Carvalho, C. A. M. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2020

In Vitro Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Bovine Lactoferrin

Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been posing a serious threat to public health worldwide as the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Now distributed in a pandemic pattern, this disease still lacks an effective drug treatment with low toxicity, leading pharmaceutical companies and research labs to work against time to find a candidate molecule to efficiently treat the affected patients. Due to the well-known broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity of the lactoferrin protein, we sought to verify whether its bovine form (bLf) would also be effective in vitro against SARS-CoV-2. Using an antiviral assay based on quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), we found that bLf reduced progeny virus yield by up to [~]84,6% in African green monkey kidney epithelial cells (Vero E6) and [~]68,6% in adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells (A549) at 1 mg/mL, a concentration previously shown to have low cytotoxicity. Therefore, our preliminary data suggest that bLf has the potential to constitute a biochemical approach to fight the new coronavirus pandemic.

microbiology↗

bioRxiv2019

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

BackgroundPreprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the readers ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. MethodsIn this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. ResultsPeer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. ConclusionsOur results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

scientific communication and education↗