that increases in energy production and consumption result in increases in human wellbeing. Conversely, type II questions the linear relationship between energy production and progress by examining questions of equity and human happiness. The type I versus type II framework helps to advance public debates about energy that address broad questions of profitability, regulation, and the environment, and in the process poses fundamental questions about the reverence for energy growth in advanced technological societies.
