@article{HutinLingTarbouriechetal.2022,
  author    = {Hutin, Stephanie and Ling, Wai Li and Tarbouriech, Nicolas and Schoehn, Guy and Grimm, Clemens and Fischer, Utz and Burmeister, Wim P.},
  title     = {The vaccinia virus DNA helicase structure from combined single-particle cryo-electron microscopy and AlphaFold2 prediction},
  series = {Viruses},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Viruses},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {1999-4915},
  doi       = {10.3390/v14102206},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-290523},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Poxviruses are large DNA viruses with a linear double-stranded DNA genome circularized at the extremities. The helicase-primase D5, composed of six identical 90 kDa subunits, is required for DNA replication. D5 consists of a primase fragment flexibly attached to the hexameric C-terminal polypeptide (res. 323-785) with confirmed nucleotide hydrolase and DNA-binding activity but an elusive helicase activity. We determined its structure by single-particle cryo-electron microscopy. It displays an AAA+ helicase core flanked by N- and C-terminal domains. Model building was greatly helped by the predicted structure of D5 using AlphaFold2. The 3.9 {\AA} structure of the N-terminal domain forms a well-defined tight ring while the resolution decreases towards the C-terminus, still allowing the fit of the predicted structure. The N-terminal domain is partially present in papillomavirus E1 and polyomavirus LTA helicases, as well as in a bacteriophage NrS-1 helicase domain, which is also closely related to the AAA+ helicase domain of D5. Using the Pfam domain database, a D5_N domain followed by DUF5906 and Pox_D5 domains could be assigned to the cryo-EM structure, providing the first 3D structures for D5_N and Pox_D5 domains. The same domain organization has been identified in a family of putative helicases from large DNA viruses, bacteriophages, and selfish DNA elements.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WernerPoppFichtneretal.2022,
  author    = {Werner, Anne and Popp, Maria and Fichtner, Falk and Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Kranke, Peter and Steckelberg, Anke and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Redlich, Lisa Marie and Dickel, Steffen and Grimm, Clemens and Moerer, Onnen and Nothacker, Monika and Seeber, Christian},
  title     = {COVID-19 intensive care — Evaluation of public information sources and current standards of care in German intensive care units: a cross sectional online survey on intensive care staff in Germany},
  series = {Healthcare},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Healthcare},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {2227-9032},
  doi       = {10.3390/healthcare10071315},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.},
  language  = {en}
}