Alpha variant versus D614G strain in the Syrian hamster model
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Late 2020, SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant from lineage B.1.1.7 emerged in United Kingdom and gradually replaced the G614 strains initially involved in the global spread of the pandemic. In this study, we used a Syrian hamster model to compare a clinical strain of Alpha variant with an ancestral G614 strain. The Alpha variant succeeded to infect animals and to induce a pathology that mimics COVID-19. However, both strains replicated to almost the same level and induced a comparable disease and immune response. A slight fitness advantage was noted for the G614 strain during competition and transmission experiments. These data do not corroborate the epidemiological situation observed during the first half of 2021 in humans nor reports that showed a more rapid replication of Alpha variant in human reconstituted bronchial epithelium.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.440435: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.440435: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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.
-