Complement C3 vs C5 inhibition in severe COVID-19: Early clinical findings reveal differential biological efficacy

  1. Dimitrios C. Mastellos
  2. Bruno G.P. Pires da Silva
  3. Benedito A.L. Fonseca
  4. Natasha P. Fonseca
  5. Maria Auxiliadora-Martins
  6. Sara Mastaglio
  7. Annalisa Ruggeri
  8. Marina Sironi
  9. Peter Radermacher
  10. Akrivi Chrysanthopoulou
  11. Panagiotis Skendros
  12. Konstantinos Ritis
  13. Ilenia Manfra
  14. Simona Iacobelli
  15. Markus Huber-Lang
  16. Bo Nilsson
  17. Despina Yancopoulou
  18. E. Sander Connolly
  19. Cecilia Garlanda
  20. Fabio Ciceri
  21. Antonio M. Risitano
  22. Rodrigo T. Calado
  23. John D. Lambris

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.17.20174474: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Italy (Approval March 26th 2020 by Ethical Committee of “Istituto Nazionale per le Malattie
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Complement protein levels and C3/C5 activation fragments: C3, C4, and FB levels were determined by nephelometry in patient plasma samples using an IMMAGE 800 protein chemistry analyzer (Beckman Coulter) C3dg levels were measured by nephelometry following PEG precipitation of patient plasma (11 % w/v) and subsequent incubation with an anti-C3d antibody (Dako).
    C3
    suggested: None
    C4
    suggested: None
    anti-C3d
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    t (Prism, GraphPad v 8.0).
    Prism
    suggested: (PRISM, RRID:SCR_005375)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108598
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.17.20174474v1 on medRxiv