Publications

Notable Recent Publications

These are some recent publications which give a flavour of the research from the Barclay lab. For a complete list of publications, please see below.

Species difference in ANP32A underlies influenza A virus polymerase host restriction. Nature (2016).
Jason S. Long, Efstathios S. Giotis, Olivier Moncorgé, Rebecca Frise, Bhakti Mistry, Joe James, Mireille Morisson, Munir Iqbal, Alain Vignal, Michael A. Skinner & Wendy S. Barclay

This paper identified a key factor that explained why the polymerases from avian influenza viruses are restricted in humans.  For more, please see the associated New and Views.

See our latest ANP32 papers here: eLIFE, Journal of Virology, Journal of Virology.

The mechanism of resistance to favipiravir in influenza. PNAS (2018).
Daniel H. Goldhill, Aartjan J. W. te Velthuis, Robert A. Fletcher, Pinky Langat, Maria Zambon, Angie Lackenby & Wendy S. Barclay

This paper showed how influenza could evolve resistance to favipiravir, an antiviral that may be used to treat influenza. The residue that mutated to give resistance was highly conserved suggesting that the mechanism of resistance may be applicable to other RNA viruses.

Internal genes of a highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus determine high viral replication in myeloid cells and severe outcome of infection in mice. Plos Path. (2018).
Hui Li*, Konrad C. Bradley*, Jason S. Long, Rebecca Frise, Jonathan W. Ashcroft, Lorian C. Hartgroves, Holly Shelton, Spyridon Makris, Cecilia Johansson, Bin Cao & Wendy S. Barclay

Why do avian influenza viruses like H5N1 cause such severe disease in humans? This paper demonstrated that H5N1 viruses replicate better than human viruses in myeloid cells from mice leading to a cytokine storm and more severe disease.

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Flower:2020:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215732,
author = {Flower, B and Brown, JC and Simmons, B and Moshe, M and Frise, R and Penn, R and Kugathasan, R and Petersen, C and Daunt, A and Ashby, D and Riley, S and Atchison, C and Taylor, GP and Satkunarajah, S and Naar, L and Klaber, R and Badhan, A and Rosadas, C and Kahn, M and Fernandez, N and Sureda-Vives, M and Cheeseman, H and O'Hara, J and Fontana, G and Pallett, SJC and Rayment, M and Jones, R and Moore, LSP and Cherapanov, P and Tedder, R and McClure, M and Ashrafian, H and Shattock, R and Ward, H and Darzi, A and Elliott, P and Barclay, W and Cooke, G},
doi = {10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215732},
journal = {Thorax},
pages = {1082--1088},
title = {Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 sero-prevalence survey},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215732},
volume = {75},
year = {2020}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BackgroundAccurate 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.MethodsSensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and were ≥21d from symptom-onset. In phase I we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger-prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to a) PCR-confirmed infection and b) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two “in-house” ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 pre-pandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum.Findings95% (95%CI [92.2, 97.3]) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8/11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21%-92% vs PCR-confirmed cases and 22%-96% vs 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%).InterpretationLFIA 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, 99.4])), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with fingerprick (95%CI [70.5, 93.5])), and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.
AU  - Flower,B
AU  - Brown,JC
AU  - Simmons,B
AU  - Moshe,M
AU  - Frise,R
AU  - Penn,R
AU  - Kugathasan,R
AU  - Petersen,C
AU  - Daunt,A
AU  - Ashby,D
AU  - Riley,S
AU  - Atchison,C
AU  - Taylor,GP
AU  - Satkunarajah,S
AU  - Naar,L
AU  - Klaber,R
AU  - Badhan,A
AU  - Rosadas,C
AU  - Kahn,M
AU  - Fernandez,N
AU  - Sureda-Vives,M
AU  - Cheeseman,H
AU  - O'Hara,J
AU  - Fontana,G
AU  - Pallett,SJC
AU  - Rayment,M
AU  - Jones,R
AU  - Moore,LSP
AU  - Cherapanov,P
AU  - Tedder,R
AU  - McClure,M
AU  - Ashrafian,H
AU  - Shattock,R
AU  - Ward,H
AU  - Darzi,A
AU  - Elliott,P
AU  - Barclay,W
AU  - Cooke,G
DO  - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215732
EP  - 1088
PY  - 2020///
SN  - 0040-6376
SP  - 1082
TI  - Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 sero-prevalence survey
T2  - Thorax
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215732
UR  - https://thorax.bmj.com/content/75/12/1082
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/81321
VL  - 75
ER  -
Download