Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in human post-mortem ocular tissues

  1. Onkar B. Sawant
  2. Sneha Singh
  3. Robert Emery Wright
  4. Kayla M. Jones
  5. Michael S. Titus
  6. Eugene Dennis
  7. Eric Hicks
  8. Parag A. Majmudar
  9. Ashok Kumar
  10. Shahzad I. Mian

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jtos.2020.11.002
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.05.20201574: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The University of Michigan medical school institutional review board (IRBMED) determined that this study does not fit the definition of human subjects research requiring IRB approval.
    IACUC: Laboratory experiments from this study were approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) at the Wayne State University (IBC# 20-04-2164).
    Consent: The donors’ families had provided consent for cornea and whole eye recovery for research purposes, and all cases were in the U.S. states of Michigan or New Jersey.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    The sections were permeabilized and blocked with 10% normal goat serum with 0.5% Triton X-100 for two hours at RT and incubated overnight with primary mouse anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike or envelope antibodies (BEI Resources, NIAID) (1:100).
    anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    The next day, sections were rinsed four times with PBS (10 minutes each) and incubated with anti-mouse/rabbit Alexa Fluor 485/594-conjugated secondary antibodies (1:200) for 2 h at RT.
    anti-mouse/rabbit
    suggested: (Biorbyt Cat# orb27530, RRID:AB_10954533)

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.05.20201574v1 on medRxiv