va

Nina van der Mark

Research Analyst, Global Health Programme

Biography

Nina works on universal health coverage (UHC) and health system reforms. Her research is primarily focused on the political economy of UHC and accelerating health system reforms in low-and-middle income countries.

Previously, Nina worked as an international development professional, focused on health financing and advocacy in the fields of sexual and reproductive health and rights, youth participation and maternal and child health. Nina has experience working in Ethiopia and Nigeria. She has also worked for the private sector as a healthcare technology research consultant for Southeast Asia.

She has a broad-based interest in global health, including the influence of demographic changes on population health outcomes, innovative health financing mechanisms and improving research uptake into health policy.

She has a multidisciplinary background and holds a Msc in Population and Development at The London School of Economics (LSE) and a BA in Liberal Arts and Sciences, focused on international relations, international law and China studies at University College Utrecht. 




va

The Hurdles to Developing a COVID-19 Vaccine: Why International Cooperation is Needed

23 April 2020

Professor David Salisbury CB

Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme

Dr Champa Patel

Director, Asia-Pacific Programme
While the world pins its hopes on vaccines to prevent COVID-19, there are scientific, regulatory and market hurdles to overcome. Furthermore, with geopolitical tensions and nationalistic approaches, there is a high risk that the most vulnerable will not get the life-saving interventions they need.

2020-04-23-Covid-Vaccine.jpg

A biologist works on the virus inactivation process in Belo Horizonte, Brazil on 24 March 2020. The Brazilian Ministry of Health convened The Technological Vaccine Center to conduct research on COVID-19 in order to diagnose, test and develop a vaccine. Photo: Getty Images.

On 10 January 2020, Chinese scientists released the sequence of the COVID-19 genome on the internet. This provided the starting gun for scientists around the world to start developing vaccines or therapies. With at least 80 different vaccines in development, many governments are pinning their hopes on a quick solution. However, there are many hurdles to overcome. 

Vaccine development

Firstly, vaccine development is normally a very long process to ensure vaccines are safe and effective before they are used. 

Safety is not a given: a recent dengue vaccine caused heightened disease in vaccinated children when they later were exposed to dengue, while Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine caused the same problem. Nor is effectiveness a given. Candidate vaccines that use novel techniques where minute fragments of the viruses’ genetic code are either injected directly into humans or incorporated into a vaccine (as is being pursued, or could be pursued for COVID-19) have higher risks of failure simply because they haven’t worked before. For some vaccines, we know what levels of immunity post-vaccination are likely to be protective. This is not the case for coronavirus. 

Clinical trials will have to be done for efficacy. This is not optional – regulators will need to know extensive testing has taken place before licencing any vaccine. Even if animal tests are done in parallel with early human tests, the remainder of the process is still lengthy. 

There is also great interest in the use of passive immunization, whereby antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (collected from people who have recovered from infection or laboratory-created) are given to people who are currently ill. Antivirals may prove to be a quicker route than vaccine development, as the testing requirements would be shorter, manufacturing may be easier and only ill people would need to be treated, as opposed to all at-risk individuals being vaccinated.

Vaccine manufacturing

Developers, especially small biotechs, will have to make partnerships with large vaccine manufacturers in order to bring products to market. One notorious bottleneck in vaccine development is getting from proof-of-principle to commercial development: about 95 per cent of vaccines fail at this step. Another bottleneck is at the end of production. The final stages of vaccine production involve detailed testing to ensure that the vaccine meets the necessary criteria and there are always constraints on access to the technologies necessary to finalize the product. Only large vaccine manufacturers have these capacities. There is a graveyard of failed vaccine candidates that have not managed to pass through this development and manufacturing process.

Another consideration is adverse or unintended consequences. Highly specialized scientists may have to defer their work on other new vaccines to work on COVID-19 products and production of existing products may have to be set aside, raising the possibility of shortages of other essential vaccines. 

Cost is another challenge. Vaccines for industrialized markets can be very lucrative for pharmaceutical companies, but many countries have price caps on vaccines. Important lessons have been learned from the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic when industrialized countries took all the vaccines first. Supplies were made available to lower-income countries at a lower price but this was much later in the evolution of the pandemic. For the recent Ebola outbreaks, vaccines were made available at low or no cost. 

Geopolitics may also play a role. Should countries that manufacture a vaccine share it widely with other countries or prioritize their own populations first? It has been reported that President Trump attempted to purchase CureVac, a German company with a candidate vaccine.  There are certainly precedents for countries prioritizing their own populations. With H1N1 flu in 2009, the Australian Government required a vaccine company to meet the needs of the Australian population first. 

Vaccine distribution

Global leadership and a coordinated and coherent response will be needed to ensure that any vaccine is distributed equitably. There have been recent calls for a G20 on health, but existing global bodies such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and GAVI are working on vaccines and worldwide access to them. Any new bodies should seek to boost funding for these entities so they can ensure products reach the most disadvantaged. 

While countries that cannot afford vaccines may be priced out of markets, access for poor, vulnerable or marginalized peoples, whether in developed or developing countries, is of concern. Developing countries are at particular risk from the impacts of COVID-19. People living in conflict-affected and fragile states – whether they are refugees or asylum seekers, internally displaced or stateless, or in detention facilities – are at especially high risk of devastating impacts. 

Mature economies will also face challenges. Equitable access to COVID-19 vaccine will be challenging where inequalities and unequal access to essential services have been compromised within some political systems. 

The need for global leadership 

There is an urgent need for international coordination on COVID-19 vaccines. While the WHO provides technical support and UNICEF acts as a procurement agency, responding to coronavirus needs clarity of global leadership that arches over national interests and is capable of mobilizing resources at a time when economies are facing painful recessions. We see vaccines as a salvation but remain ill-equipped to accelerate their development.

While everyone hopes for rapid availability of safe, effective and affordable vaccines that will be produced in sufficient quantities to meet everyone’s needs, realistically, we face huge hurdles. 




va

Coronavirus Vaccine: Available For All, or When it's Your Turn?

4 May 2020

Professor David Salisbury CB

Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme
Despite high-level commitments and pledges to cooperate to ensure equitable global access to a coronavirus vaccine, prospects for fair distribution are uncertain.

2020-05-04-Vaccine-COVID-Brazil

Researcher in Brazil working on virus replication in order to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus. Photo by DOUGLAS MAGNO/AFP via Getty Images.

When the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck in 2009, some industrialized countries were well prepared. Many countries’ preparedness plans had focused on preparing for an influenza pandemic and based on earlier alerts over the H5N1 ‘bird flu’ virus, countries had made advanced purchase or ‘sleeping’ contracts for vaccine supplies that could be activated as soon as a pandemic was declared. Countries without contracts scrambled to get supplies after those that already had contracts received their vaccine.

Following the 2009 pandemic, the European Union (EU) developed plans for joint-purchase vaccine contracts that any member state could join, guaranteeing the same price per dose for everyone. In 2009, low-income countries were unable to get the vaccine until manufacturers agreed to let 10 per cent of their production go to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The situation for COVID-19 could be even worse. No country had a sleeping contract in place for a COVID-19 vaccine since nobody had anticipated that the next pandemic would be a coronavirus, not an influenza virus. With around 80 candidate vaccines reported to be in development, choosing the right one will be like playing roulette.

These candidates will be whittled down as some will fail at an early stage of development and others will not get to scale-up for manufacturing. All of the world’s major vaccine pharmaceutical companies have said that they will divert resources to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines and, as long as they choose the right candidate for production, they have the expertise and the capacity to produce in huge quantities.

From roulette to a horse race

Our game now changes from roulette to a horse race, as the probability of winning is a matter of odds not a random chance. Countries are now able to try to make contracts alone or in purchasing consortia with other states, and with one of the major companies or with multiple companies. This would be like betting on one of the favourites.

For example, it has been reported that Oxford University has made an agreement with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, with a possibility of 100 million doses being available by the end of 2020. If the vaccine works and those doses materialize, and are all available for the UK, then the UK population requirements will be met in full, and the challenge becomes vaccinating everyone as quickly as possible.

Even if half of the doses were reserved for the UK, all those in high-risk or occupational groups could be vaccinated rapidly. However, as each major manufacturer accepts more contracts, the quantity that each country will get diminishes and the time to vaccinate the at-risk population gets longer.

At this point, it is not known how manufacturers will respond to requests for vaccine and how they will apportion supplies between different markets. You could bet on an outsider. You study the field and select a biotech that has potential with a good production development programme and a tie-in with a smaller-scale production facility.

If other countries do not try to get contracts, you will get your vaccine as fast as manufacturing can be scaled up; but because it is a small manufacturer, your supplies may take a long time. And outsiders do not often win races. You can of course, depending on your resources, cover several runners and try to make multiple contracts. However, you take on the risk that some will fail, and you may have compromised your eventual supply.

On April 24, the WHO co-hosted a meeting with the president of France, the president of the European Commission and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It brought together heads of state and industry leaders who committed to ‘work towards equitable global access based on an unprecedented level of partnership’. They agreed ‘to create a strong unified voice, to build on past experience and to be accountable to the world, to communities and to one another’ for vaccines, testing materials and treatments.

They did not, however, say how this will be achieved and the absence of the United States was notable. The EU and its partners are hosting an international pledging conference on May 4 that aims to raise €7.5 billion in initial funding to kick-start global cooperation on vaccines. Co-hosts will be France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Norway and Saudi Arabia and the priorities will be ‘Test, Treat and Prevent’, with the latter dedicated to vaccines.

Despite these expressions of altruism, every government will face the tension between wanting to protect their own populations as quickly as possible and knowing that this will disadvantage poorer countries, where health services are even less able to cope. It will not be a vote winner to offer a share in available vaccine to less-privileged countries.

The factories for the biggest vaccine manufacturers are in Europe, the US and India. Will European manufacturers be obliged by the EU to restrict sales first to European countries? Will the US invoke its Defense Production Act and block vaccine exports until there are stocks enough for every American? And will vaccine only be available in India for those who can afford it?

The lessons on vaccine availability from the 2009 influenza pandemic are clear: vaccine was not shared on anything like an equitable basis. It remains to be seen if we will do any better in 2020.




va

Webinar: Weekly COVID-19 Pandemic Briefing – Vaccines

Members Event Webinar

13 May 2020 - 10:00am to 10:45am
Add to Calendar

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Professor David Heymann CBE, Distinguished Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House; Executive Director, Communicable Diseases Cluster, World Health Organization (1998-03)
Professor David Salisbury CB, Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House; Director of Immunization, Department of Health, London (2007-13)

Chair: Emma Ross, Senior Consulting Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House

As countries grapple with how best to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and the reverberations it is sending through their societies and economies, scientific understanding of how the virus is behaving, and what measures might best combat it, continues to advance. This briefing will focus on the progress towards and prospects for a coronavirus vaccine, exploring the scientific considerations, the production, distribution and allocation challenges as well as the access politics.

Join us for the eighth in a weekly series of interactive webinars on the coronavirus with Professor David Heymann and special guest, Professor David Salisbury, helping us to understand the facts and make sense of the latest developments in the global crisis. With 80 candidate vaccines reported to be in development, how will scientists and governments select the 'right' one? What should be the role of global leadership and international coordination in the development and distribution of a new vaccine? And can equitable access be ensured across the globe?

Professor Heymann is a world-leading authority on infectious disease outbreaks. He led the World Health Organization’s response to SARS and has been advising the organization on its response to the coronavirus.

Professor Salisbury was director of immunization at the UK Department of Health from 2007 to 2013. He was responsible for the national immunization programme and led the introduction of many new vaccines. He previously chaired the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization and served as co-chair of the Pandemic Influenza group of the G7 Global Health Security Initiative.

This event will be livestreamed.




va

The transcriptional regulator IscR integrates host-derived nitrosative stress and iron starvation in activation of the vvhBA operon in Vibrio vulnificus [Gene Regulation]

For successful infection of their hosts, pathogenic bacteria recognize host-derived signals that induce the expression of virulence factors in a spatiotemporal manner. The fulminating food-borne pathogen Vibrio vulnificus produces a cytolysin/hemolysin protein encoded by the vvhBA operon, which is a virulence factor preferentially expressed upon exposure to murine blood and macrophages. The Fe-S cluster containing transcriptional regulator IscR activates the vvhBA operon in response to nitrosative stress and iron starvation, during which the cellular IscR protein level increases. Here, electrophoretic mobility shift and DNase I protection assays revealed that IscR directly binds downstream of the vvhBA promoter PvvhBA, which is unusual for a positive regulator. We found that in addition to IscR, the transcriptional regulator HlyU activates vvhBA transcription by directly binding upstream of PvvhBA, whereas the histone-like nucleoid-structuring protein (H-NS) represses vvhBA by extensively binding to both downstream and upstream regions of its promoter. Of note, the binding sites of IscR and HlyU overlapped with those of H-NS. We further substantiated that IscR and HlyU outcompete H-NS for binding to the PvvhBA regulatory region, resulting in the release of H-NS repression and vvhBA induction. We conclude that concurrent antirepression by IscR and HlyU at regions both downstream and upstream of PvvhBA provides V. vulnificus with the means of integrating host-derived signal(s) such as nitrosative stress and iron starvation for precise regulation of vvhBA transcription, thereby enabling successful host infection.





va

Phosphoproteome Analysis of E. coli Reveals Evolutionary Conservation of Bacterial Ser/Thr/Tyr Phosphorylation

Boris Macek
Feb 1, 2008; 7:299-307
Research




va

Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Eleven Common Cell Lines Reveals Ubiquitous but Varying Expression of Most Proteins

Tamar Geiger
Mar 1, 2012; 11:M111.014050-M111.014050
Special Issue: Prospects in Space and Time




va

The Paragon Algorithm, a Next Generation Search Engine That Uses Sequence Temperature Values and Feature Probabilities to Identify Peptides from Tandem Mass Spectra

Ignat V. Shilov
Sep 1, 2007; 6:1638-1655
Technology




va

Noncatalytic Bruton's tyrosine kinase activates PLC{gamma}2 variants mediating ibrutinib resistance in human chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells [Membrane Biology]

Treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with inhibitors of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), such as ibrutinib, is limited by primary or secondary resistance to this drug. Examinations of CLL patients with late relapses while on ibrutinib, which inhibits BTK's catalytic activity, revealed several mutations in BTK, most frequently resulting in the C481S substitution, and disclosed many mutations in PLCG2, encoding phospholipase C-γ2 (PLCγ2). The PLCγ2 variants typically do not exhibit constitutive activity in cell-free systems, leading to the suggestion that in intact cells they are hypersensitive to Rac family small GTPases or to the upstream kinases spleen-associated tyrosine kinase (SYK) and Lck/Yes-related novel tyrosine kinase (LYN). The sensitivity of the PLCγ2 variants to BTK itself has remained unknown. Here, using genetically-modified DT40 B lymphocytes, along with various biochemical assays, including analysis of PLCγ2-mediated inositol phosphate formation, inositol phospholipid assessments, fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) static laser microscopy, and determination of intracellular calcium ([Ca2+]i), we show that various CLL-specific PLCγ2 variants such as PLCγ2S707Y are hyper-responsive to activated BTK, even in the absence of BTK's catalytic activity and independently of enhanced PLCγ2 phospholipid substrate supply. At high levels of B-cell receptor (BCR) activation, which may occur in individual CLL patients, catalytically-inactive BTK restored the ability of the BCR to mediate increases in [Ca2+]i. Because catalytically-inactive BTK is insensitive to active-site BTK inhibitors, the mechanism involving the noncatalytic BTK uncovered here may contribute to preexisting reduced sensitivity or even primary resistance of CLL to these drugs.




va

G{alpha}q splice variants mediate phototransduction, rhodopsin synthesis, and retinal integrity in Drosophila [Signal Transduction]

Heterotrimeric G proteins mediate a variety of signaling processes by coupling G protein–coupled receptors to intracellular effector molecules. In Drosophila, the Gαq gene encodes several Gαq splice variants, with the Gαq1 isoform protein playing a major role in fly phototransduction. However, Gαq1 null mutant flies still exhibit a residual light response, indicating that other Gαq splice variants or additional Gq α subunits are involved in phototransduction. Here, we isolated a mutant fly with no detectable light responses, decreased rhodopsin (Rh) levels, and rapid retinal degeneration. Using electrophysiological and genetic studies, biochemical assays, immunoblotting, real-time RT-PCR, and EM analysis, we found that mutations in the Gαq gene disrupt light responses and demonstrate that the Gαq3 isoform protein is responsible for the residual light response in Gαq1 null mutants. Moreover, we report that Gαq3 mediates rhodopsin synthesis. Depletion of all Gαq splice variants led to rapid light-dependent retinal degeneration, due to the formation stable Rh1-arrestin 2 (Arr2) complexes. Our findings clarify essential roles of several different Gαq splice variants in phototransduction and retinal integrity in Drosophila and reveal that Gαq3 functions in rhodopsin synthesis.




va

Polarization of protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR-2) signaling is altered during airway epithelial remodeling and deciliation [Immunology]

Protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR-2) is activated by secreted proteases from immune cells or fungi. PAR-2 is normally expressed basolaterally in differentiated nasal ciliated cells. We hypothesized that epithelial remodeling during diseases characterized by cilial loss and squamous metaplasia may alter PAR-2 polarization. Here, using a fluorescent arrestin assay, we confirmed that the common fungal airway pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus activates heterologously-expressed PAR-2. Endogenous PAR-2 activation in submerged airway RPMI 2650 or NCI–H520 squamous cells increased intracellular calcium levels and granulocyte macrophage–colony-stimulating factor, tumor necrosis factor α, and interleukin (IL)-6 secretion. RPMI 2650 cells cultured at an air–liquid interface (ALI) responded to apically or basolaterally applied PAR-2 agonists. However, well-differentiated primary nasal epithelial ALIs responded only to basolateral PAR-2 stimulation, indicated by calcium elevation, increased cilia beat frequency, and increased fluid and cytokine secretion. We exposed primary cells to disease-related modifiers that alter epithelial morphology, including IL-13, cigarette smoke condensate, and retinoic acid deficiency, at concentrations and times that altered epithelial morphology without causing breakdown of the epithelial barrier to model early disease states. These altered primary cultures responded to both apical and basolateral PAR-2 stimulation. Imaging nasal polyps and control middle turbinate explants, we found that nasal polyps, but not turbinates, exhibit apical calcium responses to PAR-2 stimulation. However, isolated ciliated cells from both polyps and turbinates maintained basolateral PAR-2 polarization, suggesting that the calcium responses originated from nonciliated cells. Altered PAR-2 polarization in disease-remodeled epithelia may enhance apical responses and increase sensitivity to inhaled proteases.




va

Small-molecule agonists of the RET receptor tyrosine kinase activate biased trophic signals that are influenced by the presence of GFRa1 co-receptors [Neurobiology]

Glial cell line–derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) is a growth factor that regulates the health and function of neurons and other cells. GDNF binds to GDNF family receptor α1 (GFRa1), and the resulting complex activates the RET receptor tyrosine kinase and subsequent downstream signals. This feature restricts GDNF activity to systems in which GFRa1 and RET are both present, a scenario that may constrain GDNF breadth of action. Furthermore, this co-dependence precludes the use of GDNF as a tool to study a putative functional cross-talk between GFRa1 and RET. Here, using biochemical techniques, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling staining, and immunohistochemistry in murine cells, tissues, or retinal organotypic cultures, we report that a naphthoquinone/quinolinedione family of small molecules (Q compounds) acts as RET agonists. We found that, like GDNF, signaling through the parental compound Q121 is GFRa1-dependent. Structural modifications of Q121 generated analogs that activated RET irrespective of GFRa1 expression. We used these analogs to examine RET–GFRa1 interactions and show that GFRa1 can influence RET-mediated signaling and enhance or diminish AKT Ser/Thr kinase or extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling in a biased manner. In a genetic mutant model of retinitis pigmentosa, a lead compound, Q525, afforded sustained RET activation and prevented photoreceptor neuron loss in the retina. This work uncovers key components of the dynamic relationships between RET and its GFRa co-receptor and provides RET agonist scaffolds for drug development.




va

Phosphoproteomic characterization of the signaling network resulting from activation of the chemokine receptor CCR2 [Genomics and Proteomics]

Leukocyte recruitment is a universal feature of tissue inflammation and regulated by the interactions of chemokines with their G protein–coupled receptors. Activation of CC chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) by its cognate chemokine ligands, including CC chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), plays a central role in recruitment of monocytes in several inflammatory diseases. In this study, we used phosphoproteomics to conduct an unbiased characterization of the signaling network resulting from CCL2 activation of CCR2. Using data-independent acquisition MS analysis, we quantified both the proteome and phosphoproteome in FlpIn-HEK293T cells stably expressing CCR2 at six time points after activation with CCL2. Differential expression analysis identified 699 significantly regulated phosphorylation sites on 441 proteins. As expected, many of these proteins are known to participate in canonical signal transduction pathways and in the regulation of actin cytoskeleton dynamics, including numerous guanine nucleotide exchange factors and GTPase-activating proteins. Moreover, we identified regulated phosphorylation sites in numerous proteins that function in the nucleus, including several constituents of the nuclear pore complex. The results of this study provide an unprecedented level of detail of CCR2 signaling and identify potential targets for regulation of CCR2 function.




va

Vassilis Ntousas

Stavros Niarchos Foundation Academy Fellow, Europe Programme

Biography

Vassilis Ntousas is hosted by the Europe Programme. His research focuses on the links between EU foreign policy in an era of global institutional turbulence and the defence and transformation of the multilateral system.

From 2015-2019, he was the senior international relations policy advisor at the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) in Brussels. In this role, he was responsible for leading the design and implementation of the foundation’s global research and activity programmes, covering the world’s major regions.

Prior to FEPS, he worked as a communications and political advisor at the Municipality of Thessaloniki, Greece, providing advice in the areas of international affairs and intercity diplomatic relations.

He regularly comments on international developments for international and Greek media outlets.

Vassilis holds an MSc in International Relations from the London School of Economics and a BA in International Relations and Politics from the University of Sheffield.

Areas of expertise

  • European foreign policy
  • Transatlantic relations
  • The politics and policies of the EU towards the Middle East
  • Iran nuclear agreement

Past experience

2015-19Senior international relations policy advisor, Foundation for European Progressive Studies

2013-14

Political and communications advisor, Municipality of Thessaloniki, Greece

2012

Project assistant, APCO Worldwide, Brussels office




va

Biochemical and structural insights into how amino acids regulate pyruvate kinase muscle isoform 2 [Enzymology]

Pyruvate kinase muscle isoform 2 (PKM2) is a key glycolytic enzyme involved in ATP generation and critical for cancer metabolism. PKM2 is expressed in many human cancers and is regulated by complex mechanisms that promote tumor growth and proliferation. Therefore, it is considered an attractive therapeutic target for modulating tumor metabolism. Various stimuli allosterically regulate PKM2 by cycling it between highly active and less active states. Several small molecules activate PKM2 by binding to its intersubunit interface. Serine and cysteine serve as an activator and inhibitor of PKM2, respectively, by binding to its amino acid (AA)-binding pocket, which therefore represents a potential druggable site. Despite binding similarly to PKM2, how cysteine and serine differentially regulate this enzyme remains elusive. Using kinetic analyses, fluorescence binding, X-ray crystallography, and gel filtration experiments with asparagine, aspartate, and valine as PKM2 ligands, we examined whether the differences in the side-chain polarity of these AAs trigger distinct allosteric responses in PKM2. We found that Asn (polar) and Asp (charged) activate PKM2 and that Val (hydrophobic) inhibits it. The results also indicate that both Asn and Asp can restore the activity of Val-inhibited PKM2. AA-bound crystal structures of PKM2 displayed distinctive interactions within the binding pocket, causing unique allosteric effects in the enzyme. These structure-function analyses of AA-mediated PKM2 regulation shed light on the chemical requirements in the development of mechanism-based small-molecule modulators targeting the AA-binding pocket of PKM2 and provide broader insights into the regulatory mechanisms of complex allosteric enzymes.




va

Detailed analyses of the crucial functions of Zn transporter proteins in alkaline phosphatase activation [Enzymology]

Numerous zinc ectoenzymes are metalated by zinc and activated in the compartments of the early secretory pathway before reaching their destination. Zn transporter (ZNT) proteins located in these compartments are essential for ectoenzyme activation. We have previously reported that ZNT proteins, specifically ZNT5–ZNT6 heterodimers and ZNT7 homodimers, play critical roles in the activation of zinc ectoenzymes, such as alkaline phosphatases (ALPs), by mobilizing cytosolic zinc into these compartments. However, this process remains incompletely understood. Here, using genetically-engineered chicken DT40 cells, we first determined that Zrt/Irt-like protein (ZIP) transporters that are localized to the compartments of the early secretory pathway play only a minor role in the ALP activation process. These transporters included ZIP7, ZIP9, and ZIP13, performing pivotal functions in maintaining cellular homeostasis by effluxing zinc out of the compartments. Next, using purified ALP proteins, we showed that zinc metalation on ALP produced in DT40 cells lacking ZNT5–ZNT6 heterodimers and ZNT7 homodimers is impaired. Finally, by genetically disrupting both ZNT5 and ZNT7 in human HAP1 cells, we directly demonstrated that the tissue-nonspecific ALP-activating functions of both ZNT complexes are conserved in human cells. Furthermore, using mutant HAP1 cells, we uncovered a previously-unrecognized and unique spatial regulation of ZNT5–ZNT6 heterodimer formation, wherein ZNT5 recruits ZNT6 to the Golgi apparatus to form the heterodimeric complex. These findings fill in major gaps in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying zinc ectoenzyme activation in the compartments of the early secretory pathway.




va

A Legionella effector kinase is activated by host inositol hexakisphosphate [Enzymology]

The transfer of a phosphate from ATP to a protein substrate, a modification known as protein phosphorylation, is catalyzed by protein kinases. Protein kinases play a crucial role in virtually every cellular activity. Recent studies of atypical protein kinases have highlighted the structural similarity of the kinase superfamily despite notable differences in primary amino acid sequence. Here, using a bioinformatics screen, we searched for putative protein kinases in the intracellular bacterial pathogen Legionella pneumophila and identified the type 4 secretion system effector Lpg2603 as a remote member of the protein kinase superfamily. Employing an array of biochemical and structural biology approaches, including in vitro kinase assays and isothermal titration calorimetry, we show that Lpg2603 is an active protein kinase with several atypical structural features. Importantly, we found that the eukaryote-specific host signaling molecule inositol hexakisphosphate (IP6) is required for Lpg2603 kinase activity. Crystal structures of Lpg2603 in the apo-form and when bound to IP6 revealed an active-site rearrangement that allows for ATP binding and catalysis. Our results on the structure and activity of Lpg2603 reveal a unique mode of regulation of a protein kinase, provide the first example of a bacterial kinase that requires IP6 for its activation, and may aid future work on the function of this effector during Legionella pathogenesis.




va

Thioredoxin regulates human mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase at physiologically-relevant concentrations [Enzymology]

3-Mercaptopyruvate sulfur transferase (MPST) catalyzes the desulfuration of 3-mercaptopyruvate (3-MP) and transfers sulfane sulfur from an enzyme-bound persulfide intermediate to thiophilic acceptors such as thioredoxin and cysteine. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a signaling molecule implicated in many physiological processes, can be released from the persulfide product of the MPST reaction. Two splice variants of MPST, differing by 20 amino acids at the N terminus, give rise to the cytosolic MPST1 and mitochondrial MPST2 isoforms. Here, we characterized the poorly-studied MPST1 variant and demonstrated that substitutions in its Ser–His–Asp triad, proposed to serve a general acid–base role, minimally affect catalytic activity. We estimated the 3-MP concentration in murine liver, kidney, and brain tissues, finding that it ranges from 0.4 μmol·kg−1 in brain to 1.4 μmol·kg−1 in kidney. We also show that N-acetylcysteine, a widely-used antioxidant, is a poor substrate for MPST and is unlikely to function as a thiophilic acceptor. Thioredoxin exhibits substrate inhibition, increasing the KM for 3-MP ∼15-fold compared with other sulfur acceptors. Kinetic simulations at physiologically-relevant substrate concentrations predicted that the proportion of sulfur transfer to thioredoxin increases ∼3.5-fold as its concentration decreases from 10 to 1 μm, whereas the total MPST reaction rate increases ∼7-fold. The simulations also predicted that cysteine is a quantitatively-significant sulfane sulfur acceptor, revealing MPST's potential to generate low-molecular-weight persulfides. We conclude that the MPST1 and MPST2 isoforms are kinetically indistinguishable and that thioredoxin modulates the MPST-catalyzed reaction in a physiologically-relevant concentration range.




va

Evasive balancing: India's unviable Indo-Pacific strategy

8 January 2020 , Volume 96, Number 1

Rajesh Rajagopalan

India has adopted the Indo-Pacific concept with uncharacteristic speed. This article examines India's Indo-Pacific strategy, which evolved out of its earlier ‘Look East’ and ‘Act East’ policies but is much more focused on strategic concerns than on trade or connectivity. As such, the strategy is subset of its China policy, and includes contradictory elements of balancing China by building partnerships with the United States as well as with regional powers, while simultaneously pursuing a reassurance strategy to convince Beijing that India is not really balancing China. The combination of these contradictory elements is characterized as evasive balancing, which is a more useful concept than either pure balancing or hedging for understanding the policies of India and of many other countries in the region that are trying to manage China's rise. However, reassurance strategies rarely work and the combination of balancing and reassurance is even less likely to be viable.




va

Webinar: Are the Gulf Standoffs Resolvable?

Research Event

21 April 2020 - 1:00pm to 2:00pm

Event participants

David Roberts, Assistant Professor and School of Security Studies Lead for Regional Security and Development, King's College London
Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
Chair: Sanam Vakil, Deputy Director and Senior Research Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House

This webinar, part of the MENA Programme Webinar Series, will examine the trajectory of political and security dynamics in the Gulf in view of the ongoing rift within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the death of Sultan Qaboos in Oman, the escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States, and the COVID-19 crisis.

Speakers will explore the orientation of the GCC under a new Secretary-General and the prospects for mediation between Qatar and its neighbours, the future of Omani domestic and foreign policy under Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said, eventual transitions to new leadership in Bahrain and Kuwait, and whether the impact of COVID-19 may help replace the confrontation within the GCC with closer coordination among its six member states.

The webinar will be livestreamed on the MENA Programme Facebook page.

Reni Zhelyazkova

Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme
+44 (0)20 7314 3624




va

Webinar: Egypt and the Gulf: Allies and Rivals

Research Event

23 April 2020 - 1:00pm to 2:00pm

Event participants

Speaker: David Butter, Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
Moderator: Mohamed El Dahshan, Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House

The webinar will be livestreamed on the MENA Programme Facebook page.

Egypt and the Gulf Arab region have long been important poles of political, military, economic and cultural power and influence in the Middle East. A recently published Chatham House paper examines the strategic and economic relationship between Egypt and the Gulf, focusing in particular on the period since Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi came to power in Egypt. Author David Butter offers a detailed evaluation of these economic relationships, in the broader context of a strategic alliance that, since 2013, has been informed by a common commitment between Egypt and the UAE in particular to keep in check the Muslim Brotherhood and its regional state supporters, primarily Turkey and Qatar.

In this webinar, the author will discuss the paper’s main argument, namely, that the degree of Egypt’s dependence on Gulf countries has fluctuated, and that by 2019, Egypt’s direct financial dependence on the Gulf was significantly reduced by comparison with the initial three years of the Sisi era, although other economic linkages such as investment, trade, remittances and tourism remained strong, with potential for growth. The speaker will also discuss the impact of the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on Egypt’s and Gulf countries’ economies and will explore the implications for the relationship between Egypt and the Gulf.

This webinar is part of the Chatham House Middle East and North Africa Programme's Online Event Series. The event will be held on the record.

Reni Zhelyazkova

Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme
+44 (0)20 7314 3624




va

Webinar: European Democracy in the Last 100 Years: Economic Crises and Political Upheaval

Members Event Webinar

6 May 2020 - 1:00pm to 2:00pm

Event participants

Pepijn Bergsen, Research Fellow, Europe Programme, Chatham House

Dr Sheri Berman, Professor of Political Science, Barnard College

Chair: Hans Kundnani, Senior Research Fellow, Europe Programme, Chatham House

 

In the last 100 years, global economic crises from the Great Depression of the 1930s to the 2008 financial crash have contributed to significant political changes in Europe, often leading to a rise in popularity for extremist parties and politics. As Europe contends with a perceived crisis of democracy - now compounded by the varied responses to the coronavirus outbreak - how should we understand the relationship between externally-driven economic crises, political upheaval and democracy?

The panellists will consider the parallels between the political responses to some of the greatest economic crises Europe has experienced in the last century. Given that economic crises often transcend borders, why does political disruption vary between democracies? What can history tell us about the potential political impact of the unfolding COVID-19-related economic crisis? And will the unprecedented financial interventions by governments across Europe fundamentally change the expectations citizens have of the role government should play in their lives?

This event is based on a recent article in The World Today by Hans Kundnani and Pepijn Bergsen who are both researchers in Chatham House's Europe Programme. 'Crawling from the Wreckage' is the first in a series of articles that look at key themes in European political discourse from the last century. You can read the article here

This event is open to Chatham House Members. Not a member? Find out more.




va

Virtual Roundtable: Evaluating Outcomes in Fragile Contexts: Adapting Research Methods in the Time of COVID-19

Invitation Only Research Event

5 May 2020 - 12:00pm to 1:00pm

Event participants

Rebecca Wolfe, Lecturer, Harris School for Public Policy and Associate, Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts, University of Chicago
Tom Gillhespy, Principal Consultant, Itad
Shodmon Hojibekov, Chief Executive Officer, Aga Khan Agency for Habitat (Afghanistan)
Chair: Champa Patel, Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House

This virtual roundtable has been co-convened by Chatham House and the Aga Khan Foundation.  

While conducting research in fragile and conflict-affected contexts has always presented challenges, the outbreak of COVID-19 creates additional challenges including travel restrictions, ethical challenges, and disruptions to usual modes of working. This virtual roundtable will explore how organizations can adapt their research and monitoring and evaluation models in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This event aims to discuss the research methods being used to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 crisis; the important role of technology; and ways to engage policy and decision-makers during this time.

 

Event attributes

Chatham House Rule

Lucy Ridout

Programme Administrator, Asia-Pacific Programme
+44 (0) 207 314 2761




va

Webinar: Weekly COVID-19 Pandemic Briefing – Vaccines

Members Event Webinar

13 May 2020 - 10:00am to 10:45am
Add to Calendar

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Professor David Heymann CBE, Distinguished Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House; Executive Director, Communicable Diseases Cluster, World Health Organization (1998-03)
Professor David Salisbury CB, Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House; Director of Immunization, Department of Health, London (2007-13)

Chair: Emma Ross, Senior Consulting Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House

As countries grapple with how best to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and the reverberations it is sending through their societies and economies, scientific understanding of how the virus is behaving, and what measures might best combat it, continues to advance. This briefing will focus on the progress towards and prospects for a coronavirus vaccine, exploring the scientific considerations, the production, distribution and allocation challenges as well as the access politics.

Join us for the eighth in a weekly series of interactive webinars on the coronavirus with Professor David Heymann and special guest, Professor David Salisbury, helping us to understand the facts and make sense of the latest developments in the global crisis. With 80 candidate vaccines reported to be in development, how will scientists and governments select the 'right' one? What should be the role of global leadership and international coordination in the development and distribution of a new vaccine? And can equitable access be ensured across the globe?

Professor Heymann is a world-leading authority on infectious disease outbreaks. He led the World Health Organization’s response to SARS and has been advising the organization on its response to the coronavirus.

Professor Salisbury was director of immunization at the UK Department of Health from 2007 to 2013. He was responsible for the national immunization programme and led the introduction of many new vaccines. He previously chaired the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization and served as co-chair of the Pandemic Influenza group of the G7 Global Health Security Initiative.

This event will be livestreamed.




va

Labour Cannot Be Complacent About UKIP’s Advance

2 September 2014

Professor Matthew Goodwin

Visiting Senior Fellow, Europe Programme
Support for UKIP is growing among the groups in which Labour is struggling.

20140902Farage.jpg

Nigel Farage speaks to voters in Clacton-on-Sea the day after Douglas Carswell MP announced he is switching allegiance from the Conservative party to UKIP. Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) turns 21 years old this month and has cause to celebrate. The insurgent party won a national election in May and last week enjoyed the most significant coup in its history when Conservative MP Douglas Carswell defected to UKIP and announced a forthcoming by-election. Given that his coastal seat of Clacton is UKIP’s most demographically favourable seat in the country, Carswell has almost certainly handed the party its first elected member of parliament.

The events in Clacton will be seen by many as validating one of the oldest myths about UKIP; that it is nothing more than a second home for disgruntled Conservatives. Carswell’s defection will be especially welcomed on the left, where many argue UKIP is dividing the right and clearing the path for Labour’s return to power in 2015. This is dangerously misguided.

To understand why, we can start with Clacton. The seat has the largest concentration of the 'left behind' demographic; older, white, blue-collar voters who lack qualifications, felt excluded from Britain’s economic transformation long before the crisis, are cut adrift from politics, and are intensely anxious over the cultural as well as economic effects of migration.

But as a Conservative-held seat, Clacton is also an outlier. For our book, Revolt on the Right, Robert Ford and I ranked all seats according to their demographic receptiveness to UKIP. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, most are in Labour territory where MPs are battling with the same cocktail as Carswell: economic stagnation, unease over migration, an entrenched anti-politics consensus and anxieties over rapid social change. Of the 20 seats most demographically receptive to UKIP, 18 have Labour incumbents. Of the top 50, Labour holds 42. Of course, demography alone is not necessarily destiny. Aside from a receptive local population, UKIP also needs a favourable political context. Unlike Conservative-held seats that are at genuine risk from UKIP, Labour’s heartland seats are currently protected by large majorities.

But a cursory glance at the recent European parliament results reveals the direction of travel. UKIP comfortably won the popular vote in a swath of Labour territory, and talks ambitiously of becoming the main rival to Labour in northern England. It appears to be succeeding. Across 39 local authorities in the northwest, UKIP won more votes than Labour in 13 and finished as its main rival in 23. It is similarly bleak in the northeast; across 12 authorities UKIP won the popular vote in five and finished second to Labour in seven.

Since 2010, UKIP has grown fastest among the groups in which Labour is struggling most: the over-65s, the working-class and those who left education early. UKIP is tearing off this section of the electorate, creating a fundamental divide in British politics between those with the skills, education and resources to adapt, and those who have little and feel intensely angry. This is why some Ukippers talk of a '2020 strategy' and plot further advances under an Ed Miliband-led post-2015 government.

Those who compare the party to earlier attempts to redraw the political map, such as the Social Democratic Party in the 1980s, or populist crusaders like the French Poujadists in the 1950s, miss a crucial point. UKIP is anchored in modern Britain’s most socially distinctive support base; it is the most working-class movement since Michael Foot’s Labour Party. Labelling UKIP as 'populist' implies that it appeals across society. It does not. Its strength is concentrated in the 'left behind', who cluster in specific geographical areas. Crucially, this is essential for success under first-past-the-post.

Labour should be under no illusion. UKIP is attracting the Carswells of this world but it is also emerging as the main opposition in many northern heartlands, where it benefits from the toxicity of the Tories, moribund Labour machines that have not had to compete for decades, and the short-sightedness of some close to Ed Miliband who think only of the impact UKIP might have in 2015, and not beyond. Should UKIP’s insurgency continue, not only will it cause a rupture on the centre right, but also bring back into play Labour constituencies that have not been competitive for generations.

This article was originally published in the Financial Times

To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback




va

Why Turkey’s Disapproval of the West’s Response to the Coup Has Limited Merit

10 August 2016

Fadi Hakura

Consulting Fellow, Europe Programme
Although Turks across the political and ideological spectrum are seething at the West’s apparently lukewarm condemnation of the abortive coup on 15 July, there are valid reasons behind the response.

2016-08-10-Turkey-coup-fallout.jpg

A Turkish flag attached to helium balloons as people gather to protest at Konak Square, Izmir during the July 15 failed military coup attempt. Photo by Getty Images

Signs of growing anger at the restrained denunciation of Pennsylvania-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen - whose followers are thought to have played a key role in the attempted coup - are being vocalised more and more, but this criticism only shows part of the true picture.

It is true that prominent liberal Turkish intellectual Soli Ozel spoke for many when he criticised EU politicians and Western media for failing to recognise the “invaluable democratic resistance shown by all political parties in a parliament bombed by war planes”, as well as demonstrating “a lack of sensitivity, empathy and solidarity that cannot be easily digested” by not sending anyone from an EU institution to offer solidarity with the Turkish parliament.

The criticism is reasonable - officials from Western governments and regional institutions such as the Council of Europe exhibited unconditional solidarity with Ukraine during its bitter feud with Russia, which leads some to believe that Muslim-majority Turkey does not apparently deserve the same treatment as its neighbours also experiencing an unlawful attempt to seize control of the state.

Moral authority at risk

It is also right that the West should have censured the coup plotters more forcefully and built upon Turkey’s fragile unity to encourage the country to pursue further democratic reform. To quote former Swedish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt: “Europe risks losing its moral authority if it does not appear particularly engaged in dealing with the coup itself.”

In addition, the EU’s strong criticism of Turkey but not France, for imposing a state of emergency and for temporarily suspending the European Convention on Human Rights, undeniably, smacks of double-standards.

However, some of the criticism falls short. To begin with, the West’s tepidity can be explained (though not wholly justified) by Erdogan’s abrasive behaviour at home and towards Western and international media.

Just three days after the coup, Erdogan threatened in his characteristically defiant tone to revive the controversial construction plans that sparked the 2013 Gezi Park protests, saying: “If we want to preserve our history, we must rebuild this historic [Ottoman-era barracks] structure, [and] we will rebuild it.”

It is also fair for Turkey to be reproached for the widespread crackdown against tens of thousands of suspected Gulenists in the aftermath of the coup. Even if it is conceivable that all 1,577 university deans who were forced to resign were Gulenists, this action will also have a lasting negative impact on the reputations and career prospects of academics unconnected to Gulen.

Fervour against Gulenism

The vigilance by the West is understandable given the Turkish government’s fervour against Gulenism in the immediate post-coup period. It would make no sense for the West to attack the coup and yet, at the same time, equivocate on flagrant violations of due process and human rights. Both efforts are mutually inclusive and identifying such violations has the greatest potential to encourage policy reversals or corrective measures.

Similarly understandable is the attention on Erdogan himself. He is the most formidable and powerful figure in a hierarchical and top-down political system, able to make fateful decisions with few effective checks and balances. He single-handedly replaced Ahmet Davutoglu as prime minister with Binali Yildirim in a clear breach of the Turkish constitution.

Despite Erdogan’s tactical attempts at embracing all the opposition parties apart from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), his refusal to renounce his ambition to transform Turkey into a powerful executive presidency indicates that this fragile political unity will not last.

Only the West has the wherewithal to moderate his policies by continuing to express its friendship with Turkey, whilst not shying away from closely monitoring, scrutinising and commenting on the post-coup developments.

Contact Chatham House Feedback

Join the conversation about this piece on Facebook




va

Avatars of the Divine: Gods Living Among the Ancients

This article is by B.K. Bass, and is presented by Worldbuilding Magazine.

When we consider the history of world religions, certain images are bound to come to mind. Imposing Greek gods and heroes wrought in marble statues. Ancient Egyptian tomb walls covered with paintings of their deities. Along with these representations are the many totems, trinkets, and baubles that may grace either the neck of the devout, or a small shrine in their home. When we visit a gallery or museum in the Western world, or peruse almost any publication on the subject, we are often greeted with images from the Renaissance of figures from the Christian faith. Even today, many homes host icons of one god or another, and some people wear jewelry proclaiming an allegiance to their faith. Even for those of us who chose not to follow one of these traditions, it is undeniable that their presence not only fills our history books, but also permeates our modern world.

Looking at artwork intended to represent a people’s theology isn’t limited to places of worship. From civic projects to an idol in one’s pocket, the presence of the divine was often kept close to the people.

Continue reading Avatars of the Divine: Gods Living Among the Ancients at Mythic Scribes.




va

Cytochrome P450 and arachidonic acid bioactivation: molecular and functional properties of the arachidonate monooxygenase

Jorge H. Capdevila
Feb 1, 2000; 41:163-181
Reviews




va

Multivalent feedback regulation of HMG CoA reductase, a control mechanism coordinating isoprenoid synthesis and cell growth

MS Brown
Jul 1, 1980; 21:505-517
Reviews




va

A spectrophotometric assay for lipid peroxides in serum lipoproteins using a commercially available reagent

M el-Saadani
Apr 1, 1989; 30:627-630
Articles




va

Apolipoprotein-mediated removal of cellular cholesterol and phospholipids

JF Oram
Dec 1, 1996; 37:2473-2491
Reviews




va

Cell cholesterol efflux: integration of old and new observations provides new insights

George H. Rothblat
May 1, 1999; 40:781-796
Reviews




va

Role of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) in mediating the effects of fibrates and fatty acids on gene expression

K Schoonjans
May 1, 1996; 37:907-925
Reviews




va

Restriction isotyping of human apolipoprotein E by gene amplification and cleavage with HhaI

JE Hixson
Mar 1, 1990; 31:545-548
Articles




va

G{alpha}q splice variants mediate phototransduction, rhodopsin synthesis, and retinal integrity in Drosophila [Signal Transduction]

Heterotrimeric G proteins mediate a variety of signaling processes by coupling G protein–coupled receptors to intracellular effector molecules. In Drosophila, the Gαq gene encodes several Gαq splice variants, with the Gαq1 isoform protein playing a major role in fly phototransduction. However, Gαq1 null mutant flies still exhibit a residual light response, indicating that other Gαq splice variants or additional Gq α subunits are involved in phototransduction. Here, we isolated a mutant fly with no detectable light responses, decreased rhodopsin (Rh) levels, and rapid retinal degeneration. Using electrophysiological and genetic studies, biochemical assays, immunoblotting, real-time RT-PCR, and EM analysis, we found that mutations in the Gαq gene disrupt light responses and demonstrate that the Gαq3 isoform protein is responsible for the residual light response in Gαq1 null mutants. Moreover, we report that Gαq3 mediates rhodopsin synthesis. Depletion of all Gαq splice variants led to rapid light-dependent retinal degeneration, due to the formation stable Rh1-arrestin 2 (Arr2) complexes. Our findings clarify essential roles of several different Gαq splice variants in phototransduction and retinal integrity in Drosophila and reveal that Gαq3 functions in rhodopsin synthesis.




va

Small-molecule agonists of the RET receptor tyrosine kinase activate biased trophic signals that are influenced by the presence of GFRa1 co-receptors [Neurobiology]

Glial cell line–derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) is a growth factor that regulates the health and function of neurons and other cells. GDNF binds to GDNF family receptor α1 (GFRa1), and the resulting complex activates the RET receptor tyrosine kinase and subsequent downstream signals. This feature restricts GDNF activity to systems in which GFRa1 and RET are both present, a scenario that may constrain GDNF breadth of action. Furthermore, this co-dependence precludes the use of GDNF as a tool to study a putative functional cross-talk between GFRa1 and RET. Here, using biochemical techniques, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling staining, and immunohistochemistry in murine cells, tissues, or retinal organotypic cultures, we report that a naphthoquinone/quinolinedione family of small molecules (Q compounds) acts as RET agonists. We found that, like GDNF, signaling through the parental compound Q121 is GFRa1-dependent. Structural modifications of Q121 generated analogs that activated RET irrespective of GFRa1 expression. We used these analogs to examine RET–GFRa1 interactions and show that GFRa1 can influence RET-mediated signaling and enhance or diminish AKT Ser/Thr kinase or extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling in a biased manner. In a genetic mutant model of retinitis pigmentosa, a lead compound, Q525, afforded sustained RET activation and prevented photoreceptor neuron loss in the retina. This work uncovers key components of the dynamic relationships between RET and its GFRa co-receptor and provides RET agonist scaffolds for drug development.




va

Virtual Roundtable: Evaluating Outcomes in Fragile Contexts: Adapting Research Methods in the Time of COVID-19

Invitation Only Research Event

5 May 2020 - 12:00pm to 1:00pm

Event participants

Rebecca Wolfe, Lecturer, Harris School for Public Policy and Associate, Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts, University of Chicago
Tom Gillhespy, Principal Consultant, Itad
Shodmon Hojibekov, Chief Executive Officer, Aga Khan Agency for Habitat (Afghanistan)
Chair: Champa Patel, Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House

This virtual roundtable has been co-convened by Chatham House and the Aga Khan Foundation.  

While conducting research in fragile and conflict-affected contexts has always presented challenges, the outbreak of COVID-19 creates additional challenges including travel restrictions, ethical challenges, and disruptions to usual modes of working. This virtual roundtable will explore how organizations can adapt their research and monitoring and evaluation models in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This event aims to discuss the research methods being used to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 crisis; the important role of technology; and ways to engage policy and decision-makers during this time.

 

Event attributes

Chatham House Rule

Lucy Ridout

Programme Administrator, Asia-Pacific Programme
+44 (0) 207 314 2761




va

Coronavirus Vaccine: Available For All, or When it's Your Turn?

4 May 2020

Professor David Salisbury CB

Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme
Despite high-level commitments and pledges to cooperate to ensure equitable global access to a coronavirus vaccine, prospects for fair distribution are uncertain.

2020-05-04-Vaccine-COVID-Brazil

Researcher in Brazil working on virus replication in order to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus. Photo by DOUGLAS MAGNO/AFP via Getty Images.

When the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck in 2009, some industrialized countries were well prepared. Many countries’ preparedness plans had focused on preparing for an influenza pandemic and based on earlier alerts over the H5N1 ‘bird flu’ virus, countries had made advanced purchase or ‘sleeping’ contracts for vaccine supplies that could be activated as soon as a pandemic was declared. Countries without contracts scrambled to get supplies after those that already had contracts received their vaccine.

Following the 2009 pandemic, the European Union (EU) developed plans for joint-purchase vaccine contracts that any member state could join, guaranteeing the same price per dose for everyone. In 2009, low-income countries were unable to get the vaccine until manufacturers agreed to let 10 per cent of their production go to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The situation for COVID-19 could be even worse. No country had a sleeping contract in place for a COVID-19 vaccine since nobody had anticipated that the next pandemic would be a coronavirus, not an influenza virus. With around 80 candidate vaccines reported to be in development, choosing the right one will be like playing roulette.

These candidates will be whittled down as some will fail at an early stage of development and others will not get to scale-up for manufacturing. All of the world’s major vaccine pharmaceutical companies have said that they will divert resources to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines and, as long as they choose the right candidate for production, they have the expertise and the capacity to produce in huge quantities.

From roulette to a horse race

Our game now changes from roulette to a horse race, as the probability of winning is a matter of odds not a random chance. Countries are now able to try to make contracts alone or in purchasing consortia with other states, and with one of the major companies or with multiple companies. This would be like betting on one of the favourites.

For example, it has been reported that Oxford University has made an agreement with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, with a possibility of 100 million doses being available by the end of 2020. If the vaccine works and those doses materialize, and are all available for the UK, then the UK population requirements will be met in full, and the challenge becomes vaccinating everyone as quickly as possible.

Even if half of the doses were reserved for the UK, all those in high-risk or occupational groups could be vaccinated rapidly. However, as each major manufacturer accepts more contracts, the quantity that each country will get diminishes and the time to vaccinate the at-risk population gets longer.

At this point, it is not known how manufacturers will respond to requests for vaccine and how they will apportion supplies between different markets. You could bet on an outsider. You study the field and select a biotech that has potential with a good production development programme and a tie-in with a smaller-scale production facility.

If other countries do not try to get contracts, you will get your vaccine as fast as manufacturing can be scaled up; but because it is a small manufacturer, your supplies may take a long time. And outsiders do not often win races. You can of course, depending on your resources, cover several runners and try to make multiple contracts. However, you take on the risk that some will fail, and you may have compromised your eventual supply.

On April 24, the WHO co-hosted a meeting with the president of France, the president of the European Commission and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It brought together heads of state and industry leaders who committed to ‘work towards equitable global access based on an unprecedented level of partnership’. They agreed ‘to create a strong unified voice, to build on past experience and to be accountable to the world, to communities and to one another’ for vaccines, testing materials and treatments.

They did not, however, say how this will be achieved and the absence of the United States was notable. The EU and its partners are hosting an international pledging conference on May 4 that aims to raise €7.5 billion in initial funding to kick-start global cooperation on vaccines. Co-hosts will be France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Norway and Saudi Arabia and the priorities will be ‘Test, Treat and Prevent’, with the latter dedicated to vaccines.

Despite these expressions of altruism, every government will face the tension between wanting to protect their own populations as quickly as possible and knowing that this will disadvantage poorer countries, where health services are even less able to cope. It will not be a vote winner to offer a share in available vaccine to less-privileged countries.

The factories for the biggest vaccine manufacturers are in Europe, the US and India. Will European manufacturers be obliged by the EU to restrict sales first to European countries? Will the US invoke its Defense Production Act and block vaccine exports until there are stocks enough for every American? And will vaccine only be available in India for those who can afford it?

The lessons on vaccine availability from the 2009 influenza pandemic are clear: vaccine was not shared on anything like an equitable basis. It remains to be seen if we will do any better in 2020.




va

Webinar: Weekly COVID-19 Pandemic Briefing – Vaccines

Members Event Webinar

13 May 2020 - 10:00am to 10:45am
Add to Calendar

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Professor David Heymann CBE, Distinguished Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House; Executive Director, Communicable Diseases Cluster, World Health Organization (1998-03)
Professor David Salisbury CB, Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House; Director of Immunization, Department of Health, London (2007-13)

Chair: Emma Ross, Senior Consulting Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House

As countries grapple with how best to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and the reverberations it is sending through their societies and economies, scientific understanding of how the virus is behaving, and what measures might best combat it, continues to advance. This briefing will focus on the progress towards and prospects for a coronavirus vaccine, exploring the scientific considerations, the production, distribution and allocation challenges as well as the access politics.

Join us for the eighth in a weekly series of interactive webinars on the coronavirus with Professor David Heymann and special guest, Professor David Salisbury, helping us to understand the facts and make sense of the latest developments in the global crisis. With 80 candidate vaccines reported to be in development, how will scientists and governments select the 'right' one? What should be the role of global leadership and international coordination in the development and distribution of a new vaccine? And can equitable access be ensured across the globe?

Professor Heymann is a world-leading authority on infectious disease outbreaks. He led the World Health Organization’s response to SARS and has been advising the organization on its response to the coronavirus.

Professor Salisbury was director of immunization at the UK Department of Health from 2007 to 2013. He was responsible for the national immunization programme and led the introduction of many new vaccines. He previously chaired the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization and served as co-chair of the Pandemic Influenza group of the G7 Global Health Security Initiative.

This event will be livestreamed.




va

Undercurrents: Episode 7 - Libya's War Economy, and Is the United Nations Still Relevant?




va

Jordan: Regime Survival and Politics Beyond the State




va

Evan Davis In Conversation With Christian Ulbrich, CEO, JLL




va

Evan Davis In Conversation With Sir Howard Davies, Chairman of RBS




va

Online Counterterrorism: The Role of the Public and Private Sectors




va

Is Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace Achievable?




va

International Law Podcast: Starvation in Armed Conflict




va

Our Shared Humanity: Global Market, Global Values




va

Undercurrents: Episode 43 - The UK Election, and Svyatoslav Vakarchuk on the Future of Ukraine




va

Angola's Business Promise: Evaluating the Progress of Privatization and Other Economic Reforms