What Do Biomedical Researchers Want from Biobanks? Results of an Online Survey

Aims: The purpose of biobanking is to provide biospecimens and associated data to researchers, yet the perspectives of biobank research users have been under-investigated. This study aimed to ascertain biobank research users' needs and opinions about biobanking services. Methods: An online survey was developed, which requested information about researcher demographics, localities of biobanks accessed, methods of sourcing biospecimens, and opinions on topics including but not limited to, application processes, data availability, access fees, and return of research results. There were 27 multiple choice/check box questions, 4 questions with a 10-point Likert scale, and 8 questions with provision for further comment. A web link for the survey was distributed to researchers in late 2019/early 2020 in four Australian states: New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia. Results: Respondents were generally satisfied with biobank application processes and the fit for purpose of received biospecimens/data. Nonetheless, most researchers (n = 61/99, 62%) reported creating their own collections owing to gaps in sample availability and a perceived increase in efficiency. Most accessed biobanks (n = 58/74, 78%) were in close proximity (local or intrastate) to the researcher. Most researchers had limited the scope of their research owing to difficulty of obtaining biospecimens (n = 55/86, 64%) and/or data (n = 52/85, 60%), with the top three responses for additional types of data required being "more long term follow up data," "more clinical data," and "more linked government data." The top influence to use a particular biobank was cost, and the most frequently suggested improvement was reduced direct "cost of obtaining biospecimens." Conclusion: Biobanks that do not meet the needs of their end-users are unlikely to be optimally utilized or sustainable. This survey provides valuable insights to guide biobanks and other stakeholders, such as developing marketing and client engagement plans to encourage local research users and discouraging the creation of unnecessary new collections.

Therapeutic Antiviral Effect of the Nucleic Acid Polymer REP 2055 against Persistent Duck Hepatitis B Virus Infection

Previous studies have demonstrated that nucleic acid polymers (NAPs) have both entry and post-entry inhibitory activity against duck hepatitis B virus (DHBV) infection. The inhibitory activity exhibited by NAPs prevented DHBV infection of primary duck hepatocytes in vitro and protected ducks from DHBV infection in vivo and did not result from direct activation of the immune response. In the current study treatment of primary human hepatocytes with NAP REP 2055 did not induce expression of the TNF, IL6, IL10, IFNA4 or IFNB1 genes, confirming the lack of direct immunostimulation by REP 2055. Ducks with persistent DHBV infection were treated with NAP 2055 to determine if the post-entry inhibitory activity exhibited by NAPs could provide a therapeutic effect against established DHBV infection in vivo. In all REP 2055-treated ducks, 28 days of treatment lead to initial rapid reductions in serum DHBsAg and DHBV DNA and increases in anti-DHBs antibodies. After treatment, 6/11 ducks experienced a sustained virologic response: DHBsAg and DHBV DNA remained at low or undetectable levels in the serum and no DHBsAg or DHBV core antigen positive hepatocytes and only trace amounts of DHBV total and covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) were detected in the liver at 9 or 16 weeks of follow-up. In the remaining 5/11 REP 2055-treated ducks, all markers of DHBV infection rapidly rebounded after treatment withdrawal: At 9 and 16 weeks of follow-up, levels of DHBsAg and DHBcAg and DHBV total and cccDNA in the liver had rebounded and matched levels observed in the control ducks treated with normal saline which remained persistently infected with DHBV. These data demonstrate that treatment with the NAP REP 2055 can lead to sustained control of persistent DHBV infection. These effects may be related to the unique ability of REP 2055 to block release of DHBsAg from infected hepatocytes.