Methods of Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 for Downstream Biological Assays

  1. Edward I Patterson
  2. Tessa Prince
  3. Enyia R Anderson
  4. Aitor Casas-Sanchez
  5. Shirley L Smith
  6. Cintia Cansado-Utrilla
  7. Tom Solomon
  8. Michael J Griffiths
  9. Álvaro Acosta-Serrano
  10. Lance Turtle
  11. Grant L Hughes

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The scientific community has responded to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by rapidly undertaking research to find effective strategies to reduce the burden of this disease. Encouragingly, researchers from a diverse array of fields are collectively working towards this goal. Research with infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is undertaken in high-containment laboratories; however, it is often desirable to work with samples at lower-containment levels. To facilitate the transfer of infectious samples from high-containment laboratories, we have tested methods commonly used to inactivate virus and prepare the sample for additional experiments. Incubation at 80°C, a range of detergents, Trizol reagents, and UV energies were successful at inactivating a high titer of SARS-CoV-2. Methanol and paraformaldehyde incubation of infected cells also inactivated the virus. These protocols can provide a framework for in-house inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in other laboratories, ensuring the safe use of samples in lower-containment levels.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/infdis/jiaa507
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.21.108035: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    SARS-CoV-2 isolate REMRQ0001/Human/2020/Liverpool was cultured from a clinical sample and passaged four times in Vero E6 cells.
    Vero E6
    suggested: RRID:CVCL_XD71)

    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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2020.05.21.108035v1 on bioRxiv