Features

This is a guest post by Mary Cruse, science writer at Diamond Light Source.

It was a December day like any other in the village of Meliandou: a remote outcrop in the densely forested region of southern Guinea. A young boy named Emile Ouamouno was playing by a tree filled with fruit bats.

Within weeks, the 18-month-old would be dead, along with his mother, sister and grandmother. Now identified as patient zero, Emile likely came into contact with infected fruit bats, becoming the first victim of the most deadly Ebola epidemic in history.

From Meliandou, the virus spread to the surrounding towns and cities, sweeping through friends, families and healthcare workers. By the time it was recognised as Ebola by the World Health Organisation, the virus had already spread through Guinea and would soon cross the border into Liberia and Sierra Leone.

From West Africa, Ebola travelled around the world – the UK, France, Spain and America were all affected by the deadly spread. And over the course of the next two years, more than 11,300 people would die as a result.

In early-2016, the WHO officially declared the Ebola emergency over. But there's no question that Ebola and other pathogens like it will emerge again.

In an increasingly connected world, the need to develop a frontline defence against viral epidemics is greater now than ever. And while there are many factors at play in successfully managing an outbreak, one of the greatest weapons we have is knowledge.

The way that viruses function is closely linked to their structure on the atomic level. Like most organisms, viruses contain complex molecular machinery that allows them to survive and thrive. By unpicking the atomic structure of viruses, we can identify vulnerabilities and create medicines that exploit these weaknesses to counteract infection.

Ebola has been around for a long time, but we've not yet developed either a working vaccine or a treatment to counteract the disease. This is partly because no outbreak has ever before been so widespread or so deadly. It's also because Ebola's intricate structure makes it a very tricky virus to treat.

Ebola is what's known as an 'enveloped' virus, meaning that it is surrounded by a protective membrane which contains proteins that allow it to latch on to host cells. These 'glycoproteins' make Ebola strong, but they also make it vulnerable.

Glycoproteins are important to Ebola's spread, so they're an obvious target for medical interventions. A vaccine currently in clinical trials induces immunity in patients by exposing them to small samples of the virus's glycoproteins.

Research from Diamond Light Source's crystallography beamlines suggests a similar approach could be used to develop antivirals. Led by Professor Dave Stuart, scientists from Oxford University have recently used synchrotron light to produce atomic-scale images of the cancer drug Toremifene and the painkiller Ibuprofen, bound to Ebola glycoproteins, thus preventing viral fusion.

The two common drugs appear to latch on to a small pocket in the structure of the glycoproteins, where they trick the Ebola cell into thinking it's attached itself to a host cell. The virus then begins releasing genetic information, but without a host cell viral spread looks to be disabled, and eventually the virus population withers.

This is a major step forward: we now have compounds that can inhibit the spread of Ebola. What's more, we know how they do it in atomic detail.

On their own, these drugs aren't enough to curtail infection, but now that we know exactly how they interact with the virus, it should be possible to improve the compounds so that they bind more tightly to Ebola and stop the virus in its tracks.

The Ebola crisis in West Africa centred the world's attention on the devastating consequences of viral epidemics. Three years on from the beginning of the outbreak and international health experts have learned some valuable lessons about the structure underlying the deadly virus, enhancing our ability to shield ourselves from attack.

These steps forward won't be enough to help those affected by the latest tragedy, but they demonstrate more than ever that basic research is the route to effective clinical impact.

We know that we need to act quickly to stamp out epidemics, and when it comes to fighting viruses, knowledge is power. That's why the ability to study pathogens like Ebola on the atomic level is so important.

Because, if we look closely enough, we might find an Achilles' heel, a chink in the armour, a way to fight back.

A new partnership has been formed to speed up the development of next-generation medicines arising from Oxford University research.

Called ‘Lab282’, the initiative will provide a £13million fund for biomedical researchers at Oxford, as well as support from an expert in residence, to promote the rapid translation of research into new drug discovery and development programmes.

Lab282 will accelerate the development of new treatments and cures for serious and debilitating disease, helping patients live longer and better lives, reducing the burden on global healthcare systems, and promoting economic growth.

The public-private partnership, which will run for an initial three years, includes the University of Oxford, Oxford University Innovation Ltd, OUI, (the university’s research commercialisation company), Oxford Sciences Innovation plc, OSI, (the world’s largest IP investment company dedicated to a single university), and Evotec AG (a drug discovery organisation with a track record of innovative academic partnerships).

Professor Matthew Wood, Associate Head of Medical Sciences Division (Research) at Oxford University, said: “Lab282 represents an important innovation for Oxford in maximising the impact of public funding in medical sciences. As the number one ranked medical school in the world it is critically important that the quality of our research is matched by high quality translational support which increases the likelihood of future societal benefits.”

New projects will be sourced across any therapeutic area exclusively from Oxford University researchers via OUI. Funding will come from OSI, and Evotec will contribute its drug discovery expertise and platforms to select projects and develop them.

Under the terms of the agreement, researchers may apply for awards of up to £250k, or more in exceptional circumstances. Sourcing and positioning of new projects for support from Lab282 will be aided by a drug discovery expert in residence seconded from Evotec, embedded in the university.

Should projects funded by Lab282 yield positive results, spinout companies from the university will be formed to further develop new therapies, supported by the Lab282 partners and/or new investors.

For more information, visit www.lab282.org

In a guest blog, GP and Doctoral Research Fellow at the Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, Dr Brian Nicholson, explains how cancer safety netting can keep patients from harm.

Every day, thousands of people across the country visit their doctor with symptoms that could be a sign of cancer. While some may have easily recognisable high risk symptoms, such as difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) or coughing up blood (haemoptysis), the vast majority will have vague or non-specific symptoms like a cough, fatigue, or abdominal pain, where the likelihood of cancer is low.

Doctors must balance the risk between causing unnecessary alarm and wasting scarce resources through over-investigation, with the potential harm of delaying a diagnosis of serious disease.

The current best practice recommended for cancer diagnosis is ‘safety netting’ – a way of allowing doctors to spot serious disease by following up patients over time. The goal is to ensure that patients do not drop through the healthcare net, by monitoring them until their symptoms are explained.

This includes explaining uncertainty about the cause of symptoms and making sure patients receive test results, even if they do not attend a follow-up appointment.

However, there is little evidence on whether safety netting improves cancer detection and how best to apply this method for patients with vague symptoms.

Dr Brian Nicholson and colleagues at the University of Oxford have recently searched for evidence on how safety netting can be done effectively, and have published their findings of a study funded by Cancer Research UK in The BMJ.

Although their research found no apparent evidence on whether safety netting is effective, they did find evidence on the necessary components of safety netting, the roles of the patient and doctor, and the problems arising from miscommunication or misinterpretation of initial test results.

Based on this evidence, the authors recommend that doctors explain uncertainty about the cause of symptoms with patients, ensuring they understand why, when and with whom they should re-consult about concerning symptoms. Systems should also be put in place to ensure that test results are reviewed by somebody with knowledge of cancer guidelines, and that positive and negative results are communicated to the patient promptly.

Although the evidence base is uncertain, safety netting remains the best option, and is likely better than nothing. It is important that patients continue to visit their doctor until their symptoms are explained. We know that doctors are safety netting every day to keep their patients safe. By conducting research on safety netting we will be able to understand which safety netting messages and systems are effective.

The full findings of the report can be read in The BMJ.

A new study involving researchers from Oxford's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) has revealed that the hunting and trapping of wild animals – for meat, medicine, body parts, trophies or live pets – is driving an 'alarming' number of species to extinction and in the process posing a food security threat for millions of people across Asia, Africa and South America.

The study, led by Oregon State University and published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, used data collected by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to identify more than 300 species of mammal under threat primarily because of overhunting. These include large animals such as the black rhinoceros, grey ox and Bactrian camel, as well as several species of bat and 126 species of primate, from the lowland gorilla and chimpanzee to a number of lemurs and monkeys.

Professor David Macdonald, Director of WildCRU, who worked on the study with research associate Guillaume Chapron, said: 'There are a plenty of bad things affecting wildlife around the world, and habitat loss and degradation are clearly at the forefront, but among the other things is the seemingly colossal impact of bushmeat hunting. You might rejoice at having some habitat remaining – say, a pristine forest – but if it is hunted out to become an empty larder, it is a pyrrhic victory.

'The number of hunters involved has gone up, and the penetration of road networks into the remotest places is such that there is no refuge left. So it becomes commercially possible to make a trade out of something that was once just a rabbit for the pot. In places like Cameroon, where I have worked, you see flotillas of taxis early in the morning going out to very remote areas and being loaded up with the bushmeat catch and taken back to towns.

'In WildCRU's fieldwork in Cameroon, we found that far from all the bushmeat was consumed for subsistence – much was sold in large cities, being eaten as a luxury by people reminiscing about a rural past. In the face of impending extinctions, that is an intolerable indulgence.'

Crucially, the study links wildlife conservation to human wellbeing through the lens of food security – people across much of the globe depend on wild meat for part of their diets. The study authors wrote: 'An estimated 89,000 metric tons of meat with a market value of about $200 million are harvested annually in the Brazilian Amazon, and exploitation rates in the Congo basin are estimated to be five times higher.' Loss of these mammals, say the authors, leads not only to an empty landscape and a ‘tragedy’ for conservation, but to an empty larder for the millions of people depending on wild meat for food.

Lead author Professor William Ripple of Oregon State University added: 'The illegal smuggling in wildlife and wildlife products is run by dangerous international networks and ranks among trafficking in arms, human beings and drugs in terms of profits.'

Do you have a box hidden deep in the attic or under the bed that holds your great-grandfather’s First World War medals? Or your grandma’s diaries from 1914-1918?

If so, a team at Oxford University wants you to bring them to a 'roadshow' in Oxford this Saturday (12 November). An Oxford podcast explains what happens at a roadshow.

At the Oxford at War 1914-1918 Roadshow, this kind of material will be scanned and made part of an online memorial which is shared worldwide to commemorate the centenary of the First World War.

Historians and digitisers from the University of Oxford and the International Society for First World War Studies will be on hand to talk to you about your material.

You don't need to have material to share to attend - there will be films, exhibitions, and talks throughout the day.

Digitisation saves precious memorabilia from being lost. Putting stories and images on the Internet makes them available to people world-wide; researchers, schools, family historians, cultural organisations, and others can explore them now and in the future.

Alun Edwards of Oxford University's IT Services, who runs the project, said: 'You've seen Antiques Roadshow - well, this is the same without the valuation. Our experts will talk to you about your stories and what you have brought in. They'll record the details, and then our digitisers will photograph your items so we can upload them to the website.

'Please just turn up on the day, there will be queues but also exhibitions and films to divert you. And if you would like to make an appointment please ring 01865 283686 or email [email protected].'

Dr Stuart D Lee of IT Services and the English Faculty at Oxford University said: 'The Oxford at War project has successfully unearthed hidden treasures held by members of the public that add further to our knowledge of the war, demonstrating how the new technologies can release such resources and engage the public in University research.

'We hope that the city will allow us to explore in depth the effect on one area of the country.'

Submissions to the archive so far have led to some interesting new discoveries. They have even brought families together! Tony Godfrey submitted the photograph above to the archive a few years ago. He said: 'The sergeant in the middle is my father, Dan Godfrey. In the front row, far right, is his next door neighbour Son Ryman, and the two nurses are probably his two sisters Win and Maggie. Dad told me that if anyone misbehaved he would put them in prison!'

When the Oxford team published this photograph on the internet, they were contacted by some family members of Tony's - who he had no idea existed. They were put in contact with each other. This is something that has happened quite a few times for the project team, showing the power of sharing family history online.

Oxford University IT Services began this First World War family history initiative when it asked people across Britain to bring letters, photographs, and keepsakes from the war to be digitised for The Great War Archive in 2006. This pilot project was funded by Jisc, the UK educational technology innovator. Its success encouraged Europeana to form a partnership with the University of Oxford to roll out the initiative across the whole of Europe.

The Oxford at War 1914-1918 Roadshow is a free event, open to all on 12 November 2016 11am-4pm at IT Services, 13 Banbury Road, Oxford.