| 1. |
- Alpert, Michael D., et al.
(författare)
-
A Novel Assay for Antibody-Dependent Cell-Mediated Cytotoxicity against HIV-1-or SIV-Infected Cells Reveals Incomplete Overlap with Antibodies Measured by Neutralization and Binding Assays
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Virology. - 1098-5514. ; 86:22, s. 12039-12052
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The resistance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) to antibody-mediated immunity often prevents the detection of antibodies that neutralize primary isolates of HIV-1. However, conventional assays for antibody functions other than neutralization are suboptimal. Current methods for measuring the killing of virus-infected cells by antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) are limited by the number of natural killer (NK) cells obtainable from individual donors, donor-to-donor variation, and the use of nonphysiological targets. We therefore developed an ADCC assay based on NK cell lines that express human or macaque CD16 and a CD4(+) T-cell line that expresses luciferase from a Tat-inducible promoter upon HIV-1 or simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) infection. NK cells and virus-infected targets are mixed in the presence of serial plasma dilutions, and ADCC is measured as the dose-dependent loss of luciferase activity. Using this approach, ADCC titers were measured in plasma samples from HIV-infected human donors and SIV-infected macaques. For the same plasma samples paired with the same test viruses, this assay was approximately 2 orders of magnitude more sensitive than optimized assays for neutralizing antibodies-frequently allowing the measurement of ADCC in the absence of detectable neutralization. Although ADCC correlated with other measures of Env-specific antibodies, neutralizing and gp120 binding titers did not consistently predict ADCC activity. Hence, this assay affords a sensitive method for measuring antibodies capable of directing ADCC against HIV- or SIV-infected cells expressing native conformations of the viral envelope glycoprotein and reveals incomplete overlap of the antibodies that direct ADCC and those measured in neutralization and binding assays.
|
|
| 2. |
- Squires, Janet E., et al.
(författare)
-
The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - 1478-4505. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background There is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.Methods We conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.Results In the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.Conclusions The Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.
|
|
