
For SARS-CoV-2 disinfection systems or applications that are based on UVC, UVB or UVA irradiation, it would be desirable to have a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate for tests and development, which does not require a laboratory with a high biosafety level. The bacteriophage Phi 6, an enveloped RNA virus like coronaviruses, is an obvious candidate for such a surrogate. In this study, UVC, UVB and UVA log-reduction doses for Phi6 are determined by plaque assay. Log-reduction doses for SARS-CoV-2 are retrieved from a literature research. Because of a high variability of the published results, median log-reduction doses are determined for defined spectral ranges and compared to Phi6 data in the same intervals. The measured Phi6 log-reduction doses for UVC (254 nm), UVB (311 nm) and UVA (365 nm) are 31.7, 980 and 14 684 mJ/cm2, respectively. The determined median log-reduction doses for SARS-CoV-2 are much lower, only about 1.7 mJ/cm2 within the spectral interval 251–270 nm. Therefore, Phi6 can be photoinactivated by all UV wavelengths but it is much less UV sensitive compared to SARS-CoV-2 in all UV spectral ranges. Thus, Phi6 is no convincing SARS-CoV-2 surrogate in UV applications.
Citation: Laura Weyersberg, Eva Klemens, Jule Buehler, Petra Vatter, Martin Hessling. UVC, UVB and UVA susceptibility of Phi6 and its suitability as a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(3): 278-291. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022020
[1] | Bo Wei, Rui Wang, Le Wang, Chao Du . Prognostic factor identification by analysis of the gene expression and DNA methylation data in glioma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3909-3924. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020217 |
[2] | Ji-Ming Wu, Wang-Ren Qiu, Zi Liu, Zhao-Chun Xu, Shou-Hua Zhang . Integrative approach for classifying male tumors based on DNA methylation 450K data. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19133-19151. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023845 |
[3] | Xiuxian Zhu, Xianxiong Ma, Chuanqing Wu . A methylomics-correlated nomogram predicts the recurrence free survival risk of kidney renal clear cell carcinoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8559-8576. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021424 |
[4] | Jun Wang, Mingzhi Gong, Zhenggang Xiong, Yangyang Zhao, Deguo Xing . Immune-related prognostic genes signatures in the tumor microenvironment of sarcoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(3): 2243-2257. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021113 |
[5] | Ming-Xi Zhu, Tian-Yang Zhao, Yan Li . Insight into the mechanism of DNA methylation and miRNA-mRNA regulatory network in ischemic stroke. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 10264-10283. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023450 |
[6] | Ye Hu, Meiling Wang, Kainan Wang, Jiyue Gao, Jiaci Tong, Zuowei Zhao, Man Li . A potential role for metastasis-associated in colon cancer 1 (MACC1) as a pan-cancer prognostic and immunological biomarker. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8331-8353. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021413 |
[7] | Dong-feng Li, Aisikeer Tulahong, Md. Nazim Uddin, Huan Zhao, Hua Zhang . Meta-analysis identifying epithelial-derived transcriptomes predicts poor clinical outcome and immune infiltrations in ovarian cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 6527-6551. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021324 |
[8] | Huiqing Wang, Xiao Han, Jianxue Ren, Hao Cheng, Haolin Li, Ying Li, Xue Li . A prognostic prediction model for ovarian cancer using a cross-modal view correlation discovery network. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 736-764. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024031 |
[9] | Huili Yang, Wangren Qiu, Zi Liu . Anoikis-related mRNA-lncRNA and DNA methylation profiles for overall survival prediction in breast cancer patients. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1590-1609. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024069 |
[10] | Yong Xiao, Zhen Wang, Mengjie Zhao, Wei Ji, Chong Xiang, Taiping Li, Ran Wang, Kun Yang, Chunfa Qian, Xianglong Tang, Hong Xiao, Yuanjie Zou, Hongyi Liu . A novel defined risk signature of interferon response genes predicts the prognosis and correlates with immune infiltration in glioblastoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 9481-9504. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022441 |
For SARS-CoV-2 disinfection systems or applications that are based on UVC, UVB or UVA irradiation, it would be desirable to have a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate for tests and development, which does not require a laboratory with a high biosafety level. The bacteriophage Phi 6, an enveloped RNA virus like coronaviruses, is an obvious candidate for such a surrogate. In this study, UVC, UVB and UVA log-reduction doses for Phi6 are determined by plaque assay. Log-reduction doses for SARS-CoV-2 are retrieved from a literature research. Because of a high variability of the published results, median log-reduction doses are determined for defined spectral ranges and compared to Phi6 data in the same intervals. The measured Phi6 log-reduction doses for UVC (254 nm), UVB (311 nm) and UVA (365 nm) are 31.7, 980 and 14 684 mJ/cm2, respectively. The determined median log-reduction doses for SARS-CoV-2 are much lower, only about 1.7 mJ/cm2 within the spectral interval 251–270 nm. Therefore, Phi6 can be photoinactivated by all UV wavelengths but it is much less UV sensitive compared to SARS-CoV-2 in all UV spectral ranges. Thus, Phi6 is no convincing SARS-CoV-2 surrogate in UV applications.
Tumor purity is defined as the proportion of cancer cells in tumor tissues [1,2]. As a source of confounding factor, tumor purity has also been recognized to have significant impact on a variety of high-throughput data analyses based on gene expression or DNA methylation data. In this case, estimating tumor purity in the admixture of cells constituting tumor microenvironment is an important step to perform cancer genomic or epigenetic analyses. Inaccurate estimation of tumor purity would jeopardize downstream analyses such as clustering, association study and differential analysis between tumor samples [3]. Traditionally, tumor purity is generally estimated by pathologists using experimental methods, for example, using Immuno-histochemistry (IHC). In recent years, a number of computational methods have been developed to estimate tumor purity from different types of genomic data such as DNA copy numbers [4], gene expression [5], and DNA methylation [1,6,7,8]. These methods are comprehensively reviewed and compared [9,10]. Among all those types of genomic data, DNA methylation is deemed to be one of the most suitable data for purity estimation due to the following reasons: 1) DNA methylation is a long-term, and more stable biomarker than gene expression in detecting cancers [11]; 2) Nearby CpG sites are highly co-methylated under the mechanism of methyltransferase enzymes, which potentially reduces the random noises and increases inferring accuracy; 3) CpG sites in each individual cell are either methylated (methylation level = 1) or unmethylated (methylation level = 0), so methylation ratio of a tumor tissue intrinsically reflects proportion of some certain cell types. Under these considerations, we proposed InfiniumPurify, a tool for estimating purities of tumor samples based on Illumina Infinium 450 k methylation microarray [7,12]. It estimates the tumor purity by exploiting the beta value distribution of the most differential DNA methylation sites (informative differentially methylated CpG sites, iDMCs). Along this line, PAMES updated the selection of iDMCs by taking advantage of highly clonal cancer specific CpG sites [6]. MEpurity uses a beta mixture model to estimate tumor purity from only tumor methylation data [8].
In spite of the advances in this field, it is still technically challenging for biological and clinical researchers to take advantage of the methodological development. A main reason is that the aforementioned tools are developed based on various platforms, for example, InfiniumPurify [12] and PAMES are R packages, while MEpurity was written in C++. Using these tools could be a daunting task for many researchers since they require non-trivial computational skills, thus, there is an urgent need for a set of more accessible and intuitive tools. In this work, we develop Purimeth, an interactive and user-friendly web-based tool for analyzing cancer DNA methylation data, which can implement purity estimation and downstream data analyses accounting for tumor purity in a few clicks. By uploading beta value matrices of both tumor and normal samples, purity of tumor samples can be obtained by using three state-of-the-art tools for purity estimation from DNA methylation array data, i.e., InfiniumPurify, MEpurity and PAMES. Based on the purity estimates, users can perform a series of DNA methylation analyses accounting for tumor purity, including differential methylation analysis, clustering tumor samples into subtypes and purification of tumor methylomes. Users are also allowed to download and explore purities of 9364 tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) using nine methods including ESTIMATE [5], ABSOLUTE [4], LUMP, IHC, CPE [1], InfiniumPurify [12], PAMES [6], MEpurity [8] and Consensus (see the Result section for detail).
The Purimeth webserver system consists of five major modules: GetPurity, Differential methylation (DM), Clustering, Purification and TCGA purity exploration. The general workflow of Purimeth in a typical data analysis is illustrated in Figure 1. First of all, it requires a matrix of methylation levels (in beta values) for tumor samples, and optionally a matrix of methylation levels for normal samples or cancer type as input (Figure 1A). After inputting these data, users can then estimate tumor purity using one of the three methods, i.e., InfiniumPurify, MEpurity and PAMES (Figure 1B). Finally, with estimated purities, users can perform variety of downstream data analyses including differential methylation (DM), clustering, or purification of tumor methylomes (Figure 1C).
Purimeth allows users to upload methylation profiles of tumor and normal sample from either 450 k or 850 k array in the form of a.txt, .zip or.gz file, where rows and columns represent the CpG sites and samples respectively. In some modules, users need to upload purity file (in same format) for tumor samples as well. For the convenience of users, we provide example data files for breast tumor samples and matched normal samples from TCGA and their corresponding tumor purity file on the website.
Increasing attention has been devoted to the relationship between tumor purity and various studies on tumor samples. For the purpose of obtaining the purity of the tumor sample fast and sound, the "GetPurity" module allows users to estimate purities of tumor samples by InfiniumPurify, MEpurity or PAMES on the same page according to the method selected. InfininumPurify estimates purity from the probability density of methylation levels of iDMCs from cancer-normal comparisons. MEpurity estimates tumor purity based on tumor-only Illumina Infinium 450 k methylation microarray data using a beta mixture model-based algorithm. PAMES uses the methylation level of a few dozens of highly clonal tumor type specific CpG sites to estimate the purity of tumor samples, and only works for 450 k array data in its current edition. For MEpurity users only need to upload DNA methylation matrix (where rows are for CpG sites and columns for samples). And for InfiniumPurify and PAMES, besides the beta value matrix of tumor samples, either cancer type that can be specified by the select button 'Cancer Type' or normal sample data should be inputted. In addition, the cancer type should be specified for InfiniumPurify if the inputted normal samples are insufficient for iDMC identification (less than 20). Once a file is uploaded, the first six rows of the data will automatically be shown so that the user can confirm whether the file is correct (same for other modules). With a click on the "Run" button, a table with the estimated purities of tumor samples will be displayed in the Result panel (Figure 2A). Meanwhile, a barplot will be shown in the Plot panel for visualizing the estimated purities (Figure 2B). To provide users a reference, we tested the running time of three methods using a typical example data of 20 tumor samples, which are shown in Figure 2C. When inputting only tumor samples, MEpurity takes more than 10 seconds to get the result, while InfinumPurify and PAMES take only less than 1 second. When both tumor and matched normal samples are input, MEpurity does not work in this case, while InfiniumPurity still runs faster than PAMES.
Differential methylation (DM) between tumor and normal samples, or between two groups of tumor samples showing different phenotypes is a central task in cancer epigenomics research. The differentially methylated CpG sites (DMCs) or regions (DMRs) could potentially serve as diagnostic biomarkers or therapeutic targets [13,14,15,16]. In Purimeth, DM module contains two submodules, "Tumor vs Normal" and "Tumor1 vs Tumor2", allowing users to infer the differentially methylated CpG sites accounting for tumor purity. These two modules correspond to our two previous works [7,17], both of which are based on the generalized linear regression model and Wald test to call DM sites. For 'tumor vs normal', users are needed to input beta value matrices of tumor and normal samples, as well as tumor purity file for tumor samples, which could be obtained from the "GetPurity" module. And for "tumor1 vs tumor2", beta value matrices and tumor purity files (obtained from the first module) for both subtypes of tumor samples are required. Purimeth will return a list of differentially methylated CpG sites sorted by their q-values (Figure 3A). Meanwhile, besides a heat map showing the top N differentially methylated CpG sites (N could be set by users) (Figure 3B), it will also provide a scatter plot illustrating log2 fold change of average corrected methylation level between two sample groups for CpG sites (Figure 3C).
The identification of tumor subtypes is of great significance for the early diagnosis and clinical treatment of cancer. Given both DNA methylation profiles of tumor samples and tumor purities, the "Clustering" module allows users to cluster tumor samples into different subtypes. It models the subtype of a tumor mixture sample as a latent variable in a statistical model and solves it by the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm [18]. The purity file inputted can be obtained from "GetPurity" module, other purity estimation tools or pathologists. This module performs with the adjustment of several parameters including the number of clusters, the maximum number of iterations and tolerance for convergence of EM iterations. The clustering result shows the predicted subtype for each sample (Figure 4A) and visualizes all samples by plotting the first two principal components of the data (Figure 4B).
Methylation profiles of pure cancer cells can be hardly obtained from real tumor tissues which are always mixtures of normal and cancer cells. In this situation, the "Purification" module aims to infer methylation profiles of pure cancer cells from tumor mixture samples, matched normal samples and tumor purities. This module implements a regression-based model to get rid of the normal cell signals and obtain pure cancer cell methylomes. After uploading the data and clicking the 'Run' button, Purimeth will report purified methylation profiles in a table (Figure 5A), and show the boxplots of tumor, normal and purified tumor data for 4 example CpG sites (Figure 5B). Users can also show barplots for any CpG sites (sorted by the average methylation difference between tumor and purified tumor samples) of interest by using the input box "Choose a CpG(s) site for plot".
A number of tools have been proposed to estimate tumor purity for TCGA tumor samples from different types of genomics data by using different underline models. However, the estimates for the same samples vary by method. Thus comparison and integration of estimates from different methods are needed. Motivated by Aran et al. [1], we created a consensus purity estimate (named "Consensus") by taking the median of purities estimated from five available methods including ABSOLUTE, ESTIMATE, LUMP, IHC and InfiniumPurify after normalization. Compared with the original CPE method, our update method includes the purities of InfiniumPurify. In the last module, Purimeth integrates tumor purity estimates of TCGA tumor samples using Consensus and the following eight state-of-the-art tools, i.e., ESTIMATE, ABSOLUTE, LUMP, IHC, CPE, InfiniumPurify, PAMES and MEpurity. Users can select any cancer types, methods and samples of interest to obtain their corresponding purities which will be shown in the result panel (Figure 6A). If multiple samples are inputted, each sample should be separated by a comma. Based on the number of samples from the same cancer type, the plot panel will display two different figures. If there is only one sample for a cancer type, a bar plot will be displayed for this cancer type (Figure 6B). Otherwise, a box plot will be generated for each selected cancer type or method (Figure 6C). To compare the performance of different methods, we calculate the Pearson's correlation between each of the two methods on 21 cancer types and all merged samples. As shown in Figure 6D, InfiniumPurify and Consensus methods show the highest overall consistence for all cancer types compared to other methods.
Estimating and accounting for tumor purity from DNA methylation data are hot topics in cancer research. In recent years, multiple purity estimation tools have been developed by different algorithms and software platforms. Using these tools could be a daunting task for many researchers since those methods require non-trivial computational skills. In this work, we developed Purimeth, an integrated web-based tool for estimating and accounting for tumor purity in DNA methylation studies. Besides Infinium 450 k array data, our tool was also tested on the latest EPIC bead chip (850 k array) data. Since the methylation profiles measured by microarray and bisulfite sequencing are highly consistent, our tool designed for microarray data also works for sequencing data including WGBS, RRBS and HMST-seq. For a given cancer type, users only need to extract methylation levels of its informative DMC sites (iDMCs), and upload it according to the example file format. We provided the iDMCs for 32 cancer types as a download link in the GetPurity module. As an example, we also provided a demo (in supplementary file) to use Purimeth on WGBS data of colon cancer samples, including purity estimation and differential methylation analysis. Overall, our study provides a comprehensive web tool for researchers to perform DNA methylation data analyses regarding tumor purities.
Purimeth was developed by Shiny (Version 1.6.0) on Tencent cloud server, which enables better stability and scalability for computing resources. The computational times for purity estimation, DM and purification are less than 2 minutes for a typical data set of 20 tumor and 20 normal samples, while the Clustering module is more time-consuming which will take 2 to 10 minutes to get the clustering results depending on the number of tumor samples and necessary steps for iteration given.
We thank Shijiang Wang for the suggestions on codes and web server design.
This work was supported by the National Key R & D Program of China [2018YFA0900600 to X.Z.]; National Natural Science Foundation of China [61972257 to X.Z.]; Key Laboratory of Data Science and Intelligence Education (Hainan Normal University), Ministry of Education [DSIE202002 to X.Z.] and the Hainan Province Natural Science Foundation [No. 2019RC184 to C.L.].
All authors declare there is no conflicts of interest.
[1] | Coronavirus Resource CenterCOVID-19 dashboard: (Global map) (2022). Available from: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html |
[2] |
Yao H, Song Y, Chen Y, et al. (2020) Molecular architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Cell 183: 730-738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.018 ![]() |
[3] |
Everard M, Johnston P, Santillo D, et al. (2020) The role of ecosystems in mitigation and management of Covid-19 and other zoonoses. Environ Sci Policy 111: 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.017 ![]() |
[4] |
Kampf G, Todt D, Pfaender S, et al. (2020) Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. J Hosp Infect 104: 246-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022 ![]() |
[5] | Kampf G, Voss A, Scheithauer S (2020) Inactivation of coronaviruses by heat. Hosp Infect . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.025 |
[6] |
Kratzel A, Todt D, V'kovski P, et al. (2020) Inactivation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by WHO-Recommended hand rub formulations and alcohols. Emerg Infect Dis 26: 1592-1595. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200915 ![]() |
[7] | Hessling M, Hoenes K, Lingenfelder C (2020) Selection of parameters for thermal coronavirus inactivation-a data-based recommendation. GMS Hyg Infect Control 15. https://doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000351 |
[8] |
Chiappa F, Frascella B, Vigezzi GP, et al. (2021) The efficacy of ultraviolet light-emitting technology against coronaviruses: a systematic review. T J Hosp Infect 114: 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.05.005 ![]() |
[9] |
Gerchman Y, Mamane H, Friedman N, et al. (2020) UV-LED disinfection of coronavirus: Wavelength effect. J Photochem Photobiol B: Biol 212: 112044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2020.112044 ![]() |
[10] |
Silverman AI, Boehm AB (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the persistence and disinfection of human coronaviruses and their viral surrogates in water and wastewater. Environ Sci Technol Lett 7: 544-553. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00313 ![]() |
[11] |
Ma B, Gundy PM, Gerba CP, et al. (2021) UV inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 across the UVC Spectrum: KrCl* Excimer, Mercury-Vapor, and Light-Emitting-Diode (LED) Sources. Appl Environ Microbiol 87: e0153221. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01532-21 ![]() |
[12] |
Enwemeka CS, Bumah VV, Mokili JL (2021) Pulsed blue light inactivates two strains of human coronavirus. J Photochem Photobiol B: Biol 222: 112282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2021.112282 ![]() |
[13] |
Lau B, Becher D, Hessling M (2021) High intensity violet light (405 nm) inactivates coronaviruses in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and on surfaces. Photonics 8: 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics8100414 ![]() |
[14] |
Ghosh S, Malik YS (2020) Drawing comparisons between SARS-CoV-2 and the animal coronaviruses. Microorganisms 8: 1840. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8111840 ![]() |
[15] |
Alluwaimi AM, Alshubaith IH, Al-Ali AM, et al. (2020) The coronaviruses of animals and birds: Their zoonosis, vaccines, and models for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV2. Front Vet Sci 7: 582287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.582287 ![]() |
[16] |
Franke G, Knobling B, Brill FH, et al. (2021) An automated room disinfection system using ozone is highly active against surrogates for SARS-CoV-2. J Hosp Infect 112: 108-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.007 ![]() |
[17] |
Kenney SP, Wang Q, Vlasova A, et al. (2021) Naturally occurring animal coronaviruses as models for studying highly pathogenic human coronaviral disease. Vet Pathol 58: 438-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985820980842 ![]() |
[18] |
Wensman JJ, Stokstad M (2020) Could naturally occurring coronaviral diseases in animals serve as models for COVID-19? A review focusing on the bovine model. Pathogens 9: 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9120991 ![]() |
[19] |
Boegel SJ, Gabriel M, Sasges M, et al. (2021) Robust evaluation of ultraviolet-c sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 and surrogate coronaviruses. Microbiol Spectr 9: e0053721. https://doi.org/10.1128/Spectrum.00537-21 ![]() |
[20] |
Gonzalez CF, Langenberg WG, van Etten JL, et al. (1977) Ultrastructure of bacteriophage phi 6: arrangement of the double-stranded RNA and envelope. J Gen Virol 35: 353-359. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-35-2-353 ![]() |
[21] |
Vidaver AK, Koski RK, van Etten JL (1973) Bacteriophage phi6: A lipid-containing virus of Pseudomonas phaseolicola. J Virol 11: 799-805. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.11.5.799-805.1973 ![]() |
[22] |
Prussin AJ, Schwake DO, Lin K, et al. (2018) Survival of the enveloped virus phi6 in droplets as a function of relative humidity, absolute humidity, and temperature. Appl Environ Microbiol 84. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00551-18 ![]() |
[23] |
Casanova LM, Weaver SR (2015) Evaluation of eluents for the recovery of an enveloped virus from hands by whole-hand sampling. J Appl Microbiol 118: 1210-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12777 ![]() |
[24] |
Aquino de Carvalho N, Stachler EN, Cimabue N, et al. (2017) Evaluation of phi6 persistence and suitability as an enveloped virus surrogate. Environ Sci Technol 51: 8692-8700. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01296 ![]() |
[25] |
Ye Y, Ellenberg RM, Graham KE, et al. (2016) Survivability, partitioning, and recovery of enveloped viruses in untreated municipal wastewater. Environ. Sci Technol 50: 5077-5085. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00876 ![]() |
[26] | Whitworth C, Mu Y, Houston H, et al. (2020) Persistence of bacteriophage phi 6 on porous and non-porous surfaces; potential for use as ebola or coronavirus surrogate. Appl Environ Microbiol . https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01482-20 |
[27] |
Lytle CD, Budacz AP, Keville E, et al. (1991) Differential inactivation of surrogate viruses with merocyanine 540. Photochem Photobiol 54: 489-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1991.tb02047.x ![]() |
[28] |
Costa L, Faustino MAF, Neves MGPMS, et al. (2012) Photodynamic inactivation of mammalian viruses and bacteriophages. Viruses 4: 1034-1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/v4071034 ![]() |
[29] |
Ye Y, Chang PH, Hartert J, et al. (2018) Reactivity of enveloped virus genome, proteins, and lipids with free chlorine and UV254. Environ Sci Technol 52: 7698-7708. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00824 ![]() |
[30] |
Cadnum JL, Li LF, Jones LD, et al. (2020) Evaluation of Ultraviolet-C light for rapid decontamination of airport security bins in the era of SARS-CoV-2. Pathog Immun 5: 133-142. https://doi.org/10.20411/pai.v5i1.373 ![]() |
[31] |
Ma B, Linden YS, Gundy PM, et al. (2021) Inactivation of coronaviruses and phage phi6 from irradiation across UVC wavelengths. Environ Sci Technol Lett 8: 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00178 ![]() |
[32] |
Fedorenko A, Grinberg M, Orevi T, et al. (2022) Survival of the enveloped bacteriophage phi6 (a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2) in evaporated saliva microdroplets deposited on glass surfaces. Sci Rep 10: 22419. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79625-z ![]() |
[33] |
Tseng CC, Li CS (2007) Inactivation of viruses on surfaces by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. J Occup Environ Hyg 4: 400-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620701329012 ![]() |
[34] | Sambrook J, Russell DW (2007) Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/394015 |
[35] |
Jagger J (1968) Introduction to research in ultraviolet photobiology. Photochem Photobiol 7: 413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1968.tb08029.x ![]() |
[36] | Kropinski AM, Mazzocco A, Waddell TE, et al. (2009) Enumeration of bacteriophages by ouble agar overlay plaque assay. Methods Mol Biol 501: 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-164-6_7 |
[37] | Robinson RT, Mahfooz N, Rosas-Mejia O, et al. SARS-CoV-2 disinfection in aqueous solution by UV 222 from a krypton chlorine excilamp (2021). https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.19.21252101 |
[38] |
Kitagawa H, Nomura T, Nazmul T, et al. (2020) Effectiveness of 222-nm ultraviolet light on disinfecting SARS-CoV-2 surface contamination. Am J Infect Control 49: 299-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.022 ![]() |
[39] |
Kitagawa H, Nomura T, Nazmul T, et al. (2021) Effect of intermittent irradiation and fluence-response of 222 nm ultraviolet light on SARS-CoV-2 contamination. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 33: 102184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.102184 ![]() |
[40] |
Biasin B, Bianco A, Pareschi G, et al. (2021) UV-C irradiation is highly effective in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 replication. Sci Rep 11: 6260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85425-w ![]() |
[41] |
Shimoda H, Matsuda J, Iwasaki T, et al. (2021) Efficacy of 265-nm ultraviolet light in inactivating infectious SARS-CoV-2. J Photochem Photobiol 7: 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpap.2021.100050 ![]() |
[42] |
Heilingloh CS, Aufderhorst UW, Schipper L, et al. (2020) Susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 to UV irradiation. Am J Infect Control 48: 1273-1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.031 ![]() |
[43] |
Sabino CP, Sellera SP, Sales-Medina DF, et al. (2020) UV-C (254 nm) lethal doses for SARS-CoV-2. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 32: 101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.101995 ![]() |
[44] |
Lo CW, Matsuura R, Iimura K, et al. (2021) UVC disinfects SARS-CoV-2 by induction of viral genome damage without apparent effects on viral morphology and proteins. Sci Rep 11: 13804. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93231-7 ![]() |
[45] |
Patterson EI, Prince T, Anderson ER, et al. (2020) Methods of inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 for downstream biological assays. J Infect Dis 222: 1462-1467. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa507 ![]() |
[46] |
Loveday EK, Hain KS, Kochetkova I, et al. (2021) Effect of inactivation methods on SARS-CoV-2 virion protein and structure. Viruses 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040562 ![]() |
[47] |
Barrow KA, Rich LM, Vanderwall ER, et al. (2021) Inactivation of material from SARS-CoV-2-infected primary airway epithelial cell cultures. Methods Protoc 4: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps4010007 ![]() |
[48] |
Ruetalo N, Businger R, Schindler M (2021) Rapid, dose-dependent and efficient inactivation of surface dried SARS-CoV-2 by 254 nm UV-C irradiation. Euro surveill 26. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.42.2001718 ![]() |
[49] |
Storm N, McKay LGA, Downs SN, et al. (2020) Griffiths, rapid and complete inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by ultraviolet-c irradiation. Sci Rep 10: 22421. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79600-8 ![]() |
[50] |
Gidari A, Sabbatini S, Bastianelli S, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 survival on surfaces and the effect of UV-C light. Viruses 13: 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13030408 ![]() |
[51] |
Bispo-Dos-Santos K, Barbosa PP, Granja F, et al. (2021) Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation is effective against SARS-CoV-2 in contaminated makeup powder and lipstick. J Photochem Photobiol 8: 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpap.2021.100072 ![]() |
[52] |
Criscuolo E, Diotti RA, Ferrarese R, et al. (2021) Fast inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by UV-C and ozone exposure on different materials. Emerg Microbes Infect 10: 206-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2021.1872354 ![]() |
[53] |
Ozog DM, Sexton JZ, Narla S, et al. (2020) The effect of ultraviolet C radiation against different N95 respirators inoculated with SARS-CoV-2. Int J Infect Dis 100: 224-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.077 ![]() |
[54] |
Lorca-Oró C, Vila J, Pleguezuelos P, et al. (2021) Rapid SARS-CoV-2 inactivation in a simulated hospital room using a mobile and autonomous robot emitting Ultraviolet-C light. J Infect Dis 225: 587-592. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiab551 ![]() |
[55] |
Minamikawa T, Koma T, Suzuki A, et al. (2021) Quantitative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 inactivation using a deep ultraviolet light-emitting diode. Sci Rep 11: 5070. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84592-0 ![]() |
[56] | Dwivedi V, Park JG, Grenon S, et al. Rapid and efficient inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 from surfaces using UVC light emitting diode device (2021). https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.20.440654 |
[57] |
Liu S, Luo W, Li D, et al. (2020) Sec-Eliminating the SARS-CoV-2 by AlGaN based high power deep ultraviolet light source. Adv Funct Mater 31: 2008452. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202008452 ![]() |
[58] |
Biasin M, Strizzi S, Bianco A, et al. (2022) UV-A and UV-B can neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. J Photochem Photobiol 10: 100107. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.28.21257989 ![]() |
[59] |
Inagaki H, Saito A, Kaneko C, et al. (2021) Rapid inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 variants by continuous and intermittent irradiation with a Deep-Ultraviolet Light-Emitting Diode (DUV-LED) device. Pathogens 10: 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10060754 ![]() |
[60] |
Simmons SE, Carrion R, Alfson KJ, et al. (2021) Deactivation of SARS-CoV-2 with pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light: Implications for environmental COVID-19 control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 42: 127-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.399 ![]() |
[61] |
Wondrak GT, Jandova J, Williams SJ, et al. (2021) Solar simulated ultraviolet radiation inactivates HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses at environmentally relevant doses. J Photochem Photobiol B: Biol 224: 112319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2021.112319 ![]() |
[62] |
Ratnesar-Shumate S, Williams G, Green B, et al. (2020) Simulated sunlight rapidly inactivates SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces. J Infect Dis 222: 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274 ![]() |
[63] |
Cadnum JL, Li DF, Redmond SN, et al. (2020) Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C light and a high-level disinfection cabinet for decontamination of N95 respirators. Pathog Immun 5: 52-67. https://doi.org/10.20411/pai.v5i1.372 ![]() |
[64] |
Lee JE, Ko G (2013) Norovirus and MS2 inactivation kinetics of UV-A and UV-B with and without TiO2. Water Res 47: 5607-5613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.035 ![]() |
[65] |
Calgua B, Carratalà A, Guerrero-Latorre L, et al. (2014) UVC inactivation of dsDNA and ssRNA viruses in water: UV fluences and a qPCR-based approach to evaluate decay on viral infectivity. Food Environ Virol 6: 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-014-9157-1 ![]() |
[66] |
Beck SE, Rodriguez RA, Hawkins MA, et al. (2020) Comparison of UV-Induced inactivation and RNA damage in MS2 phage across the germicidal UV spectrum. Appl Environ Microbiol 82: 1468-1474. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02773-15 ![]() |
[67] |
Oguma K (2018) Inactivation of feline calicivirus using ultraviolet light-emitting diodes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 365. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny194 ![]() |
[68] |
Rastogi RP, Richa, Kumar A, et al. (2010) Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation-induced DNA damage and repair. J Nucleic Acids 2010: 592980. https://doi.org/10.4061/2010/592980 ![]() |
[69] |
Eischeid AC, Linden KG (2011) Molecular indications of protein damage in adenoviruses after UV disinfection. Appl Environ Microbiol 77: 1145-1147. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00403-10 ![]() |
[70] |
Rockey NC, Henderson JB, Chin K, et al. (2021) Predictive modeling of virus inactivation by UV. Environ Sci Technol 55: 3322-3332. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07814 ![]() |