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{Gibani:2020:10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30121-X,
author = {Gibani, MM and Toumazou, C and Sohbati, M and Sahoo, R and Karvela, M and Hon, T-K and De, Mateo S and Burdett, A and Leung, KYF and Barnett, J and Orbeladze, A and Luan, S and Pournias, S and Sun, J and Flower, B and Bedzo-Nutakor, J and Amran, M and Quinlan, R and Skolimowska, K and Herrera, C and Rowan, A and Badhan, A and Klaber, R and Davies, G and Muir, D and Randell, P and Crook, D and Taylor, GP and Barclay, W and Mughal, N and Moore, LSP and Jeffery, K and Cooke, GS},
doi = {10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30121-X},
journal = {The Lancet Microbe},
pages = {e300--e307},
title = {Assessing a novel, lab-free, point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 (CovidNudge): a diagnostic accuracy study.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30121-X},
volume = {1},
year = {2020}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background: Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. Methods: Between April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing. Findings: We obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86-98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99-100). The sensitivity of the test varied
AU  - Gibani,MM
AU  - Toumazou,C
AU  - Sohbati,M
AU  - Sahoo,R
AU  - Karvela,M
AU  - Hon,T-K
AU  - De,Mateo S
AU  - Burdett,A
AU  - Leung,KYF
AU  - Barnett,J
AU  - Orbeladze,A
AU  - Luan,S
AU  - Pournias,S
AU  - Sun,J
AU  - Flower,B
AU  - Bedzo-Nutakor,J
AU  - Amran,M
AU  - Quinlan,R
AU  - Skolimowska,K
AU  - Herrera,C
AU  - Rowan,A
AU  - Badhan,A
AU  - Klaber,R
AU  - Davies,G
AU  - Muir,D
AU  - Randell,P
AU  - Crook,D
AU  - Taylor,GP
AU  - Barclay,W
AU  - Mughal,N
AU  - Moore,LSP
AU  - Jeffery,K
AU  - Cooke,GS
DO  - 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30121-X
EP  - 307
PY  - 2020///
SN  - 2666-5247
SP  - 300
TI  - Assessing a novel, lab-free, point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 (CovidNudge): a diagnostic accuracy study.
T2  - The Lancet Microbe
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30121-X
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32964211
UR  - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266652472030121X?via%3Dihub
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/82918
VL  - 1
ER  -
Download