| Title |
Effect of nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEFs) on coronavirus survival
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, September 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-023-01601-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jody C. Cantu, Ronald A. Barnes, Bryan M. Gamboa, Allen S. Keister, Ibtissam Echchgadda, Bennett L. Ibey |
| Abstract |
Previous work demonstrated inactivation of influenza virus by GHz frequency electromagnetic fields. Despite theoretical and experimental results, the underlying mechanism driving this inactivation remains unknown. One hypothesis is that the electromagnetic field is causing damage to the virion membrane (and therefore changing spike protein orientation) rendering the virus unable to attach and infect host cells. Towards examining this hypothesis, our group employed nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEFs) as a surrogate to radiofrequency (RF) exposure to enable exploration of dose response thresholds of electric field-induced viral membrane damage. In summary, Bovine coronavirus (BCoV) was exposed, in suspension, to mono and bipolar 600-ns pulsed electric fields (nsPEFs) at two amplitudes (12.5 and 25 kV/cm) and pulse numbers [0 (sham), 1, 5, 10, 100, and 1000] at a 1 Hz (Hz) repetition rate. The temperature rise immediately after exposure(s) was measured using thermocouples to differentiate effects of the electric field (E-field) and heating (i.e., the thermal gradient). Inactivation of BCoV was evaluated by infecting HRT-18G host cells and assessing differences in virus infectivity days after exposure. Our results show that 600 nsPEFs, both bipolar and monopolar, can reduce the infectivity of coronaviruses at various amplitudes, pulse numbers, and pulse polarity. Interestingly, we observed that bipolar exposures appeared to be more efficient at lower exposure intensities than monopolar pulses. Future work should focus on experiments to identify the mechanism underlying nsPEF-induced viral inactivation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#15,457,105
of 25,808,886 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#306
of 1,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,688
of 356,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,808,886 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,336 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.