Preparation of antiviral multispray with cationic antimicrobial dialkyldimethyl ammonium salt and sulfobetaine against new coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-2)
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
The novel sudden acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is an enveloped virus currently causing severe illness and death worldwide. Common antiseptics such as alcohol have some efficacy in disinfecting everyday surroundings, but development of more effective disinfectants is imperative. A series of studies focusing on cationic antimicrobials resulted in the development of a safe and effective novel coronavirus disinfectant, DEA-171, which provides ≥99.98 % inhibition of all novel coronavirus variants within 1 min.
Article activity feed
-
-
Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript for publication in Access Microbiology and for confirming the number of repeats completed for the experiments in Table 3. I am pleased to tell you that your article has now been accepted for publication in Access Microbiology. Upon request the author has provided further supplementary material that will be included with the published version or record.
-
-
Comments to Author
I am happy that the authors have responded to most of the comments I just have a few remaining comments: 1. I asked about repeats and the authors only stated that the disinfectant worked in a different situation. Can they please confirm that the experiments in the table 3 represent the average results of 3-5 independent repeats? Or is representative of 3-5 repeats. 2. The discussion remains very short and superficial. Only two references are cited in the entire section. 3. I missed this before - but, they need an ethical statement for the animal work. 4. This is minor, but the series of short sections on biosafety could be combined together into a single section.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the …
Comments to Author
I am happy that the authors have responded to most of the comments I just have a few remaining comments: 1. I asked about repeats and the authors only stated that the disinfectant worked in a different situation. Can they please confirm that the experiments in the table 3 represent the average results of 3-5 independent repeats? Or is representative of 3-5 repeats. 2. The discussion remains very short and superficial. Only two references are cited in the entire section. 3. I missed this before - but, they need an ethical statement for the animal work. 4. This is minor, but the series of short sections on biosafety could be combined together into a single section.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript for publication in Access Microbiology. This was examined again by expert reviewers and a minor amendment of this manuscript will be required before a decision can be made on its publication. I will be pleased to consider a revised manuscript along with a document including a point by point response to each of the reviewers comments. In particular, please confirm the number of repeats completed for the experiments in table 3. Access Microbiology has an open data policy and therefore, all data must be made publicly available which includes replicate data.
-
-
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Access Microbiology. It has been examined by expert reviewers who have concluded that the work is of potential interest to the readership of Access Microbiology. However, based on the comments received, it is clear that a major revision of this manuscript will be required before a decision can be made on its publication. The introduction and discussion sections need to be improved, to include more references of either original research articles / review articles and a more in depth discussion about the results in the broader context of anti-viral disinfectants. The results section is incomplete, either the FCoV and flu results need to be included and discussed or they should be removed from the manuscript. The toxicity results should be moved from the supplementary to the …
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Access Microbiology. It has been examined by expert reviewers who have concluded that the work is of potential interest to the readership of Access Microbiology. However, based on the comments received, it is clear that a major revision of this manuscript will be required before a decision can be made on its publication. The introduction and discussion sections need to be improved, to include more references of either original research articles / review articles and a more in depth discussion about the results in the broader context of anti-viral disinfectants. The results section is incomplete, either the FCoV and flu results need to be included and discussed or they should be removed from the manuscript. The toxicity results should be moved from the supplementary to the manuscript. As these comments have been raised by both reviewers and myself, they need to be addressed in the revised manuscript before a decision can be made on its publication. I will be pleased to consider a revised manuscript along with a document including a point by point response to each of the reviewers comments. Your revised manuscript may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers, along with your itemised response to the reviewers’ comments.
-
Comments to Author
This is a short report on the effectiveness of a particular disinfectant against SARS-CoV-2. In that regard, there are no major issues. However, the authors have ignored the previous reviewers requests for further information, so the paper remains incomplete. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data The methods are not described in any great detail - as noted by the previous reviewer. In fact, the authors openly state "no additional information has been provided", despite a clear request. The authors should, as is conventional, provide either a more detailed description of methods or cite a paper that describes the method in detail. Saying "the plaque method" is not sufficient for any publication. The experiments, do however appear to have been performed …
Comments to Author
This is a short report on the effectiveness of a particular disinfectant against SARS-CoV-2. In that regard, there are no major issues. However, the authors have ignored the previous reviewers requests for further information, so the paper remains incomplete. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data The methods are not described in any great detail - as noted by the previous reviewer. In fact, the authors openly state "no additional information has been provided", despite a clear request. The authors should, as is conventional, provide either a more detailed description of methods or cite a paper that describes the method in detail. Saying "the plaque method" is not sufficient for any publication. The experiments, do however appear to have been performed correctly. Can the authors confirm that each experiment was performed more that once? Although statistics would normally be required for this sort of work - I note that the data basically show a complete killing of the virus (to the detection limit), so this is not essential. 2. Presentation of results No issues with presentation as a table here. Again - though, the authors have ignored the previous comment about presenting the data for the experiments they say they did. The authors mention the use of influenza virus as a control - which is fine and they should add "(data not shown)" to the appropriate sentence. However, they claim to have performed experiments with FCoV, but show no data and the only reason provided for this is that the SARS-CoV-2 data is important. I actually agree - so simply remove the description of FCoV from the methods and there would be no problem. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings No major issues that cannot be corrected in copy editing. 4. Literature analysis or discussion The literature analysis and discussion are very poor. They focus entirely on this disinfectant and do not even attempt to discuss these data in the broader context of anti-viral disinfectants. I do understand that word limits on short reports play a role here, but even so this could at least be expanded with some citations of review articles in the area.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Abstract and intro - severe, not sudden Intro does not have adequate references, e.g. On effectiveness of ethanol, hypochlorite, benzalkonium etc. Nor does dicussion. References are too little In table, why are country names beside strains? They were alll isolated in Japan and it is hard to say cocluslively where variants come from and so I would refrain from associating specific countries any further with specific variants I have several concerns about the data but I cannot see the supplementary files. Toxicity data needs to be moved out of supplement. You need to show this data. This needs done. When running the virus infectivity studies, did you include a no virus control to show the effect of your product on the cells used for titration? This is an important control. This needs done. You need …
Comments to Author
Abstract and intro - severe, not sudden Intro does not have adequate references, e.g. On effectiveness of ethanol, hypochlorite, benzalkonium etc. Nor does dicussion. References are too little In table, why are country names beside strains? They were alll isolated in Japan and it is hard to say cocluslively where variants come from and so I would refrain from associating specific countries any further with specific variants I have several concerns about the data but I cannot see the supplementary files. Toxicity data needs to be moved out of supplement. You need to show this data. This needs done. When running the virus infectivity studies, did you include a no virus control to show the effect of your product on the cells used for titration? This is an important control. This needs done. You need to show the data for flu and calicivirus or else don't mention them. Add them to the SARS2 table. This needs done.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
Thank you for submitting your short communication to Access Microbiology. Before considering this short communication, the following points need to be addressed. 1. The method section needs to be improved, this should be comprehensive and provide sufficient detail to allow your work to be replicated. Currently, the detail in the method section is very limited and this needs to be expanded upon. Avoid writing the method section in bullet points, instead use paragraphs. Authors are encouraged to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) for all cell lines. RRIDs can be found via the RRID portal: scicrunch.org/resources. The rationale for including different time points across the different virus test conditions should also be explained. 2. Some results are missing from the results section. The results section does not include …
Thank you for submitting your short communication to Access Microbiology. Before considering this short communication, the following points need to be addressed. 1. The method section needs to be improved, this should be comprehensive and provide sufficient detail to allow your work to be replicated. Currently, the detail in the method section is very limited and this needs to be expanded upon. Avoid writing the method section in bullet points, instead use paragraphs. Authors are encouraged to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) for all cell lines. RRIDs can be found via the RRID portal: scicrunch.org/resources. The rationale for including different time points across the different virus test conditions should also be explained. 2. Some results are missing from the results section. The results section does not include bioactivity results for influenzae virus and Feline CaliciVirus but this was included in the methods section, what was the reason for this? Should either remove both from the method section or include the results. The results from the toxicity tests have also not been included in the results section. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
-