Comparative Study of Mechanisms of Herpes Simplex Virus Inactivation by Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and <i>n</i> -Lauroylsarcosine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms of herpes simplex virus (HSV) inactivation by sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and n-lauroylsarcosine (LS), two anionic surfactants with protein denaturant potency, have been evaluated in cultured cells. Results showed that pretreatment of HSV type 1 (HSV-1) strain F and HSV-2 strain 333 with either surfactant inhibited, in a concentration- and time-dependent manner, their infectivities on Vero cells. SLS was a more potent inhibitor of HSV-2 strain 333 infectivity than LS with respect to the concentration (4.8-fold lower) and time (2.4-fold shorter) required to completely inactivate the virus. No inhibition of both herpesvirus strains infectivities was observed when Vero cells were pretreated with either surfactant. LS prevented the binding of HSV-2 strain 333 to cells without affecting the stable attachment and the rate of penetration into cells, whereas SLS exerted the opposite effect. Both SLS and LS inhibited, in a concentration-dependent manner, the HSV-2 strain 333-induced cytopathic effect, probably by affecting newly synthesized virions that come into contact with surfactant molecules present in culture medium. The pretreatment of HSV-2 strain 333 with specific combinations of SLS and LS concentrations inhibited the viral infectivity in a synergistic manner and resulted in only a small increase in their toxicities for exponentially growing Vero cells compared with that caused by each compound alone. Taken together, these results suggest that SLS and LS, alone or combined, could represent potent candidates as microbicides in topical vaginal formulations to prevent the transmission of herpes and possibly other pathogens that cause sexually transmitted diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus type 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".