MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735274296 · doi:10.3851/imp3180

<i>In vitro</i> Susceptibility of Geographically and Temporally Distinct Zika Viruses to Favipiravir and Ribavirin

2016· article· en· W2735274296 on OpenAlexaff
Mariana Baz, Nathalie Goyette, Bryan D. Griffin, Gary Kobinger, Guy Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueAntiviral Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFavipiravirZika virusRibavirinVirologyIn vitroMeningoencephalitisBiologyVirusMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Zika virus, a previously neglected mosquito-borne virus, is prompting worldwide concern because of its connection with congenital defects, Guillain-Barré syndrome, meningoencephalitis and myelitis in infected individuals. However, no specific antiviral therapy is available at present. In this study, we investigated the in vitro susceptibility of geographically and temporally distinct Zika viruses against the RNA polymerase inhibitors, favipiravir (T-705) and ribavirin. Methods The in vitro activity of each drug and a 1:1 mixture combination was assessed against five geographically and temporally distinct Zika strains by plaque reduction assay (PRA), the gold standard phenotypic method. Results We showed that both drugs exhibit in vitro inhibitory activity against five different Zika strains isolated in different years and continents, with mean 50% inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ) values of 35 ±14 and 35 ±20 μM, respectively, by PRA. We did not observe a synergistic effect when both drugs were combined at the equimolar concentration (IC 50 =33 ±11 μM). Conclusions These results indicate that T-705 has the potential to be used in patients with complicated diseases and/or those individuals presenting with significant comorbidities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntiviral TherapySame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207