A fluorescence-based, gain-of-signal, live cell system to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibition.

The likelihood of continued circulation of COVID-19 and its variants, and novel coronaviruses due to future zoonotic transmissions, combined with the current paucity of coronavirus antivirals, emphasize the need for improved screening in developing effective antivirals for the treatment of infection by SARS-CoV-2 (CoV2) and other coronaviruses. Here we report the development of a live-cell based assay for evaluating the intracellular function of the critical, highly-conserved CoV2 target, the Main 3C-like protease (Mpro). This assay is based on expression of native wild-type mature CoV2 Mpro, the function of which is quantitatively evaluated in living cells through cleavage of a biosensor leading to loss of fluorescence.

Community grand rounds: re-engineering community and academic partnerships in health education-a partnership and programmatic evaluation.

Background: Community participation in population health improvement can assist university researchers in targeting intervention resources more effectively and efficiently, leading to more effective implementation of interventions, because of joint ownership of both process and product. Two academic health centers partnered with community based organizations to develop a bidirectional educational seminar series called "Community Grand Rounds" (CGR), which identified health concerns of Chicago's South Side residents and provided information regarding university and community resources that addressed community health concerns.

Objectives: We evaluated the community consultants' perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the planning and implementation of the seminars that resulted from the partnership.

Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: points to consider.

The ethical conduct of Community-Engaged Research (CEnR), of which the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model is the partnership model most widely discussed in the CEnR literature and is the primary model we draw upon in this discussion, requires an integrated and comprehensive human subjects protection (HSP) program that addresses the additional concerns salient to CEnR where members of a community are both research partners and participants. As delineated in the federal regulations, the backbone of a HSP program is the fulfillment of nine functions: (1) minimize risks; (2) reasonable benefit-risk ratio; (3) fair subject selection; (4) adequate monitoring; (5) informed consent; (6) privacy and confidentiality; (7) conflicts of interest; (8) address vulnerabilities; and (9) HSP training. The federal regulations, however, do not consider the risks and harms that may occur to groups, and these risks have not traditionally been included in the benefit: risk analysis nor have they been incorporated into an HSP framework.

The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: points to consider.

The philosophical underpinning of Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) entails a collaborative partnership between academic researchers and the community. The Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model is the partnership model most widely discussed in the CEnR literature and is the primary model we draw upon in this discussion of the collaboration between academic researchers and the community. In CPBR, the goal is for community partners to have equal authority and responsibility with the academic research team, and that the partners engage in respectful negotiation both before the research begins and throughout the research process to ensure that the concerns, interests, and needs of each party are addressed.

Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics framework.

In the 30 years since the Belmont Report, the role of the community in research has evolved and has taken on greater moral significance. Today, more and more translational research is being performed with the active engagement of individuals and communities rather than merely upon them. This engagement requires a critical examination of the range of risks that may arise when communities become partners in research.