Purpose: To summarize the results of first year implementation of pan-ethnic screening testing for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and present the ensuing challenges. Methods: Data acquisition... Show morePurpose: To summarize the results of first year implementation of pan-ethnic screening testing for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and present the ensuing challenges. Methods: Data acquisition for this study was performed by retrospective search of Ministry of Health registry for reports of all laboratories performing genetic screening tests. DMD testing was performed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification technology. In case of single-exon deletion, sequencing of the specific exon was performed to rule out underlying single-nucleotide variant. Results: Of overall 85,737 DMD tests, 82 clinically significant findings were noted (0.095%, or 1:1,046 women). In addition, 80 findings with uncertain clinical significance were detected (0.093%, or 1:1072), as well as 373 cases (0.4%, or 1:230) of single-exon deletions subsequently identified as false positives because of underlying single-nucleotide variant, mostly variants in exon 8 in North African Jewish population, and in exon 48 in Arab Muslim population. Conclusion: Interpretation of population-based DMD carrier screening is complex, occasionally requiring additional genetic testing methods and ethical considerations. Multicenter data registry, including ethnic origin and familial segregation in selected cases, is crucial for optimal definition of the results during genetic counseling and informed decisions regarding prenatal testing. (c) 2023 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has made it clear that combating coronavirus outbreaks benefits from a combination of vaccines and therapeutics. A... Show moreThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has made it clear that combating coronavirus outbreaks benefits from a combination of vaccines and therapeutics. A promising drug target common to all coronaviruses-including SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2-is the papain-like protease (PLpro). PLpro cleaves part of the viral replicase polyproteins into non-structural protein subunits, which are essential to the viral replication cycle. Additionally, PLpro can cleave both ubiquitin and the ubiquitin-like protein ISG15 from host cell substrates as a mechanism to evade innate immune responses during infection. These roles make PLpro an attractive antiviral drug target. Here we demonstrate that ubiquitin variants (UbVs) can be selected from a phage-displayed library and used to specifically and potently block SARS-CoV-2 PLpro activity. A crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 PLpro in complex with a representative UbV reveals a dimeric UbV bound to PLpro at a site distal to the catalytic site. Yet, the UbV inhibits the essential cleavage activities of the protease in vitro and in cells, and it reduces viral replication in cell culture by almost five orders of magnitude.Author summaryIn the last 3 years, it has become clear that emerging coronaviruses still pose a significant threat to human health. Despite the vaccines that are now available in many countries against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), vaccine scarcity or the inability to gain proper protection from immunization due to an immunocompromised status still leaves various people that will benefit from the administration of potent and safe antiviral agents. In this research, we have developed ubiquitin variants (UbVs), small proteins that resemble a natural component of human cells called ubiquitin, that are able to bind a part of the virus that is essential for its survival, with high affinity and selectivity. This way, these UbVs are able to inhibit the production of new viral particles after infection, thus preventing the virus from spreading from cell to cell and wreaking havoc on the body. Show less
Little is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society... Show moreLittle is known about the characteristics and treatments of patients with severe asthma across Europe, but both are likely to vary. This is the first study in the European Respiratory Society Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP) Clinical Research Collaboration and it is designed to explore these variations. Therefore, we aimed to compare characteristics of patients in European severe asthma registries and treatments before starting biologicals.This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of aggregated data from 11 national severe asthma registries that joined SHARP with established patient databases.Analysis of data from 3236 patients showed many differences in characteristics and lifestyle factors. Current smokers ranged from 0% (Poland and Sweden) to 9.5% (Belgium), mean body mass index ranged from 26.2 (Italy) to 30.6 kg.m(-2) (the UK) and the largest difference in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted was 20.9% (the Netherlands versus Hungary). Before starting biologicals patients were treated differently between countries: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose ranged from 700 to 1335 mu g.day(-1) between those from Slovenia versus Poland when starting anti-interleukin (IL)5 antibody and from 772 to 1344 mu g.day(-1) in those starting anti-IgE (Slovenia versus Spain). Maintenance oral corticosteroid use ranged from 21.0% (Belgium) to 63.0% (Sweden) and from 9.1% (Denmark) to 56.1% (the UK) in patients starting anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE, respectively.The severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment, often appearing not to comply with the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guidelines definition of severe asthma. Treatment regimens before starting biologicals were different from inclusion criteria in clinical trials and varied between countries. Show less
