A fluorescence-based, gain-of-signal, live cell system to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibition.

The likelihood of continued circulation of COVID-19 and its variants, and novel coronaviruses due to future zoonotic transmissions, combined with the current paucity of coronavirus antivirals, emphasize the need for improved screening in developing effective antivirals for the treatment of infection by SARS-CoV-2 (CoV2) and other coronaviruses. Here we report the development of a live-cell based assay for evaluating the intracellular function of the critical, highly-conserved CoV2 target, the Main 3C-like protease (Mpro). This assay is based on expression of native wild-type mature CoV2 Mpro, the function of which is quantitatively evaluated in living cells through cleavage of a biosensor leading to loss of fluorescence. Evaluation does not require cell harvesting, allowing for multiple measurements from the same cells facilitating quantification of Mpro inhibition, as well as recovery of function upon removal of inhibitory drugs. The pan-coronavirus Mpro inhibitor, GC376, was utilized in this assay and effective inhibition of intracellular CoV2 Mpro was found to be consistent with levels required to inhibit CoV2 infection of human lung cells. We demonstrate that GC376 is an effective inhibitor of intracellular CoV2 Mpro at low micromolar levels, while other predicted Mpro inhibitors, bepridil and alverine, are not. Results indicate this system can provide a highly effective high-throughput coronavirus Mpro screening system.

Community grand rounds: re-engineering community and academic partnerships in health education-a partnership and programmatic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Community participation in population health improvement can assist university researchers in targeting intervention resources more effectively and efficiently, leading to more effective implementation of interventions, because of joint ownership of both process and product. Two academic health centers partnered with community based organizations to develop a bidirectional educational seminar series called "Community Grand Rounds" (CGR), which identified health concerns of Chicago's South Side residents and provided information regarding university and community resources that addressed community health concerns. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the community consultants' perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the planning and implementation of the seminars that resulted from the partnership. METHODS: We conducted one-on-one interviews and focus groups with community consultants to assess their perceptions of the partnership using a tailored version of a previously developed individual and focus group interview instrument. Analysis of the interview text was conducted using grounded theory where themes were coded as they emerged. CONCLUSIONS: CGR is an effective mechanism for providing needed community health information in an easily accessible format. Additional work is needed to determine whether this format represents a sustainable community-university partnership.

The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: points to consider.

The philosophical underpinning of Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) entails a collaborative partnership between academic researchers and the community. The Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model is the partnership model most widely discussed in the CEnR literature and is the primary model we draw upon in this discussion of the collaboration between academic researchers and the community. In CPBR, the goal is for community partners to have equal authority and responsibility with the academic research team, and that the partners engage in respectful negotiation both before the research begins and throughout the research process to ensure that the concerns, interests, and needs of each party are addressed. The negotiation of a fair, successful, and enduring partnership requires transparency and understanding of the different assets, skills and expertise that each party brings to the project. Delineating the expectations of both parties and documenting the terms of agreement in a memorandum of understanding or similar document may be very useful. This document is structured to provide a "points- to-consider" roadmap for academic and community research partners to establish and maintain a research partnership at each stage of the research process.

Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics framework.

In the 30 years since the Belmont Report, the role of the community in research has evolved and has taken on greater moral significance. Today, more and more translational research is being performed with the active engagement of individuals and communities rather than merely upon them. This engagement requires a critical examination of the range of risks that may arise when communities become partners in research. In attempting to provide such an examination, one must distinguish between established communities (groups that have their own organizational structure and leadership and exist regardless of the research) and unstructured groups (groups that may exist because of a shared trait but do not have defined leadership or internal cohesiveness). In order to participate in research as a community, unstructured groups must develop structure either by external means (by partnering with a Community-Based Organization) or by internal means (by empowering the group to organize and establish structure and leadership). When groups participate in research, one must consider risks to well-being due to process and outcomes. These risks may occur to the individual qua individual, but there are also risks that occur to the individual qua member of a group and also risks that occur to the group qua group. There are also risks to agency, both to the individual and the group. A 3-by-3 grid including 3 categories of risks (risks to well-being secondary to process, risks to well-being secondary to outcome and risks to agency) must be evaluated against the 3 distinct agents: individuals as individual participants, individuals as members of a group (both as participants and as nonparticipants) and to communities as a whole. This new framework for exploring the risks in community-engaged research can help academic researchers and community partners ensure the mutual respect that community-engaged research requires.

Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: points to consider.

The ethical conduct of Community-Engaged Research (CEnR), of which the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model is the partnership model most widely discussed in the CEnR literature and is the primary model we draw upon in this discussion, requires an integrated and comprehensive human subjects protection (HSP) program that addresses the additional concerns salient to CEnR where members of a community are both research partners and participants. As delineated in the federal regulations, the backbone of a HSP program is the fulfillment of nine functions: (1) minimize risks; (2) reasonable benefit-risk ratio; (3) fair subject selection; (4) adequate monitoring; (5) informed consent; (6) privacy and confidentiality; (7) conflicts of interest; (8) address vulnerabilities; and (9) HSP training. The federal regulations, however, do not consider the risks and harms that may occur to groups, and these risks have not traditionally been included in the benefit: risk analysis nor have they been incorporated into an HSP framework. We explore additional HSP issues raised by CEnR within these nine ethical functions. Various entities exist that can provide HSP---the investigator, the Institutional Review Board, the Conflict of Interest Committee, the Research Ethics Consultation program, the Research Subject Advocacy program, the Data and Safety Monitoring Plan, and the Community Advisory Board. Protection is best achieved if these entities are coordinated to ensure that no gaps exist, to minimize unnecessary redundancy, and to provide checks and balances between the different entities of HSP and the nine functions that they must realize. The document is structured to provide a "points-to-consider" roadmap for HSP entities to help them adequately address the nine key functions necessary to provide adequate protection of individuals and communities in CEnR.