Search

The arrival of SARS-CoV-2 to Aotearoa/New Zealand in February 2020 triggered a massive response at multiple levels. Procurement and sustainability of medical supplies to hospitals and clinics during the then upcoming COVID-19 pandemic was one of the top priorities. Continuing access to new personal protective equipment (PPE) was not guaranteed; thus, disinfecting and reusing PPE was considered as a potential alternative. Here, we describe part of a local program intended to test and implement a system to disinfect PPE for potential reuse in New Zealand. We used filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) coupons inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 or clinically relevant multidrug-resistant pathogens (Acinetobacter baumannii Ab5075, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 LAC and cystic-fibrosis isolate Pseudomonas aeruginosa LESB58), to evaluate the potential use of ultraviolet-C germicidal irradiation (UV-C) or dry heat treatment to disinfect PPE. An applied UV-C dose of 1000 mJ/cm2 was sufficient to completely inactivate high doses of SARS-CoV-2; however, irregularities in the FFR coupons hindered the efficacy of UV-C to fully inactivate the virus, even at higher UV-C doses (2000 mJ/cm2). Conversely, incubating contaminated FFR coupons at 65 °C for 30 min or 70 °C for 15 min, was sufficient to block SARS-CoV-2 replication, even in the presence of mucin or a soil load (mimicking salivary or respiratory secretions, respectively). Dry heat (90 min at 75 °C to 80 °C) effectively killed 106 planktonic bacteria; however, even extending the incubation time up to two hours at 80 °C did not completely kill bacteria when grown in colony biofilms. Importantly, we also showed that FFR material can harbor replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 for up to 35 days at room temperature in the presence of a soil load. We are currently using these findings to optimize and establish a robust process for decontaminating, reusing, and reducing wastage of PPE in New Zealand.

The literature concerning the subcellular location of Y-box binding protein 1 (YB-1), its abundance in normal and cancer tissues, and its prognostic significance is replete with inconsistencies. An explanation for this could be due in part to the use of different antibodies in immunohistochemical and immunofluorescent labeling of cells and tissues. The inconsistencies could also be due to poor resolution of immunohistochemical data. We analyzed two cohorts of breast tumours for both abundance and subcellular location of YB-1 using three different antibodies; two targeting N-terminal epitopes (AB- a and AB- b) and another (AB- c) targeting a C-terminal epitope. We also investigated stress-induced nuclear translocation of YB-1 in cell culture. We report that both AB- a and AB- c detected increased YB-1 in the cytoplasm of high-grade breast cancers, and in those lacking estrogen and progesterone receptors; however the amount of YB-1 detected by AB- a in these cancers is significantly greater than that detected by AB- c. We confirm our previously published findings that AB- b is also detecting hnRNP A1, and cannot therefore be used to reliably detect YB-1 by immunohistochemistry. We also report that AB- a detected nuclear YB-1 in some tumour tissues and stress treated cells, whereas AB- c did not. To understand this, cancer cell lines were analyzed using native gel electrophoresis, which revealed that the antibodies detect different complexes in which YB-1 is a component. Our data suggest that different YB-1 antibodies show different staining patterns that are determined by the accessibility of epitopes, and this depends on the nature of the YB-1 complexes. It is important therefore to standardize the protocols if YB-1 is to be used reproducibly as a prognostic guide for different cancers.