Funding infectious disease research: a systematic analysis of UK research investments by funders 1997-2010

Physiological roles of hydrogen sulfide in mammalian cells, tissues and organs

H2S belongs to the class of molecules known as gasotransmitters, which also includes nitric oxide (NO) and carbon monoxide (CO). Three enzymes are recognized as endogenous sources of H2S in various cells and tissues: cystathionine g-lyase (CSE), cystathionine β-synthase (CBS) and 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase (3-MST). The current article reviews the regulation of these enzymes as well as the pathways of their enzymatic and non-enzymatic degradation and elimination. The multiple interactions of H2S with other labile endogenous molecules (e.g. NO) and reactive oxygen species are also outlined. The various biological targets and signaling pathways are discussed, with special reference to H2S and oxidative posttranscriptional modification of proteins, the effect of H2S on channels and intracellular second messenger pathways, the regulation of gene transcription and translation and the regulation of cellular bioenergetics and metabolism. The pharmacological and molecular tools currently available to study H2S physiology are also reviewed, including their utility and limitations. In subsequent sections, the role of H2S in the regulation of various physiological and cellular functions is reviewed. The physiological role of H2S in various cell types and organ systems are overviewed. Finally, the role of H2S in the regulation of various organ functions is discussed as well as the characteristic bell-shaped biphasic effects of H2S. In addition, key pathophysiological aspects, debated areas, and future research and translational areas are identified A wide array of significant roles of H2S in the physiological regulation of all organ functions emerges from this review.

A Review of Global Collaboration on COVID-19 Research during the Pandemic in 2020

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, which has become a severe threat to the health and sustainability of human life, scholars have published numerous research results. Although the importance of international research collaboration has been highlighted as a means of overcoming this global crisis, research on this particular problem has been lacking. Therefore, this study focused on the response of academia to COVID-19 by examining the collaboration between international research, and its impact. This study extracted data from Scopus, sampling articles and reviews published in 2020. By analyzing scenarios by country and international research collaboration based on data on authors’ nationalities and the research areas of documents, this study revealed that the United States and China contributed the most. In all countries, most research was conducted on medicine. European and American countries demonstrated significant interest in the social sciences and Asian countries in the life sciences. Furthermore, some countries, including Belgium and Pakistan, extended their research interests through international research collaboration. The results of this study highlight the importance of international research collaboration across various areas by overcoming the regional imbalance in intercountry collaboration and the concentration on a limited scope of subjects.

A Strategy for International Cooperation in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Focusing on National Scientific Funding Data

The coronavirus crisis may lead to a deeper understanding of international collaborations for developing antivirals and vaccines that are essential to protect us from current and future health security threats. Beyond technical solutions, the government of South Korea needs to establish a timely strategic investment in coronavirus-related research and development (R&D) in order to enhance the capabilities for managing this new uncertainty in regard to the domestic health crisis. Thus, this study aims to provide useful information about the status of global coronavirus-related research from the South Korean government's perspective. National funded projects stemmed from leading nations such as the United States, countries of the European Union, and Japan between 2012 and 2018. Six research fields were derived by clustering analysis and an expert-based approach, and then matched to those of South Korea. The comparative analysis among them allowed for the identification of the nations' strengths and weaknesses, thereby laying the groundwork for strategic international research collaborations.

An investigation into the identification of potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 main protease using molecular docking study

A new strain of a novel infectious disease affecting millions of people, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has recently been declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Currently, several clinical trials are underway to identify specific drugs for the treatment of this novel virus. The inhibition of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease is necessary for the blockage of the viral replication. Here, in this study, we have utilized a blind molecular docking approach to identify the possible inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease, by screening a total of 33 molecules which includes natural products, anti-virals, anti-fungals, anti-nematodes and anti-protozoals. All the studied molecules could bind to the active site of the SARS-CoV-2 protease (PDB: 6Y84), out of which rutin (a natural compound) has the highest inhibitor efficiency among the 33 molecules studied, followed by ritonavir (control drug), emetine (anti-protozoal), hesperidin (a natural compound), lopinavir (control drug) and indinavir (anti-viral drug). All the molecules, studied out here could bind near the crucial catalytic residues, HIS41 and CYS145 of the main protease, and the molecules were surrounded by other active site residues like MET49, GLY143, HIS163, HIS164, GLU166, PRO168, and GLN189. As this study is based on molecular docking, hence being particular about the results obtained, requires extensive wet-lab experimentation and clinical trials under in vitro as well as in vivo conditions.

Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma

National Scientific Funding for Interdisciplinary Research: A Comparison Study of Infectious Diseases in the US and EU

Infectious diseases have been continuously and increasingly threatening human health and welfare due to a variety of factors such as globalisation, environmental, demographic changes, and emerging pathogens. In order to establish an interdisciplinary approach for coordinating R&D via funding, it is imperative to discover research trends in the field. In this paper, we apply machine learning methodologies and network analyses to understand how the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have invested their funding in infectious diseases research utilising an interdisciplinary approach. The purpose of this paper is to use public R&D project data as data and to grasp the research trends of epidemic diseases in the US and EU through scientometric analysis.

Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research: Implementation in infection research

BACKGROUND

Public sources fund the majority of UK infection research, but citizens currently have no formal role in resource allocation. To explore the feasibility and willingness of citizens to engage in strategic decision making, we developed and tested a practical tool to capture public priorities for research.

METHOD

A scenario including six infection themes for funding was developed to assess citizen priorities for research funding. This was tested over two days at a university public festival. Votes were cast anonymously along with rationale for selection. The scenario was then implemented during a three-hour focus group exploring views on engagement in strategic decisions and in-depth evaluation of the tool.

RESULTS

188/491(38%) prioritized funding research into drug-resistant infections followed by emerging infections(18%). Results were similar between both days. Focus groups contained a total of 20 citizens with an equal gender split, range of ethnicities and ages ranging from 18 to >70 years. The tool was perceived as clear with participants able to make informed comparisons. Rationale for funding choices provided by voters and focus group participants are grouped into three major themes: (i) Information processing; (ii) Knowledge of the problem; (iii) Responsibility; and a unique theme within the focus groups (iv) The potential role of citizens in decision making. Divergent perceptions of relevance and confidence of "non-experts" as decision makers were expressed.

CONCLUSION

Voting scenarios can be used to collect, en-masse, citizens' choices and rationale for research priorities. Ensuring adequate levels of citizen information and confidence is important to allow deployment in other formats.

Global health equity in United Kingdom university research: a landscape of current policies and practices

Background

Universities are significant contributors to research and technologies in health; however, the health needs of the world’s poor are historically neglected in research. Medical discoveries are frequently licensed exclusively to one producer, allowing a monopoly and inequitable pricing. Similarly, research is often published in ways that make it inaccessible. Universities can adopt policies and practices to overcome neglect and ensure equitable access to research and its products.

Methods

For 25 United Kingdom universities, data on health research funding were extracted from the top five United Kingdom funders’ databases and coded as research on neglected diseases (NDs) and/or health in low- and lower-middle-income countries (hLLMIC). Data on intellectual property licensing policies and practices and open-access policies were obtained from publicly available sources and by direct contact with universities. Proportions of research articles published as open-access were extracted from PubMed and PubMed Central.

Results

Across United Kingdom universities, the median proportion of 2011–2014 health research funds attributable to ND research was 2.6% and for hLLMIC it was 1.7%. Overall, 79% of all ND funding and 74% of hLLMIC funding were granted to the top four institutions within each category. Seven institutions had policies to ensure that technologies developed from their research are affordable globally. Mostly, universities licensed their inventions to third parties in a way that confers monopoly rights. Fifteen institutions had an institutional open-access publishing policy; three had an institutional open-access publishing fund. The proportion of health-related articles with full-text versions freely available online ranged from 58% to 100% across universities (2012–2013); 23% of articles also had a creative commons CC-BY license.

Conclusion

There is wide variation in the amount of global health research undertaken by United Kingdom universities, with a large proportion of total research funding awarded to a few institutions. To meet a level of research commitment in line with the global burden of disease, most universities should seek to expand their research activity. Most universities do not license their intellectual property in a way that is likely to encourage access in resource-poor settings, and lack policies to do so. The majority of recent research publications are published open-access, but not as gold standard (CC-BY) open-access.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0148-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What are the factors driving antimicrobial resistance? Perspectives from a public event in London, England

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance is driven by multiple factors. Resolving the threat to human and animal health presented by drug-resistant infections remains a societal challenge that demands close collaboration between scientists and citizens. We compared current public views about key contributing factors to antimicrobial resistance with those expressed by experts.

METHODS

Overarching factors contributing to antimicrobial resistance were identified following a review of literature. The factors were then described in plain language and attached to ballot boxes at a public engagement event organised by a university. Responses to each factor were counted at the end of the event.

RESULTS

Four hundred five responses were received from 3750 visitors (11 % response rate). Nearly half of responses (192/405, 47 · 4 %) considered the misuse/overuse of antibiotics in humans as the main determinant of antimicrobial resistance. The misuse of antibiotics in animal health obtained 16 · 3 % (66/405) responses. However, the lack of quick tests to diagnose infections received 10/405 votes (2 · 47 %), and the lack of effective vaccines received one vote (0 · 25 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of responses ascribed the emergence of drug-resistant infections to the misuse of antibiotics in human and animals. Suboptimal dosing, availability of diagnostics and environmental contamination were considered less influential on the development of antimicrobial resistance. The growing recognition of broader multifaceted drivers of drug resistance by experts is not yet echoed in the public mind.

How Does National Scientific Funding Support Emerging Interdisciplinary Research: A Comparison Study of Big Data Research in the US and China

How do funding agencies ramp-up their capabilities to support research in a rapidly emerging area? This paper addresses this question through a comparison of research proposals awarded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) in the field of Big Data. Big data is characterized by its size and difficulties in capturing, curating, managing and processing it in reasonable periods of time. Although Big Data has its legacy in longstanding information technology research, the field grew very rapidly over a short period. We find that the extent of interdisciplinarity is a key aspect in how these funding agencies address the rise of Big Data. Our results show that both agencies have been able to marshal funding to support Big Data research in multiple areas, but the NSF relies to a greater extent on multi-program funding from different fields. We discuss how these interdisciplinary approaches reflect the research hot-spots and innovation pathways in these two countries.

Mapping Investments and Published Outputs in Norovirus Research: A Systematic Analysis of Research Funded in the United States and United Kingdom During 1997-2013

BACKGROUND

Norovirus accounts for a considerable portion of the global disease burden. Mapping national or international investments relating to norovirus research is limited.

METHODS

We analyzed the focus and type of norovirus research funding awarded to institutions in the United States and United Kingdom during 1997-2013. Data were obtained from key public and philanthropic funders across both countries, and norovirus-related research was identified from study titles and abstracts. Included studies were further categorized by the type of scientific investigation, and awards related to vaccine, diagnostic, and therapeutic research were identified. Norovirus publication trends are also described using data from Scopus.

RESULTS

In total, US and United Kingdom funding investment for norovirus research was £97.6 million across 349 awards; 326 awards (amount, £84.9 million) were received by US institutions, and 23 awards (£12.6 million) were received by United Kingdom institutions. Combined, £81.2 million of the funding (83.2%) was for preclinical research, and £16.4 million (16.8%) was for translational science. Investments increased from £1.7 million in 1997 to £11.8 million in 2013. Publication trends showed a consistent temporal increase from 48 in 1997 to 182 in 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increases over time, trends in US and United Kingdom funding for norovirus research clearly demonstrate insufficient translational research and limited investment in diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccine research.

Research Investments in Global Health: A Systematic Analysis of UK Infectious Disease Research Funding and Global Health Metrics, 1997-2013

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases account for a significant global burden of disease and substantial investment in research and development. This paper presents a systematic assessment of research investments awarded to UK institutions and global health metrics assessing disease burden.

METHODS

We systematically sourced research funding data awarded from public and philanthropic organisations between 1997 and 2013. We screened awards for relevance to infection and categorised data by type of science, disease area and specific pathogen. Investments were compared with mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLD) across three time points.

FINDINGS

Between 1997-2013, there were 7398 awards with a total investment of £3.7 billion. An increase in research funding across 2011-2013 was observed for most disease areas, with notable exceptions being sexually transmitted infections and sepsis research where funding decreased. Most funding remains for pre-clinical research (£2.2 billion, 59.4%). Relative to global mortality, DALYs and YLDs, acute hepatitis C, leishmaniasis and African trypanosomiasis received comparatively high levels of funding. Pneumonia, shigellosis, pertussis, cholera and syphilis were poorly funded across all health metrics. Tuberculosis (TB) consistently attracts relatively less funding than HIV and malaria.

INTERPRETATION

Most infections have received increases in research investment, alongside decreases in global burden of disease in 2013. The UK demonstrates research strengths in some neglected tropical diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis, but syphilis, cholera, shigellosis and pneumonia remain poorly funded relative to their global burden. Acute hepatitis C appears well funded but the figures do not adequately take into account projected future chronic burdens for this condition. These findings can help to inform global policymakers on resource allocation for research investment.

Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: a systematic analysis across 1997-2013

Background

The “Unfinished Agenda” of infectious diseases is of great importance to policymakers and research funding agencies that require ongoing research evidence on their effective management. Journal publications help effectively share and disseminate research results to inform policy and practice. We assess research investments to United Kingdom institutions in HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and analyse these by numbers of publications and citations and by disease and type of science.

Methods

Information on infection-related research investments awarded to United Kingdom institutions across 1997–2010 were sourced from funding agencies and individually categorised by disease and type of science. Publications were sourced from the Scopus database via keyword searches and filtered to include only publications relating to human disease and containing a United Kingdom-based first and/or last author. Data were matched by disease and type of science categories. Investment (United Kingdom pounds) and publications were compared to generate an ‘investment per publication’ metric; similarly, an ‘investment per citation’ metric was also developed as a measure of the usefulness of research.

Results

Total research investment for all three diseases was £1.4 billion, and was greatest for HIV (£651.4 million), followed by malaria (£518.7 million) and tuberculosis (£239.1 million). There were 17,271 included publications, with 9,322 for HIV, 4,451 for malaria, and 3,498 for tuberculosis. HIV publications received the most citations (254,949), followed by malaria (148,559) and tuberculosis (100,244). According to UK pound per publication, tuberculosis (£50,691) appeared the most productive for investment, compared to HIV (£61,971) and malaria (£94,483). By type of science, public health research was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), while phase I–III trials were most productive for malaria (£60,491). According to UK pound per citation, tuberculosis (£1,797) was the most productive area for investment, compared to HIV (£2,265) and malaria (£2,834). Public health research was the most productive type of science for HIV (£2,265) and tuberculosis (£1,797), whereas phase I–III trials were most productive for malaria (£1,713).

Conclusions

When comparing total publications and citations with research investment to United Kingdom institutions, tuberculosis research appears to perform best in terms of efficiency. There were more public health-related publications and citations for HIV and tuberculosis than other types of science. These findings demonstrate the diversity of research funding and outputs, and provide new evidence to inform research investment strategies for policymakers, funders, academic institutions, and healthcare organizations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0052-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.