National Institutes of Health scientists studying SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have defined in Syrian hamsters how different routes of virus exposure are linked to disease severity. Their study, published in Nature Communications, details the efficiency of airborne transmission between hamsters and examines how the virus replicates and causes disease throughout the respiratory
CTLA4 deficiency is a rare disorder that severely impairs the normal regulation of the immune system and was first identified by NIAID scientists in 2014.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate a novel and scalable intervention that combines Video Directly Observed Therapy (vDOT) and financial incentives to promote completion of treatment for latent tuberculosis.
Assessment of PrEP Eligibility Tool Among the General Population in Uganda
To reduce the spread of HIV infection, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in populations with an annual HIV infection incidence greater than 3%. Given that the annual HIV incidence in Uganda is estimated at 0.40% (0.46% among females and 0.35% among males), there are people who may have a higher HIV risk and may benefit from PrEP but are not targeted for services. To further reduce the spread of HIV in Uganda, researchers used results from three survey rounds of HIV-negative participants within the Rakai Community Cohort Study (RCCS) to estimate the prevalence of high-risk individuals eligible for PrEP within the general population and the incidence of HIV infection associated with eligibility.
In this study, a subset of questions from Uganda’s PrEP eligibility tool that are routinely asked within the RCCS surveys were used to determine PrEP eligibility. Eligibility was defined as reporting at least one of the following HIV risk behaviors in the past 12 months: sexual intercourse with more than one partner of unknown HIV status; nonmarital sex act without a condom; sex engagement in exchange for money, goods, or services; or experiencing genital ulcers. HIV incidence was estimated by analyzing seroconversion from HIV-negative to HIV-positive in participants who contributed to at least two of the survey rounds.
Overall, 29% of participants in the analysis met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 22% reported one HIV risk, 6% reported two HIV risks, and 1% reported three HIV risks. The results showed that PrEP eligible participants had twice the risk of acquiring HIV than their non-eligible counterparts. Furthermore, risk increased threefold in uncircumcised males but not circumcised males. Additionally, men who reported higher prevalence of risky behaviors had lower increase in HIV incidence compared to women, likely due to circumcision status and higher antiretroviral therapy coverage in HIV-infected females, leading to a decrease in transmission to men. The findings of this study support the use of PrEP eligibility screening in general populations with HIV incidence lower than 3% to reduce HIV acquisition even further in these populations.
If you join this study, you will have a scan called PET/CT to find the location of HIV-infected cells. Infected cells need energy to make more HIV, and PET/CT uses radiation to show what parts of the body are using energy.
NIAID experts and collaborators rapidly initiated scientifically rigorous clinical trials to evaluate the most promising candidate therapeutics for COVID-19. NIAID scientists and NIAID-supported researchers continue to conduct basic, translational and clinical research aimed at identifying effective therapeutics for early COVID-19 infection and for hospitalized patients with more advanced disease
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reaffirms our commitment to developing safe and effective medical tools against malaria, and, in the words of this years World Malaria Day theme, Harnessing innovation to reducing the malaria disease burden and saving lives.
Applicant Profile To qualify, you must be at the postdoctoral level to senior faculty level with an advanced doctoral (e.g., M.S.E.E., Ph.D., D.Sc.) degree in a quantitative area of science (e.g., engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer sciences), show evidence of productivity in your field and a desire to expand your research capability with the goal of making significant
A booster dose of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine given to rhesus macaques about six months after their primary vaccine series significantly increased levels of neutralizing antibodies against all known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, according to a new study from National Institutes of Health scientists and colleagues.
As we explained in “Don’t Let Dollars Expire Upon Payment Management System Drawdown,” NIH grant recipients have 120 days from the end of a performance period to liquidate obligations by drawing funds from the Payment Management System (PMS). After 120 days, PMS will automatically reject requests to withdraw funds.
To give a practical scenario: Suppose your lab received a shipment of reagents 1 month before the end of an award’s performance period and your supplier sends a quarterly bill to collect payment, which in this case arrives 2 months after the end of the performance period. You’ll have about 2 months’ time to pay that cost using money from the award’s designated PMS subaccount; if you take longer (i.e., beyond 120 days of your project period ending) then PMS will not allow you direct access to the money.
What happens if you are beyond the 120-day liquidation period with bills still to pay?
First, check the status of your PMS subaccount, which can be open, pending closed, or closed. Subaccounts reach closed status in PMS at the end of the Closeout process. Once a subaccount is closed there is no workaround to access the funds—your institution will need to pay any remaining obligations using other money. Leeway exists only for public health emergencies or natural disasters.
Otherwise, for awards beyond the 120-day liquidation period and with rare circumstances, you may submit a prior approval request to the grants management specialist assigned to your award, receive approval, and then submit a payment request in PMS. In your prior approval request, list the PMS subaccount (e.g., award document number), NIH grant number, amount of funds being requested, and a justification for the late payment request.
We also require that you describe actions your institution will put in place to prevent similar situations in the future. Keep in mind, we will show less leniency toward organizations that repeatedly request payments beyond the 120-day liquidation period.
After approving a request, we will notify PMS to allow the corresponding withdrawal of funds.
If you have questions about the policy, email OPERAFFRInquiries@od.nih.gov. For concerns about a particular award, instead contact the assigned grants management specialist.
Contact Us
Email us at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov for help navigating NIAID’s grant and contract policies and procedures.
An NIAID-supported research company called Osel has developed a novel product called LACTIN-V that consists of a selected strain of Lactobacillus crispatus, one of the bacteria that protect the vagina from invading pathogens, that has been freeze-dried and formulated as a powder. When inserted into the vagina using a specially designed applicator, LACTIN-V helps reestablish the population of these beneficial bacteria.
NIAID plays a leading role in the discovery, development, and characterization of new vaccine adjuvants that may be used to: improve the efficacy of current vaccines; design new or improved vaccines for existing and emerging infectious diseases; and develop vaccines to treat allergies, autoimmune diseases, and cancer.
Last Reviewed: December 14, 2022
Common Skin Bacteria Found Beneficial Against Drying, Aging
Scanning electron micrograph of a clump of Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteria (green) in the extracellular matrix, which connects cells and tissue.
Credit:NIAID
Add Staphylococcus epidermidis to the list of common human bacteria undergoing an image change: From bad reputation of “disease causing” to something helpful – and likely interesting to probiotic users.
S. epidermidis is known as a bacterium that usually colonizes harmlessly on the skin, but can be dangerous when it invades deeper, say through a cut or – more commonly – a surgical implant, such as a catheter. Once established internally, the bacterium can form biofilms that are difficult to treat with antibiotics. S. epidermidis is of particular concern in healthcare settings because it often spreads easily in people who are ill or have weakened immune systems.
The bacterium’s new image is aided by research findings just published by NIAID scientists and colleagues in Cell Host and Microbe. The group showed that S. epidermidis produces enzymes, known as sphingomyelinase, that help the bacteria acquire nutrients and colonize the skin. But the bacterial enzymes also help the skin produce ceramides, which are important components of the outer skin layers that prevent drying and aging of the skin. Low ceramide levels contribute to many skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, commonly called eczema. With colleagues from Shanghai Jiaotong University in China, the NIAID scientists identified how the mutually beneficial relationship works.
The study used research mice and samples from the faces and armpits of human volunteers to verify that S. epidermidis produces sphingomyelinase and that the enzyme is not harmful. In the mice, they then found that the presence of S. epidermidis on the skin significantly increases ceramide levels and prevents water loss from damaged skin. Then they discovered that these processes are entirely dependent on the sphingomyelinase that the bacteria secrete.
Their study points out that – much like in the gut, where scientists are learning about the balance between good and bad bacteria – the same type of harmony takes place on the skin.
“Our study underlines the potential translational use of S. epidermidis in a probiotic fashion to promote skin health during aging or in people suffering from skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis,” the authors state. Such an undertaking would involve a complex clinical trial involving hospitals and clinicians, so nothing is set, though the scientists plan to discuss how and where such a study could proceed. Another NIAID research team has shown in a small study that a probiotic therapy reduced severity of eczema symptoms in children.
Reference: Y Zheng, et al. Commensal Staphylococcus epidermidis contributes to skin barrier homeostasis by generating protective ceramides. Cell Host and Microbe DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2022.01.004 (2022).
Program officers look for applications with the potential to be paradigm-changing.
Credit:NIAID
Each NIH institute approaches the challenge of optimally leveraging its expertise and resources differently. NIAID, in particular, must respond to emerging infectious diseases, which necessitates funding research on many diseases in case an outbreak occurs.
If the applications we receive to study a particular disease land just beyond our payline, we can use selective pay to guard against scientific gaps forming in our research portfolio. Further, we actively manage our research portfolio to maintain balance between basic and translational research, encourage innovative projects where needed, meet spending targets, and respond to public health emergencies.
At the same time, we are eager to fund the most meritorious research as determined by scientific peer review panels.
What does this look like in practice? Below, you’ll find a histogram of the investigator-initiated R01 applications we received in fiscal year (FY) 2023 sorted by percentile score. Blue shaded bars represent the applications that were awarded, red bars represent the applications that were scored but not funded, and yellow bars represent R56-Bridge Awards. These groups are roughly separated by a solid green line representing NIAID’s established investigator payline at the 12th percentile. As the chart shows, all applications that scored within the payline were funded except for those that were held due to issues like concerns over human subjects or principal investigator (PI) retirement.
Note that the chart above includes Method to Extend Research in Time (MERIT) Awards (R37), which provide 5 years of funding to outstanding R01 recipients. We make approximately 15 MERIT awards each year. See MERIT Awards and Extensions SOP to learn more.
The chart does not show “not discussed” applications. An application is “not discussed” and does not receive an overall impact score if reviewers assess it to have a relatively low level of competitiveness for the available funding. This practice allows NIH to focus the discussion on the most meritorious applications.
New PIs and Selective Pay
A small share of applications that fell outside the payline were awarded still. Some of these applications were submitted by New Investigators, who benefit from an R01 payline set higher for new PIs, represented by a second green line at the 16th percentile. This practice allows us to meet the NIH-wide goal of keeping the R01 success rate for new PIs near that of established PIs. Approximately one third of the R01 grants awarded in the 13th through 16th percentiles went to new investigators.
The other awarded R01 applications that fell outside the published payline are recipients of selective pay. Basically, our staff nominate applications that score outside the payline for R01-equivalent funding if they believe the application is especially promising or critical for maintaining portfolio balance. NIAID’s Advisory Council then reviews and recommends nominations for funding. PIs cannot apply for selective pay funding.
Program officers look for applications with the potential to be paradigm-changing. Such applications generally have a respectable score, where the nature of the review panel's criticism centers on riskiness or a lack of preliminary data for an innovative idea with clear potential benefits. In other instances, outcomes driven by a difference of scientific opinion can prompt a decision for selective pay.
R56-Bridge Awards
Another discretionary option staff use to direct our research portfolio is the R56-Bridge Award, depicted in yellow in the chart above, following the process laid out in our NIAID R56-Bridge Award SOP. In short, NIAID chooses promising R01 applications that scored outside the payline to fund for 1 year; during that time, awardees are encouraged to improve and resubmit their R01 application. To be clear, you as an applicant cannot prompt an R56-Bridge Award by request or appeal.
As you can see, we are more likely to select top-scoring applications for R56-Bridge Award funding; however, we will fund an application from any scoring percentile if the project advances our scientific research objectives. These are projects for which 1 year of funding—to gather preliminary data or develop a missing component (e.g., a knockout mouse) or complete proof-of-principle research—will suffice for the investigator to reapply and receive a much-improved score.
Again, NIAID has several goals that accompany our mission to fund the best scoring applications; we want to ensure balance across disciplines, support new PIs, and pursue innovative and high-risk projects with the potential to make a big impact. The R56-Bridge Award lets us do so, and we make about 60 of them each year.
Requests for Applications
It’s worth noting that the chart does not include applications sent in response to requests for applications (RFAs). Solicited applications are usually grouped within an ad hoc peer review panel organized by NIAID’s Scientific Review Program and funded in overall impact/priority score order, rather than distributed across percentiles to account for multiple review panels. We do this because the pool of applications is smaller and varies by RFA, as explained in NIAID’s Funding Decisions and Your Next Steps and Understand Paylines and Percentiles.
For this reason, arranging those applications into percentiles is rarely possible.
In Conclusion
NIAID covers a wide range of scientific topics that range from basic science to clinical research, handles a large volume of applications, and relies on published paylines to guide award decisions. New spending requirements and evolving research priorities may also arise, so we rely on selective pay and bridge awards to maintain an optimal research portfolio. We strive to always fund those applications that score best in peer review, but we also discern which applications outside the payline can help guard against scientific gaps emerging in NIAID’s research portfolio.
Contact Us
Email us at deaweb@niaid.nih.gov for help navigating NIAID’s grant and contract policies and procedures.
