Nature Briefing

Hello Nature readers, Today we thrill to a breakthrough technique for imaging molecules, explore how the COVID-19 pandemic will change science and learn that some ‘non-lethal’ crowd-control weapons can cause serious harm.

A Cryo-EM map of the protein apoferritin. (Paul Emsley/MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology)

See proteins’ individual atoms for first time A game-changing technique for imaging molecules has produced its sharpest pictures yet — and, for the first time, has discerned individual atoms in a protein. The cryo-electron microscopy breakthrough, reported by two laboratories late last month, will ultimately help researchers to understand how proteins work in health and disease, and will lead to better drugs with fewer side effects. “It’s really a milestone, that’s for sure. There’s really nothing to break anymore. This was the last resolution barrier,” says biochemist and electron microscopist Holger Stark. Nature | 5 min read Reference: bioRxiv preprint 1 & bioRxiv preprint 2

Science after the COVID-19 pandemic (Illustration by The Project Twins) Outbreak could ease drug trials Some researchers and companies in the drug-development field say the system might never be the same again. Companies that are usually competitors are now collaborators, and many are strengthening their supply chains to deal with disruption. And virtual clinical trials, in which consultations are done online and as much paperwork and data as possible are collected remotely, are among the few that haven’t had to be put on hold. Nature | 6 min read Scientists’ worlds will shrink The pandemic has forced researchers to grapple with how restrictions on their movement will affect the way science is conducted. Some fear that these limitations could lead to a world that favours elite scientists and established teams with less need to network, while other groups lose collaborators and become marginalized, and that fieldwork will become a luxury. Or, the opposite could turn out to be true: travel restrictions could help to democratize science, if virtual working allows access to more connections for people who cannot easily travel. Nature | 6 min read Read more in our series on science after the pandemic: Universities will never be the same (9 min read) How scientific conferences will survive (5 min read) The pandemic will make or break research funding (5 min read) The risk to China’s race to the top of science (5 min read) Is this scientific publishing’s new normal? (6 min read)

COVID-19: Hydroxychloroquine news update India doubles down on controversial drug India’s government has extended its recommendation that frontline workers take the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to prevent coronavirus infections. Scientists have criticised the government for issuing advice on the basis of unpublished data and a published study that was not designed to test whether the drug actually prevents infection. Doctors point to cases where the government’s advice has contributed to widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, despite possible side effects. Nature | 5 min read WHO restarts hydroxychloroquine trial The World Health Organization (WHO) has resumed testing hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. The drug was temporarily removed from the WHO’s global Solidarity trial because of safety concerns raised by a large observational study published in The Lancet. Yesterday, the journal issued an expression of concern, and noted that an independent audit of the data has been commissioned. (Time | 5 min read) No evidence for hydroxychloroquine protection A large clinical trial has found no evidence that hydroxychloroquine protects people from COVID-19. The gold-standard trial randomly assigned 821 people to take either hydroxychloroquine or a placebo within 4 days of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of people who developed COVID-19 within two weeks, but those taking the drug did report more side effects than did those taking the placebo. People were not tested unless they showed symptoms, so the study doesn’t take asymptomatic cases into account. NPR | 4 min read Reference: New England Journal of Medicine paper Get more of Nature’s continuously updated selection of the must-read papers and preprints on COVID-19.

Features & opinion

The CDC: what happened? A new pandemic was not unexpected to scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). What shocked many observers was how poorly the organization coordinated its response. “Here is an agency that has been waiting its entire existence for this moment,” said public-health researcher and policymaker Peter Lurie. “And then they flub it. It is very sad. That is what they were set up to do.” The New York Times | 29 min read