Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection

  1. Julie Boucau
  2. Caitlin Marino
  3. James Regan
  4. Rockib Uddin
  5. Manish C. Choudhary
  6. James P. Flynn
  7. Geoffrey Chen
  8. Ashley M. Stuckwisch
  9. Josh Mathews
  10. May Y. Liew
  11. Arshdeep Singh
  12. Taryn Lipiner
  13. Autumn Kittilson
  14. Meghan Melberg
  15. Yijia Li
  16. Rebecca F. Gilbert
  17. Zahra Reynolds
  18. Surabhi L. Iyer
  19. Grace C. Chamberlin
  20. Tammy D. Vyas
  21. Marcia B. Goldberg
  22. Jatin M. Vyas
  23. Jonathan Z. Li
  24. Jacob E. Lemieux
  25. Mark J. Siedner
  26. Amy K. Barczak

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. Version published to 10.1056/nejmc2202092
  2. Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases

    Luciana Jesus da Costa

    Review 2: "Duration of viable virus shedding in SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant infection"

    This preprint focuses on the viral shedding classification of Sars-CoV-2 in Omicron and Delta variant infections including incubation and transmission rates of the virus and notes similarities between the variants' viral factors. The reviewers found this study’s claims reliable.

  3. Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases

    Venkataramana Kandi

    Review 1: "Duration of viable virus shedding in SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant infection"

    This preprint focuses on the viral shedding classification of Sars-CoV-2 in Omicron and Delta variant infections including incubation and transmission rates of the virus and notes similarities between the variants' viral factors. The reviewers found this study’s claims reliable.

  5. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.01.22271582: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Study approval: Study procedures were approved by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board and the Institutional Biosafety Committee at Mass General Brigham.
    IACUC: Study approval: Study procedures were approved by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board and the Institutional Biosafety Committee at Mass General Brigham.
    Consent: All participants gave verbal informed consent, as written consent was waived by the review committee based on the risk to benefit ratio of requiring in-person interactions for an observational study of COVID-19.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationAfter 15min, for each test, a picture was taken, given a randomized ID and the results interpreted by three readers, blinded to the specimen ID.
    BlindingAfter 15min, for each test, a picture was taken, given a randomized ID and the results interpreted by three readers, blinded to the specimen ID.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Briefly, Vero-E6 cells (American Type Culture Collection) maintained in DMEM (Corning) supplemented with HEPES (Corning),
    Vero-E6
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The samples were submitted to NCBI with Bioproject Accession numbers PRJNA715749 or PRJNA759255.
    Bioproject
    suggested: (NCBI BioProject, RRID:SCR_004801)
    Raw sequence data was analyzed with PASeq v1.4 (
    PASeq
    suggested: None
    Antigen testing using Abbott BinaxNow SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Assay: The AN VTM aliquots were thawed on ice and 50uL was transferred in a tube.
    Abbott BinaxNow
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.01.22271582v1 on medRxiv