Attenuation of clinical and immunological outcomes during SARS‐CoV‐2 infection by ivermectin

  1. Guilherme Dias de Melo
  2. Françoise Lazarini
  3. Florence Larrous
  4. Lena Feige
  5. Etienne Kornobis
  6. Sylvain Levallois
  7. Agnès Marchio
  8. Lauriane Kergoat
  9. David Hardy
  10. Thomas Cokelaer
  11. Pascal Pineau
  12. Marc Lecuit
  13. Pierre‐Marie Lledo
  14. Jean‐Pierre Changeux
  15. Hervé Bourhy

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.15252/emmm.202114122
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.21.392639: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Ethics: All animal experiments were performed according to the French legislation and in compliance with the European Communities Council Directives (2010/63/UE, French Law 2013–118, February 6, 2013) and according to the regulations of Pasteur Institute Animal Care Committees.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableSARS-CoV-2 model and ivermectin treatment of hamsters: Male and female Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) of 5-6 weeks of age (average weight 60-80 grams) were purchased from Janvier Laboratories and handled under specific pathogen-free conditions.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    The tubes were centrifuged at 10.000 x g during 1 min at 4°C, and the supernatants were titrated on Vero-E6 cells by classical plaque assays using semisolid overlays (Avicel, RC581-NFDR080I, DuPont)31. Statistics: Statistical analysis was performed using Prism software (GraphPad, version 9.0.0, San Diego, USA), with p < 0.05 considered significant.
    Vero-E6
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Generated data were subsequently analyzed with QuantaSoft™ software (Bio-Rad) based on positive and negative droplet populations.
    QuantaSoft™
    suggested: None
    The tubes were centrifuged at 10.000 x g during 1 min at 4°C, and the supernatants were titrated on Vero-E6 cells by classical plaque assays using semisolid overlays (Avicel, RC581-NFDR080I, DuPont)31. Statistics: Statistical analysis was performed using Prism software (GraphPad, version 9.0.0, San Diego, USA), with p < 0.05 considered significant.
    Prism
    suggested: (PRISM, RRID:SCR_005375)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    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. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.21.392639: (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 variableData were obtained from three independent experiments for males and two independent experiments for females.

    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.

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.21.392639 on bioRxiv