The Nipah and Hendra viruses are highly pathogenic paramyxoviruses that recently emerged from flying foxes to cause serious disease outbreaks in humans and livestock in Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and Bangladesh. Their unique genetic constitution, high virulence and wide host range set them apart from other paramyxoviruses. These characteristics have led to their classification into the new genus Henpavirus within the family Paramyxoviridae and to their designation as Biosafety Level 4 pathogens. The fusion protein, an enveloped glycoprotein essential for viral entry, belongs to the family of class I fusion proteins and is characterized by the presence of two heptad repeat (HR) regions, HR1 and HR2. These two regions associate to form a fusion-active hairpin conformation that juxtaposes the viral and cellular membranes to facilitate membrane fusion and enable subsequent viral entry. The Hendra and Nipah virus fusion core proteins were crystallized and their structures determined to 2.2 A resolution. The Nipah and Hendra fusion core structures are six-helix bundles with three HR2 helices packed against the hydrophobic grooves on the surface of a central coiled coil formed by three parallel HR1 helices in an oblique antiparallel manner. Because of the high level of conservation in core regions, it is proposed that the Nipah and Hendra virus fusion cores can provide a model for membrane fusion in all paramyxoviruses. The relatively deep grooves on the surface of the central coiled coil represent a good target site for drug discovery strategies aimed at inhibiting viral entry by blocking hairpin formation.
The Malaysian Government has initiated the National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme, known as PICK, to be a national strategy for addressing the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic across the country. Although the government intensified public awareness to increase program registration, the total number that registered in the state of Sabah, located in East Malaysia, was relatively low during August 2021, accounting for only 42.9% as compared to that of Peninsular Malaysia. Therefore, this paper examines the public perception toward the PICK program in Sabah based on 4 main components: safety, communication, psychology, and milieu. This study is based on the empirical findings drawn from 1024 respondents across Sabah using online Google Form surveys. This study adopts 5 methodologies for data analysis by using K-means clustering, mean score, Mann-Whitney U test, spatial analysis, and frequency analysis. It has been revealed that the percentage of respondents (categorized as Cluster 1) who have a negative perception toward the vaccination program is higher (55.9%) than those who have a positive perception (44.1%). This study further discovered that Cluster 1 has shown high skepticism regarding the vaccination program, which can be explained through the communication component (M = 3.33, SD = 0.588), especially Co2, Co3, Co1, and Co4. Following the communication factor, a chain of negative perceptions also affects other components such as safety, psychology, and milieu among Cluster 1, all of which contribute to poor participation in the PICK program. The study outcomes are extremely useful for informing local authorities to establish policies related to public interests, primarily in the areas of public health. Understanding the community's perspectives and their obstacles in participating in such programs may assist local authorities in developing or implementing public policies and campaigns that ensure such related public programs can be conducted more effectively in the future.
Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.