Past insecticide exposure reduces bee reproduction and population growth rate

Pesticides are linked to global insect declines, with impacts on biodiversity and essential ecosystem services. In addition to well-documented direct impacts of pesticides at the current stage or time, potential delayed “carryover” effects from past exposure at a different life stage may augment impacts on individuals and populations. We investigated the effects of current exposure and the carryover effects of past insecticide exposure on the individual vital rates and population growth of the solitary bee, Osmia lignaria. Bees in flight cages freely foraged on wildflowers, some treated with the common insecticide, imidacloprid, in a fully crossed design over 2 y, with insecticide exposure or no exposure in each year. Insecticide exposure directly to foraging adults and via carryover effects from past exposure reduced reproduction. Repeated exposure across 2 y additively impaired individual performance, leading to a nearly fourfold reduction in bee population growth. Exposure to even a single insecticide application can have persistent effects on vital rates and can reduce population growth for multiple generations. Carryover effects had profound implications for population persistence and must be considered in risk assessment, conservation, and management decisions for pollinators to mitigate the effects of insecticide exposure.

Levels of SARS-CoV-2 population exposure are considerably higher than suggested by seroprevalence surveys

Accurate knowledge of prior population exposure has critical ramifications for preparedness plans for future SARS-CoV-2 epidemic waves and vaccine prioritization strategies. Serological studies can be used to estimate levels of past exposure and thus position populations in their epidemic timeline. To circumvent biases introduced by the decay in antibody titers over time, methods for estimating population exposure should account for seroreversion, to reflect that changes in seroprevalence measures over time are the net effect of increases due to recent transmission and decreases due to antibody waning. Here, we present a new method that combines multiple datasets (serology, mortality, and virus positivity ratios) to estimate seroreversion time and infection fatality ratios (IFR) and simultaneously infer population exposure levels. The results indicate that the average time to seroreversion is around six months, IFR is 0.54% to 1.3%, and true exposure may be more than double the current seroprevalence levels reported for several regions of England.

Whole Blood Interferon γ Release Is a More Sensitive Marker of Prior Exposure to Coxiella burnetii Than Are Antibody Responses

For the zoonotic disease Q fever, serological analysis plays a dominant role in the diagnosis of Coxiella burnetii infection and in pre-screening for past exposure prior to vaccination. A number of studies suggest that assessment of C. burnetii-specific T-cell IFNγ responses may be a more sensitive tool to assess past exposure. In this study, we assessed the performance of a whole blood C. burnetii IFNγ release assay in comparison to serological detection in an area of high Q fever incidence in 2014, up to seven years after initial exposure during the Dutch Q fever outbreak 2007-2010. In a cohort of >1500 individuals from the Dutch outbreak village of Herpen, approximately 60% had mounted IFNγ responses to C. burnetii. This proportion was independent of the Coxiella strain used for stimulation and much higher than the proportion of individuals scored sero-positive using the serological gold standard immunofluorescence assay. Moreover, C. burnetii-specific IFNγ responses were found to be more durable than antibody responses in two sub-groups of individuals known to have sero-converted as of 2007 or previously reported to the municipality as notified Q fever cases. A novel ready-to-use version of the IFNγ release assay assessed in a subgroup of pre-exposed individuals in 2021 (10-14 years post exposure) proved again to be more sensitive than serology in detecting past exposure. These data demonstrate that C. burnetii-induced IFNγ release is indeed a more sensitive and durable marker of exposure to C. burnetii than are serological responses. In combination with a simplified assay version suitable for implementation in routine diagnostic settings, this makes the assessment of IFNγ responses a valuable tool for exposure screening to obtain epidemiological data, and to identify previously exposed individuals in pre-vaccination screens.

Cross-immunity would aid COVID-19 battle

Significance This is partly attributed to age and to health predispositions, but the physiological basis is not entirely clear. Existing immunity from previous exposure to other coronaviruses -- or cross-immunity -- may affect how individuals respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies are investigating whether past exposure to different but related viruses make people more or less susceptible to a new form, but there are no definitive answers yet. Impacts Governments and scientific advisers may be able to use cross-immunity to identify the most at-risk groups in this and future outbreaks. Cross-immunity may affect policy on schools and age-based institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine and drug developers will benefit from understanding cross-immunity to refine pharmaceutical development.

Long-term platelet priming after glycoprotein VI stimulation in comparison to Protease-Activating Receptor (PAR) stimulation

Platelets can respond to multiple antagonists and agonists, implying that their activation state is a consequence of past exposure to these substances. While platelets are often considered as one-time responsive cells, they likely can respond to sequential application of inhibitors and stimuli. We hypothesized that the ability of platelets to sequentially respond depends on the time and type of repeated agonist application. The present proof-of-concept data show that iloprost (cAMP elevation), tirofiban (integrin αIIbβ3 blocker) and Syk kinase inhibition subacutely modulated platelet aggregation, i.e. halted this process even when applied after agonist. In comparison to thrombin-activated receptor (PAR) stimulation, glycoprotein VI (GPVI) stimulation was less sensitive to time-dependent blockage of aggregation, with Syk inhibition as an exception. Furthermore, cytosolic Ca2+ measurements indicated that, when compared to PAR, prior GPVI stimulation induced a more persistent, priming activation state of platelets that influenced the response to a next agent. Overall, these data point to an unexpected priming memory of activated platelets in subacutely responding to another inhibitor or stimulus, with a higher versatility and faster offset after PAR stimulation than after GPVI stimulation.

Testing IgG antibodies against the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is sufficient and necessary for COVID-19 diagnosis

The COVID-19 pandemic and the fast global spread of the disease resulted in unprecedented decline in world trade and travel. A critical priority is, therefore, to quickly develop serological diagnostic capacity and identify individuals with past exposure to SARS-CoV-2. In this study serum samples obtained from 309 persons infected by SARS-CoV-2 and 324 of healthy, uninfected individuals as well as serum from 7 COVID-19 patients with 4–7 samples each ranging between 1–92 days post first positive PCR were tested by an “in house” ELISA which detects IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity of 47%, 80% and 88% and specificity of 100%, 98% and 98% in detection of IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies, respectively, were observed. IgG antibody levels against the RBD were demonstrated to be up regulated between 1–7 days after COVID-19 detection, earlier than both IgM and IgA antibodies. Study of the antibody kinetics of seven COVID 19 patients revealed that while IgG levels are high and maintained for at least 3 months, IgM and IgA levels decline after a 35–50 days following infection. Altogether, these results highlight the usefulness of the RBD based ELISA, which is both easy and cheap to prepare, to identify COVID-19 patients even at the acute phase. Most importantly our results demonstrate that measuring IgG levels alone is both sufficient and necessary to diagnose past exposure to SARS-CoV-2.