Influenza A virus segment 2 is known to encode two polypeptides in overlapping open reading frames: PB1, the polymerase, and PB1-F2, a proapoptotic virulence factor. We show that a third major polypeptide is synthesized from PB1 mRNA via differential AUG codon usage. PB1 codon 40 directs translation of an N-terminally truncated version of the polypeptide (N40) that lacks transcriptase function but nevertheless interacts with PB2 and the polymerase complex in the cellular environment. Importantly, the expression of N40, PB1-F2, and PB1 are interdependent, and certain mutations previously used to ablate PB1-F2 production affected N40 accumulation. Removal of the PB1-F2 AUG upregulated N40 synthesis, while truncating PB1-F2 after codon 8 (with a concomitant M40I change in PB1) abolished N40 expression. A virus lacking both N40 and PB1-F2 replicated normally. However, viruses that did not express N40 but retained an intact PB1-F2 gene overexpressed PB1 early in infection and replicated slowly in tissue culture. Thus, the influenza A virus proteome includes a 12th primary translation product that (similarly to PB1-F2) is nonessential for virus viability but whose loss, in particular genetic backgrounds, is detrimental to virus replication.

The full-length viral RNA of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) functions both as the mRNA for the viral structural proteins Gag and Gag/Pol and as the genomic RNA packaged within viral particles. The packaging signal which Gag recognizes to initiate genome encapsidation is in the 5 untranslated region (UTR) of the HIV-1 RNA, which is also the location of translation initiation complex formation. Hence, it is likely that there is competition between the translation and packaging processes. We studied the ability of Gag to regulate translation of its own mRNA. Gag had a bimodal effect on translation from the HIV-1 5 UTR, stimulating translation at low concentrations and inhibiting translation at high concentrations in vitro and in vivo. The inhibition was dependent upon the ability of Gag to bind the packaging signal through its nucleocapsid domain. The stimulatory activity was shown to depend on the matrix domain of Gag. These results suggest that Gag controls the equilibrium between translation and packaging, ensuring production of enough molecules of Gag to make viral particles before encapsidating its genome.

Potential foci for interventions to increase morale include CMHTs, PICUs and general acute wards. The explanatory value of the demand-support-control model was confirmed, but job characteristics did not fully explain differences in morale indicators across service types and professions.

BackgroundCollaborative care (CC) is an organisational framework which facilitates the delivery of a mental health intervention to patients by case managers in collaboration with more senior health professionals (supervisors and GPs), and is effective for the management of depression in primary care. However, there remains limited evidence on how to successfully implement this collaborative approach in UK primary care. This study aimed to explore to what extent CC impacts on professional working relationships, and if CC for depression could be implemented as routine in the primary care setting.MethodsThis qualitative study explored perspectives of the 6 case managers (CMs), 5 supervisors (trial research team members) and 15 general practitioners (GPs) from practices participating in a randomised controlled trial of CC for depression. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a two-step approach using an initial thematic analysis, and a secondary analysis using the Normalisation Process Theory concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring with respect to the implementation of CC in primary care.ResultsSupervisors and CMs demonstrated coherence in their understanding of CC, and consequently reported good levels of cognitive participation and collective action regarding delivering and supervising the intervention. GPs interviewed showed limited understanding of the CC framework, and reported limited collaboration with CMs: barriers to collaboration were identified. All participants identified the potential or experienced benefits of a collaborative approach to depression management and were able to discuss ways in which collaboration can be facilitated.ConclusionPrimary care professionals in this study valued the potential for collaboration, but GPs’ understanding of CC and organisational barriers hindered opportunities for communication. Further work is needed to address these organisational barriers in order to facilitate collaboration around individual patients with depression, including shared IT systems, facilitating opportunities for informal discussion and building in formal collaboration into the CC framework.Trial registrationISRCTN32829227 30/9/2008.