ArticleHeliyon2024
Optimizing heat inactivation for SARS-CoV-2 at 95 °C and its implications: A standardized approach.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Findings and Recommendations of the RAV3N Applied Biorisk and Biosafety Gap Assessment Workshop.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Standardized and validated heat inactivation procedure for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are not available. For heat inactivation, various protocols were reported to prepare External Quality Assessment Programme (EQAP) samples without direct comparison between different durations. Objective: To assess the heat inactivation procedures against SARS-CoV-2. The efficacy of the optimized condition was reflected by the results from laboratories testing the EQAP samples. Study design: The SARS-CoV-2 strain was exposed to 95 °C in a water bath for three different time intervals, 5 min, 10 min and 15 min, respectively. The efficacy of inactivation was confirmed by the absence of cytopathic effects and decreasing viral load in 3 successive cell line passages. The viral stock inactivated by the optimal time interval was dispatched to EQAP participants and the result returned were analyzed. Results: All of the three conditions were capable of inactivating the SARS-CoV-2 of viral load at around cycle threshold value of 10. When the 95 °C 10 min condition was chosen to prepare SARS-CoV-2 EQAP samples, they showed sufficient homogeneity and stability. High degree of consensus was observed among EQAP participants in all samples dispatched. Conclusions: The conditions evaluated in the present study could be helpful for laboratories in preparing SARS-CoV-2 EQAP samples.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.